THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 1, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:10:21 -0500 (EST) From: David Parker Subject: Ozzy Digest: Baum as Theosophist David Hulan (in Ozzy Digest for 1-31-96, responding to my posting from the previous day) wrote: >Didn't know Baum was a Theosophist. I know I've read that Edgar Rice >Burroughs (who was living in Chicago at about the same time Baum was; I >wonder if he and Baum ever met?) based his Barsoom on Theosophical ideas. Thanks, David; I didn't know about Burroughs and Barsoom. Interesting! John Algeo, formerly of the English Department at the University of Georgia (a linguist) and now president of the Theosophical Society in America, discovered that Baum and his wife joined the Chicago chapter of the Theosophical Society in 1892. I had suspected as much--Baum wrote a good bit about theosophy (and other occult/spiritualist topics) in the pages of the ABERDEEN SATURDAY PIONEER, the South Dakota paper he edited for a year or so--but I was not aware of Baum's formal Theosophical connection until Algeo's article in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST (Aug. 1986) titled "A Notable Theosophist: L. Frank Baum." Another article by Algeo, "The Wizard of Oz: The Perilous Journey" (same journal, Oct. 1986), briefly analyzes the book from a theosophical perspective. (I had trouble tracking down copies of this journal, by the way, and ended up having to use my school's interlibrary loan service.) William R. Leach, in the foreword and afterword to an edition of THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ published in 1991 by Wadsworth, also discussed Baum's theosophical leanings. Leach worked much of this material into his new book, LAND OF DESIRE, "an extensive study of modern consumerism" (reviewed in the latest BAUM BUGLE). I'm working on an essay of my own, tentatively titled "Oz: Baum's Theosophical Utopia," and I will appreciate comments or suggestions from list members. David B. Parker dparker@kscmail.kennesaw.edu Asst. Professor of History Kennesaw State College (770) 423-6713 (office) 1000 Chastain Rd 423-6294 (department) Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591 (770) 423-6432 (fax) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 16:29:47 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Del Rey I have a copy of the Del Rey edition of _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_, and the text has not been altered. I also have some of the Del Rey editions of the Thompson books, and the portions with problematic material have not been expurgated either. Based on this, as well as the continued publication of unaltered versions of books like _Peter Pan_, I'm not quite sure that the arguement that the books have to be expurgated to be published holds water. Is it just me or is everyone being a bit too serious about the east-west reversal problem? A much simpler explaination would be that there were reporting errors as to the directions (which happens at the time) and that the Wogglebug, when he drew the broad outlines of the map, just happened to be wearing his experimental image-reversing goggles which he made for a perceptual study and then forgot to change it. The size of Oz? Hmm. Dorothy walked about a quarter of the way across the land of Oz in, what, three days, so assuming she was going at five kilometers per hour (heavily laden, I can do about that on irregular terrian, and I'm short, so I assume that on a semidecent road a child who's been doing hard farm work all her life could do the same on a semidecently paved road.) and was walking eight hours per day, that means in three days she covered 120 km, which would mean the entire country east to west (regardless of which side the Munchkin Country is on) would be 480 km wide. The north-south axis is a bit harder to measure, but eyeballing the relative distance based on proportions, I would guess that the entire country is 400 km high. I think this would make Oz considerably bigger than Colorado, but, of course, there are plenty of places to nitpick in this estimate. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 17:31:02 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest "How Big is Oz?" was, I believe, the name of a paper written by a member of the Oz research group. By adding up the sizes of the counties in Skampavia and multiplying by 50, we get an area af about 10,000 square miles, approximately the size of Vermont. The problem with this is: Look at all the stuff in Oz. We have kingdoms, mountains, forests and other stuff by the score. There is NO WAY that all this could be squeezed into an area the size of Vermont. The only thing I can assume is that Pinny Penny is not very strong on Geography. I decided on the size and shape of Colroado, based on Baums statement in EMERALD CITY that there are about 500,000 people in the Land of Oz. At this early time, Baum may not have been aware of all the hidden kingdoms in Oz, so its population may actually approach 1 million. Giving it the size of Colorado allows for a realtively non-dense population, giving us a lot of open spaces and other geogrpahical features. On the maps, Oz is wider (east-west) than it is tall (north-south) by a ration of about 5 to 3. When building the HACC, we decided to inlcude only books that actually took place in the Land of Oz itself. The other books, such as those Aaron mentioned, take place in the Oz "Universe" and really deserve a list of their own. There are two exceptions to this rule: 1. CAPTAIN SALT IN OZ. As one of the FF, it is special. 2. THIRD BOOK OF OZ. I did not (and still do not) want this book in there. It does not take place in Oz and was not originally a book. It was originally published as a series of short stories and illos in a magazine to provide publicity for Baums stage show. Chris D., however, has a disease which I call "Baum on the Brain". This is where you see anything, and I mean ANYTHING, with the name "Baum" on it and therefore it MUST be an Oz book. Chris even wanted to put "The book of the Hamburgs" on the HACC! This is a non-fiction book dealing with how to raise chickens. He felt that this was an early introduction to Billina, believe it or not. Chris claims that this story has an unusually strong Oz connection because it features so many of the celebrities of the Land of Oz. The HACC, as is so many things in life, is the result of compromise. BY agreeing to put this thing in there, Chris agreed to some basic rules of placement, such as considering textual evidence more important than the authors wishes regarding chronological assignment. He also gave in on some other things. I still hope to convince Chris to take this book out someday. It is a good story, but it is also probably Historically Inaccurate. I for one would gladly buy Oz Squad comics from Peter Glassman if he was to offer them in his catalog. I, too, felt Marcus was a little heavy on the Greek mythology, although he claimed that there was some indirect evidence for this in the FF. I have never found it, however. Remember, though, that Lurline was Queen of the Fairies before her association with the Greek gods, and that was just to give some background. The Greek mythology does not come into contact with Oz in any way. As for the implication that Ozroar was the first king, thus contradicting DOT&WIZ, Chris and I have assumed that the Ozroar in that story was not the Ozroar who was Pastorias father and was featured in THE BLUE EMPEROR OF OZ. As far as consistency checking, LURLINE AND THE WHITE RAVENS only says that Lurline enchanted the Land of Oz, gave it the name of Oz (named after Ozroar) and the name of the first king was Ozroar, who may be a different Ozroar than Pastorias father. You need not consider the Greek references at all, as they are almost incidental to the creation of Oz. I won't say more, because it would give away the plot. Of course, Greek Mythology is a collection of fragmentary tales told and re-told over the centuries. Many are contradictory. I know of at least three mutually exclusive stories of the origin of Apollo. Maybe we need a HACC for Greek mythology! NOT!!! :) My attitudes about Historical Accuracy have changed over the years. A book goes into the HACC if is textually consistent with the FF. If the book appears to contradict a non-FF book, it is the job of Chris and myself to come up with a clever explanation as to why it is not really a contradiction after all. My whole point has been (and still is) that by working together and sharing info/ideas etc., we can minimize these contradictions so that our explanations do not become too outlandish ("And then the aliens created ANOTHER fissure in the space-time continuum and agve Evlis's brain to Ozma..."), giving us a smooth, unified version of Ozian history without sacrificing peoples creativity and creating even better Oz books in the process. One of our suggestions is for people to write an Oz book that explains the contradictions, much like a "patch.exe" from Microsoft (or Ozosoft). Barry, maybe if you throw a lot of Ozzy jargon (like Reilly & Britton, Denslow vs. Neill) around, you might impress the bookstore guy and talk him down a few dollars... GLASS CAT was excellent, despite the cuts. As David said, most Buckethead artwork is of a very low quality. Marcus Mebes was a fine illustrator, but he is no longer with us. No, Dave, I have not read SPHERELAND, although it sounds cool... The January Ozzy digest is ready to be sent to Ken Cope. It is a whopping 485K! This is much larger than the December 295K. BTW, I may be updating my Web Page today or tomorrow, so stay tuned! --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 17:10:05 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-31-96 Lurline with a long i sound in the last syllable seems to be the most common way to say it. So, how do y'all say "Evoldo" or"Kalidah"? ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:55:53 -0500 (EST) From: David Bedell Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-31-96 First posting--I'm a new subscriber, but an old IWOC alumnus. Yes, I've read _Flatland_ & _Sphereland_. Just finished _Wicked_. Can someone refresh my memory as to Krumbic witches? I don't recall that reference. Just got the BoW catalog and have two questions: Wasn't D&T originally illustrated by Denslow? Why did BoW prefer to commission new illustrations by Donald Abbott? Also, has anyone purchased their _Who's Who in Oz_? They say their copies are remainders from the last publisher. Was that Reilly & Lee? Are these illustrated? Comparable to early editions? David Bedell, University of Bridgeport ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:54:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Jitterbugs and other stuff 1) I think I should have been more specific when asking for information about jitterbugs. What I wanted to know is what type of creatures they are and what they are supposed to do to people. Also: Someone please open a copy of The Annotated Wizard of Oz and find out the name of Mrs. Pastoria II in the play. I'm trying to avoid using a Laumeristic name for Mrs. Pastoria, who is named explicitly, before she is revealed to be the same person as Mombi by Plumly the Four Horned Cow. (I'm still surprised no one has objected to the idea. Is this something which is intrinsically so sensible that no one can find anything wrong with it?) 2) How many kingdoms are there in Oz? I think the exact number is mentioned in The Gnome King of Oz, but I don't have a copy yet. (Should have jumped on those books Scott Cummings was selling as soon as he sent me the list...) 3) Marc, I must concurr with your opinion that the Emerald City Press books are too short. Although I was able to cut about three chapters worth of extraneous material out of The Woozy of Oz (some of which will probably be recycled in the second book of the trilogy), and I don't think it could reasonably be cut down to standard Emerald City Press size. Anybody out there know of a good publisher which is not as likely to mangle my book? 4) Mike, is there another Aaron on the digest? I don't recall ever asking about a funny-looking Jack Pumpkinhead in a comic book, having never seen an Oz comic book before. Also: While you're mentioning them, someone please describe Was and Sir Harold and the Nome King. (Just curious. A Barnstormer in Oz I've read before, and some of its material I worked my way to independently (Glinda the Perfect/Manipulator) and other is being directly horizontally transfered (mostly place names) to The Woozy of Oz.) 5) I've read Sphereland, The Planiverse, and a bunch of other books on dimensions. 6) On the name Ozma Tippetarius from Wicked: Baum had to set a precedent in The Marvelous Land of Oz by giving a character a Latinate name with an ending of the opposite gender attached (Pastoria, rather than Pastorius), which the author of Wicked had to copy (Tippetarius, rather than Tippetaria). Anyone have any idea how Baum made such a blunder in the first place? (Didn't take Latin in college, perhaps?) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:58:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Ozroar Is there any evidence for the first ruler of Oz being named Ozroar besides Lurline and the White Ravens of Oz? Also: Is there a source for Ozma's grandfather being named Ozroar besides the afformentioned book? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 17:24:50 -0800 From: Bob Shepherd Subject: Oz Theme Park in Kansas Hi - I'm one of the newbies that just got hooked into the Ozzy Digest this week. I've really enjoyed reading all of the Oz related discussions, although some of the acronyms threw me for a loop until I could get them figured out! Excuse me if this thread has been covered in the past, but does anybody out there know about the Oz theme park that is being built somewhere in Kansas? Is this for real, and if so, does anybody know when it is planned to open and what it might contain? ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 21:12:27 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 1/31/96 Aaron Adelman (and Dave H.): I wrote a fairly lengthy article on "How Big Is Oz", which was submitted to the Bugle about four years ago. Unfortunately, I've never heard anything back on it. To give the gist: Although the size of Oz seems to be somewhat elastic, the quantitative information we have (basically what you said about WISHING HORSE) puts it at about the size of Belgium - around 11,000 square miles. If you take the IWOC map as about right in terms of shape, it means Oz is about 90 miles NS and 120 miles EW. This is reasonably consistent with travel times in most of the books. Making it the size of Colorado, on the other hand, would mean that everybody in Oz is using seven-league boots most of the time. Emerald City to the Deadly Desert EW is typically about a three day walk - which is reasonable for 60 miles or so. If Oz were Colorado-size, EC to DD would be about 200 miles, and even walking twelve hours a day that would imply a pace of 5 1/2 miles an hour, steadily. Maybe the Shaggy Man could do that, or the tireless ones like the Scarecrow or Tin Woodman, but ten-year-old kids? Even though they lived in our world before the automobile, and are therefore probably in much better shape than most kids today, I think that's excessive. Twenty miles or so a day, on the other hand, sounds feasible. I feel very strongly about this and would want to hear some very powerful arguments to the contrary. Tyler Jones: I'm not sure that material got lost from your message, and I didn't notice anything missing from mine. It may have gotten lost in the return to you rather than in Dave's compilation. At least, the version of your message of 1/30 that I read had the defense of the HACC in it that you refer to, and it didn't seem to have any obvious lacunae. Mark Semich: Certainly some of the ECP Oz books are very short, really hardly longer than some of the individual "Little Wizard Stories". But some of them are at least a fair approximation of the length of the original books - GIANT GARDEN is really about as long as a lot of the originals, and GLASS CAT is maybe 20% shorter - only 10% shorter than the shortest of the originals. And QUEEN ANN is well over half the length of an original. Mike Burns: Until somebody has read WINGED MONKEYS and said it's worth reading, I think I'll hold off on spending that much money. But I'm willing to accept almost anybody's recco if anybody's read it. I was the one who objected to the strange-looking Pumpkinhead, not Aaron. But I realized my mixup afterwards. I can't think of a better term for books like WICKED and BARNSTORMER than "heretical". I don't mean anything literarily pejorative by it; I just mean that they're not to be considered, even casually, in the plotting of new books. (I would not, for instance, use "Elphaba" and "Nessarose" as the names of the Wicked Witches of the West and East, although canonically they aren't named.) "Different" is another way of describing them, but when the rest of the discussion is using "religious" terminology, I think "heretical" is appropriate. And I would expect anything Ruth Berman wrote to be entirely orthodox, unless she were deliberately trying for heresy (I haven't read her Holmes/Oz story; where did it appear?); she knows as much about Oz as just about anybody. Me: As Dave pointed out, I typed "Kumbric" twice instead of making it "Krumbic" the second time. I is covered with rue. Dave Hardenbrook: But marching around singing in a 16 rpm voice is something from the movie, not the books. (Book, really, since the life of the Winkies under the Wicked Witch is only described - and then only loosely - in WIZARD.) And even marching around singing in a 16 rpm voice beats getting grilled over a not-particularly-low flame, or frozen in ice, or pushing rocks up hills, or most of the other Hellish existences that I've read of. None of them are exactly fun, of course. But living in Winkieland pre-Dorothy still gives the possibility of running off to the Quadling or Gillikin countries, right? Or even into the southern part of the Winkie country where Gloma ruled. Could be worse. I have a feeling that I read a short-story sequel Abbott wrote to FLATLAND, which might have been called "Sphereland". Whatever I read wasn't a full-length book, though. Think I read it in a compendium of mathematically-based fiction. And if I haven't said it before, I add my thanks to the others for your making this digest possible. I really enjoy discussing Oz in this semi-real-time way. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:52:44 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-30-96 > Hi everyone! Thanks to the dedicated efforts of Nate, we have another big > influx of new members (32) today. Welcome to you all! This brings our > membership up to 97! Ozzy days are here again! :) :) :) Now if we can only find a way to keep the header from taking up nearly three pages... > From: cummingss@kenyon.edu > Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-29-96 > > I read somewhere on the Net that BoW has a closet full of early edition Oz > books. Is this true? I was in the store once in the late 80's and lost my > breath when I saw a bookcase full of gorgeous Oz books. It's entirely possible, since they also sell used and rare books as well as new stuff. (I've GOT to get to NYC some day just so I can finally see the store!) > I was in San Francisco last summer, and saw that Acorn Books had a large > collection of nice Baum and Oz books. The prices were quite high (it's a large > city after all), but more shocking was that many of the books were sitting in > the sunlight, just BAKING. I hope someone (with a fat wallet) rescues them > soon! Have you pointed this out to them? > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > BTW, Dave asked us not to echo back so many messages, in order to keep the > filesize down. I hope everyone remembers this :) It would also probably help if we cut out our long .sig files. > Dave, did you really read Flatland? You're the only other person I've heard > of that has! All glory to the perfect circles! Hey, I've read it, too. AND "Sphereland." Interesting stuff, good personification of mathematics and scientific theory. > FYI, I always prounced Lurline to rhyme with "mine" until the late great > Marcus Mebes told me it was pronounced Lur-Leen-Uh with the emphasis on > the second syllable. And what made HIM a bigger expert than any of the rest of us? (I say, pronounce it any way you want!) > Oh, mais oui. Peter Glassman, continue to crank out Oz books old and new? > IS your project to reprint the entire FF still alive? If so, when is > TIK-TOK due? I recently heard that the schedule was going to be cranked up just a bit so that "Glinda" will be out for the Oz Centenniel in 2000. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Comments on Ozzy Digest, 1/29/94 > > Eric Gjovaag: > When did Baum mix up east and west in his text? I've looked for it, but > although I thought I remembered occasions when he did, I haven't found one. > That doesn't mean he didn't, just that I missed it. I know the map in LOST > PRINCESS shows the Winkie country to the right of the EC, but in the text it > says it's the west. He did change which side of Oz the Nome Kingdom was on, > though. Er, good point, maybe he didn't mix 'em up in the text. But he DID mix up the map (or at least had a hand in it), which caused all the confusion in the first place. (I seem to recall east and west being reversed in "Magic," but I may be wrong.) > If someone is E-mailing you unpleasant material, can't you just refuse to > read E-mail from that person? That's what I've done in similar circumstances. Perhaps, but does that necessarily mean they won't keep sending e-mail? But I wasn't objecting to the content of the e-mail, more that it was happening in the first place, especially since it was on-topic and would have fit in just fine with the Digest. > No point in dropping a whole agreeable area of discourse because of one or > two individuals whose inputs are unpleasant. Tell that to JMS, the creator of "Babylon 5," in the B5 newsgroup... > Glad to hear that you're not > currently thinking of dropping out. Things seem to have settled down now, so if we can all keep our heads, I'll DEFINITELY be staying. > But if I do make it to Winkie, I'll certainly autograph GLASS CAT for anyone > who's interested. (And I'll bring my copies of QUEEN ANN and CHRISTMAS for > more personal autographs from their authors, too - I have the "autographed" > HC editions of both, but they're rather impersonal...) YOU try making it pleasant and personable when you're autographing FOUR HUNDRED of those little things in one evening, and Karyl has taken up more than her fair share of space on a lot of them... > Aaron Adelman: > Baum's version of Button-Bright's name is Baum being silly; "von Smith" is > really impossible unless somebody decided to change their surname > arbitrarily, since "von" is used with place-names in German and "Smith" is an > occupation-name. Don't forget, Button-Bright can't remember large parts of his own name. Maybe there's something that belongs in between the "von" and "Smith." --Eric "Gee, I was actually able to log on tonight" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:16:13 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-31-96 > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Flatland and the Size of Oz > > Also: By the way, how come the HACC doesn't contain books which Baum > wrote that definitely occur in the world of Oz (The Sea Fairies, Sky > Island, John Dough and the Cherub, The Magical Monarch of Mo, Queen Zixi > of Ix)? Ah, THIS is a good idea! (Just don't include "The Enchanted Island of Yew," as it can be explained how it's NOT part of the same world as Oz.) Also, I STILL say that it would improve the HACC no end if books were identified as being FF, published by a major publishing house, privately printed, or still unpublished, and whether or not the book is currently available. What good is a list of Oz books to help Oz researchers if they can't find out if they can even get the books? > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > As far as I know, Baum himself never mixed up East and West in the text, > although the maps were reversed. March Laumer claimed that this was the > way it SHOULD have been oriented, since we could then have golden dawns > and deep blue evenings. And Dorothy melted the Wicked Witch of the East, then, eh? > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: New Oz Book! > > Posted by tinhat1@aol.com: > The Winged Monkeys of Oz > by Dennis Anfuso > isbn 1-57433-025-X > Hardcover 8 3/4" x 11 1/4" > 154 pages, 2 new maps (part of the book takes place on islands in the > Nonestic Ocean) 25 b/w illustrations, fullcolor cover plate pasted to the > front cover of the book. > $24.95 + $3.00 shipping OUCH! And I just bought "Wicked" in hardback, too. May be a while before I get this one... > To avoid the appearance of beating a dead horse, I bear no animosity to > Peter Glassman or Books of Wonder. They have been a most excellent source > of Oz-related material and I hope they will continue to do so in the future. > But... unless Mr. Glassman conducted a survey of all the bookstores and > libraries in this country I don't agree with his assertion that most > would not purchase Patchwork Girl unless it was edited. Peter Glassman is co-owner of one of the world's largest bookstores, and he has a number of contacts in the publishing industry and is in touch with many librarians and store owners. If he says the change needed to be made, I trust him. (Or it could have been squeamishness on the part of BoW's publishing partner in these books, William Morrow and Company.) > Aaron: the rather strange looking Pumpkinhead is in the OZ comic series, > not the Oz Squad where his appearance is very Neillesque. And I > personally don't go so far as to call anything heretical, Was, Wicked, > Sir Harold and the Gnome King, and Barnstormer are simply different. > Although I would like to add Ruth Berman's short story with Sherlock > Holmes and Dr. Watson in Oz to my list of "good" Oz material. I thought > it was wonderful! What story was THIS? Where can one get it? > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzydigest 1/30/96 > > Eric Gjovaag: > If it's really true that libraries and bookstores wouldn't have carried PG > and D&T without the changes, then certainly I can agree with making them. > (Though if bookstores objected, why do they carry the Del Rey PG - or did it > have similar changes as well?) The Del Rey books were, first of all, first published some years ago, and second, now seem to be marketed as science-fiction, not children's books. I haven't seen them in children's in a long time, but all the time now in sci-fi. > And I'd be happy to pay $50 for an > unexpurgated PG with all the color... Peter, are you listening? Here's one... > ...though not for an unexpurgated D&T - it's > worth it for one of Baum's four or five best books, but not for what's > probably his worst. (Certainly his worst children's fantasy under his own > name.)(IMO) You haven't read the unexpurgated "Woggle-Bug Book," then, have you? > I meant that you or Robin would be a better source of information on how Oz > fans pronounce "Lurline", since both of you have been to far more Oz > conventions, and therefore have presumably heard more Oz fans pronouncing > "Lurline", than I have. That's all. I didn't mean that you were Authorities. > (You may be, or may not, but that wasn't what I meant; I just meant that > you'd talked to Oz fans more than I have.) Heh. I hear you. But it's not like Lurline pops up all the time in casual conversation at Oz conventions. (Many conversations at Oz conventions actually have little to do with Oz, but instead catching up on the news from previous years. It's just as much family reunion as Oz-fest.) But even if we say "It's pronounced /LER-line/ or /ler-LEEN/." that STILL doesn't make one pronunciation more right. /ler-lih-NAY/ may be just as right. It's up to you. (Want a bigger challenge? Try Kalidah. Six Oz fans will probably give you six different pronunciations.) --Eric "Any other pronunciation sticklers we want to tackle?" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:48:45 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: "Legends of Oz" Try the following: Multicom Publishing 1100 Olive Way, suite 1250 Seattle, WA 98101 phone 206-622-5530 email: info@multicom.com URL: http://www.multicom.com/ ------------------------begin quote---------------------------------- ate: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:07:12 -0800 From: Jon Childerston Subject: The Ozian Times My wife is interested in getting on your mailing list. She saw your address in the Oz Gazette. Reba Childerston fnbnp@nque.com p.s. Do you know where we can find the "Legends of Oz" software listed in the same gazette? -- Jon Childerston LAN Administrator First National Bank 201 North Dewey North Platte, NE. 69101 Office: (308) 532-1000 Fax: (308) 532-3202 fnbnp@nque.com ------------------------end quote---------------------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Wednesday 31-Jan-96 21:59:41 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Aaron rote: >Anybody out there know of a good publisher which is not as likely >to mangle my book? I'll see how things go with Buckethead with my book and get back to you. Eric wrote: >Now if we can only find a way to keep the header from taking up nearly >three pages... I'm going to ask my server if it is possible to "mute" that header... Bill W. wrote: >>Reba Childerston : >>p.s. Do you know where we can find the "Legends of Oz" software listed >>in the same gazette? >Try the following: >Multicom Publishing >1100 Olive Way, suite 1250 >Seattle, WA 98101 >phone 206-622-5530 >email: info@multicom.com >URL: http://www.multicom.com/ fnbnp@nque.com asked to be unsubscribed from the list, so you'll have to send them a private message. David Hulan wrote: >If you take the IWOC map as about right in terms of shape, it means Oz >is about 90 miles NS and 120 miles EW. This is reasonably consistent with >travel times in most of the books. > >Making it the size of Colorado, on the other hand, would mean that everybody >in Oz is using seven-league boots most of the time ... I still say it has to be Colorado-size. Like Tyler says, how can you squeeze everything in such a small area? Maybe Oz is like the "City Speed Limit" episode of _Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland_ ( Uh oh! Sorry for another Non-Ozzy science-popularizing book! :) ), so that in Oz the speed of light is so absurdly low (8 mph?) that when you walk at a brisk pace ( "Weeeee're off to see the Wizard, the Wonderful--"...sorry :) ) the relativistic effects of shortening of distances take effect and the trip to the Emerald City becomes a 3-day trek. ( Another one of Dave's kooky ideas! :) ). >I have a feeling that I read a short-story sequel Abbott wrote to FLATLAND, >which might have been called "Sphereland". Whatever I read wasn't a >full-length book ... Dionys Burger's _Sphereland_ is a full-length Novel, longer than _Flatland_. ( And now back to Oz... :) ) >And if I haven't said it before, I add my thanks to the others for your >making this digest possible. I really enjoy discussing Oz in this >semi-real-time way. :) :) :) ( Smilies of gratitude :) ) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 08:48:15 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 02-01-96 *************************************************************************** ANOTHER INTERESTING OZ WEB SITE: http://www.southwind.net/IMS/bok/ There are Oz items for sale, including a Dorothy doll with hemp hair! Now I've seen it all (didn't inhale, though....) Scott ************************************************************************** ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 09:57:28 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-29-96 AARON: "Also: I have heard that a scene was cut from the MGM movie in which some sort of creature called jitterbugs appear? What are they?" You may recall that in the original _Wonderful Wizard of Oz_, the Wicked Witch sent bumblebees to destroy our heroes on their way to her dwelling. This MGM sequence was their adaptation of that, although it changed the bees to mosquitos. Our heroes danced and sang while fighting the mosquitos off, thus producing a cheerful musical number at exactly the wrong time in the film. When MGM saw how this looked in context, they axed the sequence. As of a few years ago, this scene was missing; all that existed were some clumsily-filmed bits of rehearsals for it. Did part of the final version, or any other lost material, appear on that Turner "Ultimate Oz" disc in 1993? Does someone know? David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 07:19:15 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Kingdoms Aaron asks: >2) How many kingdoms are there in Oz? I think the exact number is >mentioned in The Gnome King of Oz, but I don't have a copy yet. (Should >have jumped on those books Scott Cummings was selling as soon as he sent >me the list...) Go to the places section of the Encyclopedia Oziana (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/). There you will find all the "kingdoms" from the first 14. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 07:24:25 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: BB > Aaron Adelman said: > Baum's version of Button-Bright's name is Baum being silly; "von Smith" is > really impossible unless somebody decided to change their surname > arbitrarily, since "von" is used with place-names in German and "Smith" is an > occupation-name. and Eric replied: >Don't forget, Button-Bright can't remember large parts of his own name. >Maybe there's something that belongs in between the "von" and "Smith." Button-Bright himself said their was more to his name, but he couldn't remember it........ Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 11:34:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Life under Bastinda's rule 1) Bastinda: DavidXOE@aol.com, you think you could escape ME? Not very likely! I put a spell over Winkieland so that no one can leave it without my permission. Can't have slaves escaping, you know. Now back to work before I feed you to the Forty Wolves! 2) Scott, I've been to Books of Wonder and seen that bookshelf and seen those early edition Oz books. They have some not-so-early edition Oz books there, such as a few Del Rey Thompsons (at $17(!) each), and a few of the less well known titles in the HACC as well. 3) Tyler, if memory serves me correctly The Wonderful Wizard of Oz specifically identifies west as "where the sun sets", so this golden dawns thing isn't particularly workable. 4) Just a thought on the size of Oz: Perhaps geometry in Oz is non-Euclidian, or even stranger, due to the high magic flux of the land, kingdoms pop in and out of existence all the time. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 14:49:32 -0500 (EST) From: Sheryl Ramage Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest Hi, I'm new to the list and have enjoyed reading all of it. Someone mentioned the TNT special. I didn't like it because of the woman who played Dorothy. Her voice drove me crazy a good deal of the time. The idea was interestering and I was waiting for it eagerly but I was disappointed. I did like the boy who played Toto, he was cute and barked his lines well. Part of my Oz collection is many different cartoon versions. Some are ok and some are interestering. One version has a gangster and a machine gun!! Has anyone ever seen any of the cartoons, and if so what do you think of them? I know I have the answer to the jitterbug question, but I want to look it up so I'll post it later. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 23:29:35 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: The Origin of the Scarecrow and the Size of Oz I have a possible explaination for the origin of the Scarecrow which would be consistent with the FF but avoids the logical problem of Thompson's assertion that the Scarecrow is the reincarnation of Chang Wang Woe. One of the ideas that has come out in working on _The Woozy of Oz_ is that some areas are more magical than others; further more, the more magical a place is, the stranger things are. For example, Mo is a more magical country than Oz, and as a result it is stranger, with edible geography, rains of popcorn, etc., such that Oz in comparison is usually tame. Suppose that the area of the cornfield where the Scarecrow was assembled was a particularly magical area. As a weird side effect of this, the Scarecrow might come alive spontaneously, where as less magical propery nearby would not have such things happen. Later, when the Scarecrow came back to look for his family tree, as a side effect of the high magical flux of the area, the Silver Islands popped into existence with a fictional history which made the Scarecrow the former king. This explaination has the advantage over Farmer's, who suggests that Glinda animated him, in that it requires no intenion or interference from anyone. Similar explainations could also explain why there seems to be no end to strange, unexplained places in Oz. There are lots of magical hot spots all over Oz which have as a side effect have strange places spontaneously pop into existence. As the vast majority of these places seldom or never reoccur, it may be that when no one is looking they vanish and new ones pop up in their place. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:12:39 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/1/96 Dave Parker: I should say that some Burroughs critics attribute aspects of his Barsoom (particularly the green Martians) to Theosophical ideas; as far as I know there is no direct evidence that he was inspired by Theosophy or in fact that he even knew anything about it. I don't want to present it as established fact. Barry Adelman: According to the maps Oz is about 3:4 in aspect ratio, so if it's 480 km EW it would be about 360 NS. That's rather smaller than Colorado; Colorado is just under 400 miles EW, or about 600 km. But I don't think Oz is that big. Dorothy's journey in WIZARD is one of the slower ones on record. In ROAD the characters cross the Deadly Desert in a sandboat, bathe in the Truth Pond, and walk to the Tin Woodman's palace in one day, and walk to the EC the next, arriving well before dinner time. That one is unusually short. But most walking trips from the EC to the Deadly Desert in the EW direction seem to take about three days, usually with a stop or two for some kind of adventure. On the other hand, they seem to spend more than eight hours a day on the road - usually from sunup to sunset or thereabouts. (They're not walking 12+ hours, but that allows for the stops.) Tyler Jones: Have you ever tried walking around Vermont? Remember that those kingdoms in Oz are typically the size of a very small village. And the forests can be walked through in an hour or two, for the most part. This is what I'd call a "wood" rather than a "forest", but in any case they can't be more than ten or twelve miles across, and there aren't necessarily that many of them. If you take the IWOC map and put a scale on it that makes it 90 x 120 miles, as I've done, most of the travel times in the books come out fairly reasonable. If you made it 300 x 400 miles, however - Colorado size - they wouldn't be reasonable at all, unless you do something like the time-contraction Dave mentions. Since I don't see that it's necessary - 90 x 120 is -plenty- big enough to fit in everything from the FF with ample room for new places that hadn't been discovered - I prefer to believe that the speed of light in Oz is normal (otherwise people walking briskly would look flattened in the direction they're moving, and that should have been mentioned), and that Oz is about the size I assigned it in "How Big Is Oz?" (I was the one who wrote that article for the ORG, incidentally.) I wouldn't quibble with making it, say, 120 x 160 miles, but 300 x 400 is far too big. (Just for one example, the Wizard rides the Sawhorse to Glinda's palace [near the southern border of Oz], consults with her, and returns to the EC in well under a day in LOST PRINCESS. If that were a 300-mile round trip then the Sawhorse would be going at least 50 mph - just try that in an open airstream! I don't think an elderly man could hang on for six hours against that kind of wind.) Around 15 mph is much more plausible. And half a million inhabitants, or even a million, in 10-12,000 square miles isn't dense at all. At 90 x 120, Oz is about half the size of San Bernardino County, which has a population of about 1.5 million. And, except right around the city of San Bernardino itself (like the EC), that county is -very- sparsely populated, with a lot of mountains and deserts. I think you're radically overestimating the size required to fit in all the places in Oz; walking is a slow way to travel! I agree with you entirely on excluding The Third Book of Oz from the HACC. There are significant contradictions between it and the FF, or even between it and OZMA, which was the next Baum book. It's clear from the latter that the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman hadn't seen Dorothy since WIZARD. Glad you thought GLASS CAT was excellent. You're one of the first Oz fans who isn't also a fairly close personal friend who has commented on it. Robin Olderman: I say "Eh-VAWL-doh" and "Kah-LYE-duh", myself. (Not that I've had much occasion to pronounce the first one.) David Bedell: (Lots of us sharing that forename in here, aren't there?) Coo-ee-oh in GLINDA described herself as a "Krumbic witch". Yes, Denslow originally illustrated DOT AND TOT. As to why BoW got Abbott to re-illustrate it, though, I couldn't say. Presumably the illustrations are as much public domain now as the text, and the originals are, IMO, better than the new ones, although maybe not that much better. (I never liked Denslow all that much.) I think I bought WHO'S WHO IN OZ from BoW, but I've had it for several years, so I'm not sure. The edition I have was published by Peter Bedrick Books, and is quite nice; I don't know how it compares with the original R&L version. Aaron Adelman: I don't think anybody ever described the jitterbugs in detail, or at least I've never seen such a description. But others may have more info. Do you have a clue as to where in THE ANNOTATED WIZARD Mrs. Pastoria's name might be given? I have the book, and would be happy to check for you, but I don't have time to read through all the annotations in the next day or two. I have a vague recollection of Thompson citing the number of kingdoms in Oz somewhere as well, but it's not in the first chapter of GNOME KING. Maybe elsewhere in that book, or maybe in another book. She was probably underestimating at that. I think ECP is the only current publisher of Oz books who pays their authors (even if they don't pay much). If you can finance your own publishing then either you can publish it yourself (which sticks you with the distribution problem) or try Buckethead; they at least have sale tables at the Oz conventions (or anyhow at Winkie; I assume at the others). As I said in my last post, I was the one who commented on the strange-looking Jack Pumpkinhead; I think Mike got us confused. I've never read WAS, but according to the reviews I've read it's a book wherein Dorothy was first sexually abused by Uncle Henry and later by Baum, but who told some of her fantasies to the latter and found them published in a best-selling children's book. As far as I know, Oz wasn't a real place in that book, which puts it so far outside that it's not even heretical. "Sir Harold and the Nome King", on the other hand, is essentially true to the FF; it's just that it diverges sharply after the last of the canonical books, to the point where it's generally considered heretical. You can find it in "The Enchanter Reborn", by L. Sprague de Camp and Christopher Stasheff, in the SF section of your bookstore (or, at worst, your used bookstore, since it was published in 1993 or 1994). I don't know if you've read any of the Pratt-de Camp "Incomplete Enchanter" stories - they're favorites of mine - but in any case de Camp takes Harold Shea into Oz, where he finds that a sorcerer's-apprentice type has managed to inadvertently reverse the spell that prevents aging in Oz so years before the time of the story. The result is that Dorothy is thirtyish and married to a rather plebeian Winkie; Ozma is about forty and has married Evardo of Ev. Sir Harold persuades Ozma to disenchant Ruggedo (who was correctly described as in the shape of a cactus) so that Rug can help him rescue someone from the clutches of Kaliko. It's a fun story; de Camp clearly has read most if not all of the Oz books (since he was born in 1909, he probably got them for Christmas through his childhood) and knows the universe well, even if he twisted it for his own purposes. The "-a" ending in Latin isn't necessarily feminine - e.g. "nauta", "agricola". And Ozish names aren't to be confused with Latin ones anyhow; no more reason "Pastoria" should be feminine than, say, "Attila" or "bar-Kosiba". Ozroar as the name of Pastoria's father was invented by Fred Meyer, and has apparently been adopted by Oz fans in general; others have extended it to earlier rulers of Oz. Bob Shepherd: There really is an Oz theme park planned (and maybe under construction) in Kansas. There's been information about it in the BUGLE, but I don't remember details. Perhaps others will. Eric Gjovaag: BoW is a neat bookstore, well worth the visit if you're in the NYC area (though not, as the Michelin guide says about the top restaurants, worth the trip). Their stock of rare Oz books, as one might expect, varies depending on what they've bought lately vs. what they've sold. But their prices on all of them are too high for my level of interest in that sort of thing. I find a nice facsimile edition like they publish for $25 every bit as good for my purposes as a first edition at $500+. I'm an Oz fan, not an Oz collector. Wa-el, I dunno, but I've found it perfectly easy to note the name of individuals who've been sending me obnoxious E-mail and hitting the "delete" button instead of the "read" button when I've selected that message. It's something else where it's on a bulletin board where you don't know who sent a message until it scrolls onto the screen, but E-mail has never seemed to me to present any problem. Tell me about it; I had to autograph four hundred pages in one evening, too! I made no personalization on those; how could I, when I didn't know who'd get which copy? But I've cheerily personalized any copy anyone has presented to me, and would hope that you and Karyl and Robin would do the same for me. Good point about Button-Bright not remembering all of his name - though I'd think he wouldn't remember the "von" and forget what came between it and "Smith". Still, the kid was so laid-back that not much would be beyond him... There's certainly nothing connecting "Yew" and Oz, but I didn't know that there was anything definitely separating them, either. Give a quick explanation? BoW is "one of the world's largest bookstores"? Maybe, if that includes all their stock they have off-site, but as a store it's not that big. I know of at least ten in Orange County that have more books on display and more square footage of sale space than BoW. It's arguably the biggest bookstore I've seen that specializes in children's books - at least, one of the two or three biggest. But that's all. I agree that the Del Rey Oz books turn up in the SF sections of bookstores oftener than in the children's section, but I've seen them in the latter, fairly often. I haven't read the unexpurgated "Woggle-bug Book", no. But I wasn't counting it as a "book", since it was at least my impression that it was just a collection of newspaper installments. The rest of the Third Book of Oz is also probably worse than D&T - but D&T is still pretty awful, and I wouldn't pay $50 for a pristine facsimile of it. Yeah, I've been to enough Oz conventions to know what they're like. And of course anyone can pronounce any Oz name anyway they like. But if there's a rough consensus on a particular name (and maybe there isn't), people who attend a lot of Oz conventions, and particularly ones like you and Robin Olderman who are also Quizmasters (the two of you beat me - narrowly, I might add - in the Masters' quiz the past two years at Winkie), are the likeliest to know it. I remember discussing the pronunciation of "Kalidah" with Robin Hess at the last Winkie. I'll have to admit that I'd never even thought of pronouncing it any way but "Kah-LYE-dah", but will have to admit that his pronunciation of "KAL-i-dah" is just as possible. I probably got my pronunciation from hearing my mother read WIZARD to me when I was too young to read it myself. Dave Hardenbrook: Ah, "Mr Tompkins in Wonderland". Lovely book. Another one I read back around 1957. Remember when he tried to put the rack over the billiard ball in the world where Planck's constant was large? Gamow was a great science popularizer, as well as an eminent scientist. One of my favorite stories about his was that he once got Hans Bethe and another physicist named Alpher to co-author a paper with him so he could call it the "Alpher-Bethe-Gamow Theory". (Which explained how Dorothy could fall into the Pacific off Australia and Peter into the Atlantic off Cape Hatteras and both end up in the Nonestic near Ev...no, it really didn't, but I had to tie it back to Oz somehow!) David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 22:24:53 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-01-96 Let's see how many Oz topix I can crowd in here...Flatland, the fourth dimension, Theosophy, FTP, Oz and digital media, Heinlein, Barsoom, you get the picture. For a wonderful exposition about 19th century spiritualism and bizarre mathematics, I highly recommend tracking down a book by cyberpunk author and college professor Rudy Rucker entitled The Fourth Dimension: A Guided Tour of the Higher Universes in which he provides even a bio of Flatland Author Abbott. It was thought that higher dimensions might provide a rational explanation for phenomena such as table tapping and apportations from the beyond. In one of Heinlein's last novels, he posited that infinity is really, really big.(a stretch, I know) Big enough to include an infinity of alternate universes, including fictional ones. Characters in The Number of The Beast (because there were six to the sixth to the sixth bazillion accessible alternate branched universes) were able to use their universe-hopping spacecraft (christened The Gay Deceiver) to visit even fictional universes such as the one where Mars was Barsoom. I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet read it, but Glinda naturally provides a wonderfully practical gift for her visitors. Oz in Vegas? I can't do it justice, but the Flying Monkey Bar is a treat, and it actually is worth your wait to enter the gate to the Emerald City and witness a delightful magic show in the round that uses patter that paid more attention than it might have to the Famous Forty. In all, a far more satisfying experience than the stop in Munchkinland in the Great American Movie Ride at the MGM Studio Tour at Disney World, with the badly animated Sarcos figure of the W W of the W and a pile of Munchkin Mannequins bobbing on teeter totters at you. I was being paid to experience that at the time, you have been warned. You have also been warned about the sight of Glinda surrounded by slot machines. Threats to the contrary, I never expect to find Oz in Kansas. A call to the gift shop at the MGM grand will get you a copy of the Legends of Oz CD-ROM and a copy of the Wizard of Oz video game for the Super NES. The Super Nes isn't as awful as you might think. They'll set you back about sixty bucks a pop, and might let you say hi to Roger, usually holding court. I have on back order from a different source a triple CD-ROM called The Yellow Brick Road for which I saw an announcement last year at E3. It was made in Japan, probably the only hard digital media pertaining to Oz out there that doesn't have the name Turner stamped on it. The main trouble I have with Turner, is that it is in his best interest to assert that The Wizard of Oz is the ONLY Oz story. The awful animated series from DIC is a typical example, always trying to escape the WW of the W. I think of Wicked (liked) and Barnstormer (didn't) as Alternate Histories, like the Steampunk from Gibson's/Sterling's The Difference Engine, where Babbage's Calculating Machine made the information Age happen a century earlier. The trouble with Hereticals is that they are best appreciated by scorning Canonicals. I do think Heinlein's and Rucker's multiple alternate worlds help blur the edges made by such harsh distinctions. I am enjoying the talk about the actual dimensions of Oz, I favor variable, I wouldn't be surprised if the Yellow Brick Road conveys its travelers at a rate faster than allowed by their footwork, a la the magic roads in Patchwork Girl. While I miss some of Baum's original words, I would more sorely miss future afterwords from Peter Glassman. I wonder if there are any additional coffee mugs commemorating his newest Oz publications. Peter, when you release Tik-Tok, be on the look out for those who would correct the compass directions on the endpapers. It has happened in The Oz Scrapbook and Who's Who in Oz. I will need to call the store again to get back on the mailing list and get caught up on all the Oz material he provides. I am lucky enough to have a lot of (new to me) Oz books to look forward to reading, and the blessing of this Digest to bring together so many storytellers of Oz. (AOL has some help functions under Internet Connection, look for FTP Connection, otherwise I'll be happy to mail it to you if you need it.) Eric, let me know when the FAQ is ready for public perusal, I'd like to be among the websites making sure its always available. This run-on rant has eschewed punctuation to make Dave's job slightly easier. -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ahclem@netcom.com http://www.ozcot.com/ ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 3, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 08:32:26 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Sherlock Holmes in Oz This story was first published in the first issue of Oziana in 1971. It involves the theft of the Rainbow Pearl, which has been given to Ozma by Prince Inga of Pingaree as a symbol of the friendship that exists between Oz and Pingaree. The Pearl glows with the colors of the rainbow and has the magical ability to turn aside water. That is, it can change the course of rivers and move rain to where it is most needed. The Pearl is stolen after a banquet and when a search of the palace fails to turn up the Pearl or the thief, the Scarecrow suggests they hire Sherlock Holmes to find the Pearl. The Wizard of Oz and Ozma prepare a spell and use the Nome Kings's Magic Belt to summon a very surprised Dr. Watson and a not-so-surprised Sherlock Holmes to the palace. If you can dig up Oziana #1, do so. If not, the story is available in the anthology: The Game is Afoot-Parodies, Pastiches, and Ponderings of Sherlock Holmes, edited by Marvin Kaye and published by St. Martin's in hc in 1994 and in trade paperback in 1995. Libraries and specialty book stores should still have it. Sir Harold and the Gnome King was originally published in the World Fantasy Convention booklet for that convention in 1990. It was published separately in a small hardcover editon and a trade paper edition by Green Tiger Press. Part of a series of stories involving the adventures of a pair of psychology grad students, later professors, who used symbolic logic formulas to transport themselves to different mythological or legendary or fictional worlds. They visit, besides Oz, the Finnish Kalevala, the world of The Faerie Queene, Ireland in the age of Heroes, the Arabian Nights and others. This is on the whole a fun series of stories. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 12:17:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Twenty-Four Rulers of Oz and other stuff 1) I might as well give my own opinions on pronounciation, as as they're based upon my research into Old Ozzish, feel free to attack them on the basis of Laumer's research into the same language. Evoldo is really Ev Oldaus, so the pronounciation is something like /ev Ol-dows/. Kalidah is a contraction of kali ("tiger") and dah ("bear"), so it is pronounced /KA-li-DAH/.=20 2) All I remember on where Mrs. Pastoria II's name is mentioned in The Annotated Wizard of Oz is that it is mentioned in connection with the play version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, so it should be in that thick section preceding the actual text of Baum's book. 3) I remember something about the number of kingdoms in Oz being mentioned in the beginning of a chapter about Patch in The Gnome King of Oz, but I'm not sure about this. 4) Anyone have any data on how many Ozroars there have been? So far I have been assuming only two. 5) Speaking of rulers of Oz, I have drawn up a list of rulers of Oz while working on The Woozy of Oz (in a contest, the Angry Kalidah and the Sawhorse get asked who was the 17th ruler of Oz, so the answer had to be invented). Working with the assumptions that rulers get replaced about every 30 years and that Oz (or rather originally the Four Countries) was united about 1200, I decided that so far there have been 24 people with the title Oz or Ozma. At first I started filling in names which I had decided I wanted in there, but then I took to filling in first names from yesterday's Ozzy Digest. I am curious as to whether anyone out there has any objections to this, based on them not liking their names being used or for historical reasons. Below is said list, all the names being given formally in Old Ozzish, the numbers being the year of the ascention to the throne. 1198 Oz Roarus I 1219 Oz Barukhus 1254 Oz Hovedayaus 1289 Oz Yohananus 1323 Oz Tailerus 1339 Ozma Skregalima 1366 Oz Petrus 1399 Oz Tippetarius I 1429 Ozma Robinma 1462 Oz Ojaus 1489 Oz Aharonus (probably popularly called Oz Aaron the Blunt) 1515 Oz Davidus 1553 Oz Pastoria I 1587 Oz Markus 1610 Oz Tippetarius II 1638 Ozma Glindma 1671 Oz Mikaelus 1708 Oz Robertus 1729 Oz Tippetarius III 1757 Oz Erikus 1773 Oz Skottus 1801 Oz Roarus II Boz 1823 Oz Pastorius II 1851 1903 Ozma (full name generally unknown; those who know are sworn not to tell) Note: Ozma Glindma is (probably) not Glinda the Good/Ambiguous/Perfect. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 12:50:43 -0500 From: Nathan Faut Subject: Glass Cat of Oz Dave and friends, I _JUST_ received my copy of Glass Cat, the 350th signed edition, out of 350 signed editions (PHEW!), and was *startled* to notice that the copyright page is in error -- did anyone else notice that? It credits the book as being The Magic Dishpan of Oz! What a revolting development! I certainly expect and hope that the rest of the book is the Glass Cat of Oz. I _have_ Magic Dishpan (haven't read it yet, but will soon), but haven't checked to see if its copyright page is mixed up with Glass Cat, yet. What does this do to the value of the edition? I mean it Tricky Dick's (Richard Nixon, for those of you who missed Watergate et.al.) mis-printed stamp can increase in value because of its mistake, why not this book? Another textual point. I am constantly amazed at the reprints. I have three different copies of Emerald City of Oz -- a 1930s edition, lacking color plates; a Rand McNally large-edition paperback (my first copy, now more than 20 years in my possession, I'm 34), and lastly the reprint from BoW. Now, SOMEWHERE in there, you'd figure that SOMEONE would correct typographical errors -- nope. Page 200, near the bottom. Dorothy is trying to gain entrance to Bunnybury, and the gatekeeper rabbit is giving her a hard time. He says to Dorothy, "No, Pincess," obviously mistaking the Princess for someone more like an angry goose or closely related to a recessed Pincushion. For more than 90 years, that typo has existed in every edition. So much for progress ... Another textual point. I have an unusual later printing of Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. The paper, cover and binding all point to a WWII printing -- no color plates, the cover is the Wizard and the piglets but no Dorothy, the colors seem more watered down than non-WWII editions, that pages browned easily, the paper is thinner than the older editions, etc. But the side binding is upside down! I mentioned this in a letter to the IWOC, I think to Douglas Greene directly in fact, but he replied he had never heard of that before. So, surprise, surprise. Anyone else seen/heard of this particular printing and printing error? Nathan +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Nathan Faut e-mail address: faut@nih.gov +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ The National Institutes of Health Division of Computer Research and Technology Laurie Anderson: "Paradise is a lot like where you are right now, only much much better." ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 14:23:09 -0500 From: HermBieber@aol.com Subject: oz Mail Group [Forwarded to the Digest for the book info -- Dave] Dear Dave, Bill Wright (piglet@halcyon.com) told me you run an internet Oz group, and that I can get involved in this by e-mailing you. My daughter, Judy, and I are long-time Oz enthusiasts. I am currently on the board of directors of the International Wizard of Oz Club. I also have a mail order hobby book business (Oz and Ends Book Shoppe) to dispose of surplus books as we upgrade our collection, so I maybe able to help your members find things at what we feel are low prices, compared to most book dealers who have to make a living off books. So please sign me up. Many thanks.. Herman Bieber ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 14:29:49 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy DIgest Due to my error yesterday, I have two digests to respond to (groan) I have to break one of Daves rules :( but I will be brief :) HA! Me be brief? Not likely! :) Somebody (I deleted the message so I don't know who it was) e-mailed me to "correct" my joke about the 76 GOP freshman vs. our 32 (and 27) freshmen members of the Ozzy digest. Yes, Mr. X, you are correct when you say that according to the AP (and Congress itself) there are 74 of these guys. Congress and I have a slight difference of opinion concerning the definition of incumbency. E-mail me privately if you want an explanation of this fascinating topic! But I'm right and they're wrong!!!! :):):) I really ought to stop deleting mail so quickly. I know nothing about Theosophy, so I will leave this to the experts. I am with Barry, that the reporting directions for east-west simply got garbled from time to time and the Munchkins have always been in the East and the Winkies have always been in the west. Of course, Laumers book has an interesting explanation and one advantage of inconsistencies is that people write books to explain them, and the more Oz books, the better. FYI, many people seem confused about what Laumer meant with the east-west thing. Laumer did not claim that Baum originally intended for the East to be yellow, he said that Baum SHOULD have made the east yellow and the west blue so we could have a golden dawn and "the blue of the evening". He didn't do that, though, and that's that. Except for Till Orangespiegal, though, but that's another story... I do not think that we are getting to serious over the east-west topic (or any other topic, for that matter). Part of the purpose of this digest is to examine the series, discuss it, and hopefully come up with a better understanding of Oz and ideas for more Oz books. Maybe Oz is not as big as Colorado. I've never been to Vermont, but your question reminds me of Bob Newhart telling Larry, Daryl and Daryl that God wanted them to "take a lap around the county". Maybe they would know if their state is big enough. I like the idea of these strange kingdoms appearing and disappearing at will, but I've taken it a little further: The countries themselves are not really in Oz; they exist in hyper-dimensional bubbles with a magical link to Oz. Using Aarons magic machine terminology, the link could be an address pointing to an area of memory in the super- Universe. These countries ("billions and billions" of countries) are permanent in their 4D-bubbles, but the LINKS come and go. This explains, for example, why Dorothy could make the trip between E.C. and the castle of the Tin Woodman dozens of times, yet get lost and meet new countries every time. This way, the countries could get re-visited sometimes, but would not always have to be there. In this way, a kingdom could be of substantial size, yet take up a very small space in Oz. Also, you could have dozens of them in a relatively small area. This theory is supported by the fact that many of these kingdoms do not seem to know of the Land of Oz at all. You could still have a country approximately 50 times bigger than Skampavia yet also have many many kingdoms and lots of other wide open spaces. Furthermore, there is now no limit to the number of Oz books we can write or the number of strange kingdoms. Of course, some of them really ARE in the Land of Oz, such as Pumperdink. The number of kingdoms listed somewhere in the Thompson series was at best a guess. After all, they discover new ones every day. If anyone is interested, I say ee-VAWL-doh and KAH-lih-dah. Someone already mentioned this, but Queen Coo-Ee-Oh in GLINDA OF OZ claimed to be a Krumbic Witch, much more powerful than other withces, although there is no evidence for this, and we do not know what makes a Krumbic witch different from other witches. The Oz theme park is (last I heard) scheduled to open sometime around 2000. Based on the MGM movie, it will have Munchkinland, a mock-up of the Emerald City, and, believe it or not, Glindas "northern" kingdom, a land of snow and ice! Since the movie gave no info about Glindas home, they chose to make up completely new stuff instead of using the books. I don't know too much else about it, however. When I redux the HACC, I will include a "status code" for each book, which will tell us if it's FF, another publisher, private pub or out of print. This will come out at the same time as my new Web Page. Web Page '96 has been delayed, but it will be out soon. ENCAHNTED ISLE OF YEW is tenuous at best to be included in the Oz Universe. It is entirely self-contained. It mentions nothing outside of Yew and has no characters from other books. Other books do not mention Yew at all. It was put on the map of Oz and surrounding countries only because Baum wrote it, and people have just assumed it was there. For the sake of arguement, I will assume that it IS in the Nonestic, the Oz folk just haven't discovered it yet. As for cartoons, I saw "Dorothy and the Green Gobbler" or "Thanksgiving in Oz". This had the song "A bone in your back, beans in your button, and a heart that wants to believe". I also have seen some of the series on HBO called "The Wizard of Oz", which blends in some elements from the movie and book two, along with some new elements. Any comments from people? ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 16:44:02 -0500 (EST) From: David Bedell Subject: Who's Who in Oz I checked the IWOC Special Publications page and I see they also have Who's Who in Oz (178pp, illus., cloth, $16). Is this the same edition as those at Books of Wonder? If different, can anyone compare them? David Bedell, University of Bridgeport, CT, USA ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 10:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-02-96 > From: David A Gerstein > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-29-96 > > AARON: > "Also: I have heard that a scene was cut from the MGM movie in > which some sort of creature called jitterbugs appear? What are they?" > You may recall that in the original _Wonderful Wizard of Oz_, > the Wicked Witch sent bumblebees to destroy our heroes on their way to > her dwelling. This MGM sequence was their adaptation of that, > although it changed the bees to mosquitos. Our heroes danced and sang > while fighting the mosquitos off, thus producing a cheerful musical > number at exactly the wrong time in the film. When MGM saw how this > looked in context, they axed the sequence. > As of a few years ago, this scene was missing; all that > existed were some clumsily-filmed bits of rehearsals for it. Did part > of the final version, or any other lost material, appear on that > Turner "Ultimate Oz" disc in 1993? Does someone know? No, the same stuff that was on the 50th anniversary video was also in "The Ultimate Oz." I think all of the leads on finding the actual film have dried up by now. > From: "W. R. Wright" > Subject: BB > >> Aaron Adelman said: >> Baum's version of Button-Bright's name is Baum being silly; "von Smith" is >> really impossible unless somebody decided to change their surname >> arbitrarily, since "von" is used with place-names in German and "Smith" is >>an occupation-name. > >and Eric replied: >>Don't forget, Button-Bright can't remember large parts of his own name. >>Maybe there's something that belongs in between the "von" and "Smith." > > Button-Bright himself said their was more to his name, but he couldn't > remember it........ Er, isn't this what I said in my earlier reply? > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Life under Bastinda's rule I just want to add here that Bastinda is Aleksandr Volkov's name for the Wicked Witch of the West. The name has NO basis at all in the FF, and the only author I know of who uses the name is March Laumer, whose books I consider not to be part of "real" Oz, but a parallel universe. > 2) Scott, I've been to Books of Wonder and seen that bookshelf and seen > those early edition Oz books. They have some not-so-early edition Oz > books there, such as a few Del Rey Thompsons (at $17(!) each), and a > few of the less well known titles in the HACC as well. Er, Peter, if you're still reading these Digests, do you guys happen to have a copy of "Mister Flint in Oz"? That's the only Buckethead book I don't have now, and I'd like to get it... > From: Sheryl Ramage > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest > > Hi, > I'm new to the list and have enjoyed reading all of it. Someone > mentioned the TNT special. I didn't like it because of the woman who > played Dorothy. Her voice drove me crazy a good deal of the time. Well *I* liked her. (It doesn't hurt that Jewel also looks an awful lot like Neill's Dorothy, and she did an Elvis impression during "The Jitterbug." But she -- nor nearly anybody else -- could ever hold a candle to Judy, of course...) > The > idea was interestering and I was waiting for it eagerly but I was > disappointed. Once I kept telling myself that this was a concert, not a stage recreation of the movie, I was able to accept it on those terms. If others were expecting a full-blown stage adaptation, I can see how they'd be disappointed. > I did like the boy who played Toto, he was cute and barked > his lines well. I liked him, too. He stole large parts of the show! > Part of my Oz collection is many different cartoon > versions. Some are ok and some are interestering. One version has a > gangster and a machine gun!! Has anyone ever seen any of the cartoons, > and if so what do you think of them? Could you be a bit more specific? There are dozens of cartoon versions out there. (One of my favorites is the Sugar and Spice version, with the Tin Woodman doing an Arnold Schwartzenegger impression and lots of dumb jokes thrown in, a la the Hope/Crosby "Road" movies.) And might you have episodes of "Tales of the Wizard of Oz"? I have most of them, but I want to get ahold of the four that I'm missing... > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/1/96 > > I've never read WAS, but according to the reviews I've read it's a book > wherein Dorothy was first sexually abused by Uncle Henry and later by Baum, > but who told some of her fantasies to the latter and found them published in > a best-selling children's book. As far as I know, Oz wasn't a real place in > that book, which puts it so far outside that it's not even heretical. No, Baum didn't abuse Dorothy in "Was," but with all the other disgusting stuff in there he may as well have. There's also a lot about Judy Garland and her mother (most of it made up, I'm sure) and others whom Oz has affected, but no, no sign of the actual Oz. > Eric Gjovaag: > > There's certainly nothing connecting "Yew" and Oz, but I didn't know that > there was anything definitely separating them, either. Give a quick > explanation? Okay, everybody, pull out your copies of "Yew" and look at the last chapter. (Possible minor spoilers here, thsoe of you who haven't read "The Enchanted Island of Yew" and want to be TOTALLY surprised may want to skip to the next note now.) When the Red Rogue of Dawna is released from his enchantment, Baum wrote: "He wandered out and found strange scenes confronting him, for during the hundred years a great change had taken place in the Enchanted Island. Great cities had been built and great kingdoms established. Civilization had won the people, and they no longer robbed or fought or indulged in magical arts, but were busily employed and leading respectable lives." So now Yew is civilized. But as the Good Witch of the North pointed out in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," Oz has never been civilized, and I think we can extend that fact to the rest of the lands found in the Oz books. Therefore, Yew can not be part of the same world as Oz. QED. > BoW is "one of the world's largest bookstores"? Maybe, if that includes all > their stock they have off-site, but as a store it's not that big. I know of > at least ten in Orange County that have more books on display and more square > footage of sale space than BoW. It's arguably the biggest bookstore I've seen > that specializes in children's books - at least, one of the two or three > biggest. But that's all. Yeah, yeah, I mistyped. I meant "one of the world's largest CHILDREN'S bookstores." I've never been there myself, but I would be GREATLY surprised if it was any larger than Elliot Bay Books here in Seattle or Powell's in Portland (or, if we're talking used/antiquarian books, Shorey's here in Seattle). > I haven't read the unexpurgated "Woggle-bug Book", no. But I wasn't counting > it as a "book", since it was at least my impression that it was just a > collection of newspaper installments. No, "The Woggle-Bug Book" is not a collection of the newspaper comic, but a continuation. I bought the facsimile that came out back in the early 80's, and the edited version in "Third Book" is MUCH less offensive... > From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-01-96 > > Eric, let me know when the FAQ is > ready for public perusal, I'd like to be among the websites making sure its > always available. I hope to at least start getting a ready-for-the-public version ready this weekend, as for once I have no family obligations or parties or other events clogging up my free time. But I plan on putting an HTML version on my OWN Web page (yes, you heard it here first, folks, I'm going to finally get my own website going), which of course everyone is welcome tolink to their own pages. What I had in mind, Ken, was an archive site that DOESN'T need a web browser, for FTP retrieval or something similar. Anyone want to take it (and all future versions)? --Eric "Then, once I get the FAQ up, wait until you see what ELSE I can do with my website!" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 10:21:55 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-01-96 > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Del Rey > > I have a copy of the Del Rey edition of _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_, and the > text has not been altered. I also have some of the Del Rey editions of the > Thompson books, and the portions with problematic material have not been > expurgated either. Based on this, as well as the continued publication of > unaltered versions of books like _Peter Pan_, I'm not quite sure that the > arguement that the books have to be expurgated to be published holds water. Okay, yes, sorry now, I'll just stop being the Peter Glassman apologist. Even though he is an actual bookseller and children's book publisher, it's obvious that everybody else here on the 'Net is more familiar with both fields than him, and his opinions or my defenses of him hold no weight or bearing whatsoever, and so I'll just shut up about the whole issue now. You are welcome to read whatever edition of "Patchwork Girl" you choose, and believe whatever you want about the current changes. Can we move on to something ELSE now? > Is it just me or is everyone being a bit too serious about the east-west > reversal problem? A much simpler explaination would be that there were > reporting errors as to the directions (which happens at the time) and that the > Wogglebug, when he drew the broad outlines of the map, just happened to be > wearing his experimental image-reversing goggles which he made for a > perceptual > study and then forgot to change it. Actually (as I've stated before), this is not as far off from the truth as you may think, seeing as how the original map of Oz was a colored slide used in the Fairylogue and Radio-Plays, with the compass rose correct and the Winkies to the left and the Munchkins to the right. In "Tha Annotated 'Wizard of Oz'" (where the slide was published, and which I might add would be a welcome addition, with some updates and additional notes, to Oz libraries for the centennial in four years) Michael Patrick Hearn speculates that Baum (or a Reilly and Britton artist) may have looked at this slide backwards when making the map of Oz in "Tik-Tok," which would explain the reversed "W" and "E" on the compass rose. A later R&B editor, noticing the "W" and "E" in the wrong places, later "corrected" them, thus causing all the problems we have now... > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > When building the HACC, we decided to inlcude only books that actually took > place in the Land of Oz itself. The other books, such as those Aaron > mentioned, take place in the Oz "Universe" and really deserve a list of > their own. But that list is so short anyway, may as well include it in the HACC, right? (Okay, since "The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus" covers such a HUGE period of time, that may be hard to place, but the others should slip in quite easily.) > I for one would gladly buy Oz Squad comics from Peter Glassman if he was to > offer them in his catalog. He may, however, feel that these are too "adult" to include in "The Oz Collector." Or he may not be able to get them, for whatever reason... > No, Dave, I have not read SPHERELAND, although it sounds cool... Real quick recap, then: It's a sequel to "Flatland" (DUH!), told by one of A. Square's grandsons, which goes into further details of that 2-D world, and took into account the theory of relativity and other more recent mathematical and scientific theories. (I now have a MUCH better idea of what 4-D space is thanks to this book, for instance.) No, I don't know who the author is. Has anybody ever heard of a film version of "Flatland"? Apparently there was one... > From: David Bedell > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-31-96 > > First posting--I'm a new subscriber, but an old IWOC alumnus. > > Yes, I've read _Flatland_ & _Sphereland_. Just finished _Wicked_. Can > someone refresh my memory as to Krumbic witches? I don't recall that > reference. In "Glinda of Oz," Coo-ee-oh refers to herself as one. > Just got the BoW catalog and have two questions: Wasn't D&T originally > illustrated by Denslow? Why did BoW prefer to commission new > illustrations by Donald Abbott? Yes to the first question. I suspect the reason for the reillustration is because the originals were all printed in colors -- no black for outlines -- and would have been quite difficult to recreate in black and white without redrawing them anyway. (I have a 1920 reprint of "Dot and Tot," and the publishers chose to eliminate one color from the illos. -- which means about a third of each picture is missing, and some of the results are quite odd.) While Donald Abbott is the natural choice for a new illustrator, I wonder why he did all new pictures, and didn't redraw Denslow's originals as line drawings. > Also, has anyone purchased their _Who's Who in Oz_? They say their copies > are remainders from the last publisher. Was that Reilly & Lee? Are these > illustrated? Comparable to early editions? Quite comparable, nearly identical to the R&L editions, with the illos. in red ink. But no updating, sad to say. (It was a different publisher than R&L, but I can't remember who it was right off the top of my head. They reprinted it a few years ago.) The International Wizard of Oz Club also has this version for sale as well. > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Jitterbugs and other stuff > > 1) I think I should have been more specific when asking for information > about jitterbugs. What I wanted to know is what type of creatures they > are and what they are supposed to do to people. Are you SERIOUSLY going to make a movie reference in your book? Oh, all right. From the existing footage we've never actually seen the Jitterbug (only one, I think, was mentioned in the movie), but ISTR the script saying that it was a pink-and-blue-striped mosquito-like insect. His sting caused the sting-ee to break into "jitters" and start to dance like mad until they collapsed from exhaustion. (Question is, how could the sting affect the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman?) > Also: Someone please open a copy of The Annotated Wizard of Oz and find > out the name of Mrs. Pastoria II in the play. You're really making me do some research today, aren't you? According to the summary of the play's plot in "The Oz Scrapbook," Pastoria was accompanied from Topeka by a waitress named Tryxie Tryfle, but whether or not they were even romantically involved (she was NOT his wife, I know that for certain) I can't tell. In some of the Buckethead books, BTW, Ozma's mother/Pastoria's wife is named Ozette. > (I'm still surprised no one has objected to the idea. Is this something > which is intrinsically so sensible that no one can find anything wrong > with it?) Aaron, most of your ideas are, IMHO, so ludicrous that I haven't bothered to say anything, because it is your book, after all. So what's one more? > 6) On the name Ozma Tippetarius from Wicked: Baum had to set a precedent > in The Marvelous Land of Oz by giving a character a Latinate name with an > ending of the opposite gender attached (Pastoria, rather than Pastorius), > which the author of Wicked had to copy (Tippetarius, rather than > Tippetaria). Anyone have any idea how Baum made such a blunder in the > first place? (Didn't take Latin in college, perhaps?) Didn't GO to college! Baum's only formal education was two years in military school. He mostly learned from private tutors. (But who ever said these were Latin names in the first place?) > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Ozroar > > Also: Is there a source for Ozma's grandfather being named Ozroar > besides the afformentioned book? Robert R. Pattrick's series of essays "Unexplored Territory in Oz." Although the name Ozroar is an invention of Fred Meyer's. Ozroar later appears in fiction in Henry Blossom's "The Blue Emperor of Oz." > From: Bob Shepherd > Subject: Oz Theme Park in Kansas > > Hi - I'm one of the newbies that just got hooked into the Ozzy Digest > this week. I've really enjoyed reading all of the Oz related > discussions, although some of the acronyms threw me for a loop until > I could get them figured out! Just ask, I'm sure many of us will explain them. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 1/31/96 > > Mark Semich: > Certainly some of the ECP Oz books are very short, really hardly longer than > some of the individual "Little Wizard Stories". But some of them are at least > a fair approximation of the length of the original books - G THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 4, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 03:04:44 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-03-96 > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: Sherlock Holmes in Oz > > This story was first published in the first issue of Oziana in 1971 ... > If you can dig up Oziana #1, do so. If not, the story is available in the > anthology: The Game is Afoot-Parodies, Pastiches, and Ponderings of > Sherlock Holmes, edited by Marvin Kaye and published by St. Martin's in > hc in 1994 and in trade paperback in 1995. Libraries and specialty book > stores should still have it. This should be the impetus needed, IMHO, for anthology reprints of "Oziana." Say, a 70's edition covering 1971-1979, and an 80's edition covering 1980-1989. (All you Club Directors on this list, are you listening?) > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Twenty-Four Rulers of Oz and other stuff > > 4) Anyone have any data on how many Ozroars there have been? So far I > have been assuming only two. Since there are no Ozroars whatsoever in the FF, and only two (so far as I know) appearing in any other books ("Lurline" and "Blue Emperor" -- assuming these are two separate rulers, which may not be the case, depending on your own beliefs of Ozian history), you can put in as many Ozroars as you want. > From: Nathan Faut > Subject: Glass Cat of Oz > > Dave and friends, > > I _JUST_ received my copy of Glass Cat, the 350th signed edition, out of 350 > signed editions (PHEW!), and was *startled* to notice that the copyright > page is in error -- did anyone else notice that? It credits the book as > being The Magic Dishpan of Oz! What a revolting development! I certainly > expect and hope that the rest of the book is the Glass Cat of Oz. I _have_ > Magic Dishpan (haven't read it yet, but will soon), but haven't checked to > see if its copyright page is mixed up with Glass Cat, yet. Yeah, I noticed that error, too, in my paperback edition. Don't worry about it, it's just one of those boo-boos that creep into all publishers' books at one time or another. Since "Magic Dishpan" came out a year or two ago, before "Glass Cat," I suspect that title page is correct. > Another textual point. I am constantly amazed at the reprints. I > have three different copies of Emerald City of Oz -- a 1930s edition, > lacking color plates; a Rand McNally large-edition paperback (my first copy, > now more than 20 years in my possession, I'm 34), and lastly the reprint > from BoW. Now, SOMEWHERE in there, you'd figure that SOMEONE would correct > typographical errors -- nope. Page 200, near the bottom. Dorothy is trying > to gain entrance to Bunnybury, and the gatekeeper rabbit is giving her a > hard time. He says to Dorothy, "No, Pincess," obviously mistaking the > Princess for someone more like an angry goose or closely related to a > recessed Pincushion. For more than 90 years, that typo has existed in every > edition. So much for progress ... Well, I just hope that when either BoW or the Oz Club reprints "Jack Pumpkinhead of Oz," they do a THOROUGH job on the editing, since that's one of the worst copy edited books I've ever read. All kinds of misplaced or missing punctuation all over the place, various little misspellings... Cor, if it wasn't such a fun read, it would really get my feathers up... > From: HermBieber@aol.com > Subject: oz Mail Group [Forwarded to the Digest for the book info -- Dave] > > Dear Dave, > > Bill Wright (piglet@halcyon.com) told me you run an internet Oz group, and > that I can get involved in this by e-mailing you. > My daughter, Judy, and I are long-time Oz enthusiasts. I am currently on the > board of directors of the International Wizard of Oz Club. I also have a > mail order hobby book business (Oz and Ends Book Shoppe) to dispose of > surplus books as we upgrade our collection, so I maybe able to help your > members find things at what we feel are low prices, compared to most book > dealers who have to make a living off books. So please sign me up. Many > thanks.. HERM! Good to have you here! Folks, I just want to say that Herm and Judy are a terrific asset to Oz collectors, as Oz and Ends is the place to get Oz books, IMHO. They have a wide variety of titles, EXCELLENT prices (I picked up a color "Kabumpo" in jacket from them once for only $80!), and their copies are complete, even if that means inserting a xerox to replace torn or missing pages. Once I have some money and I can start getting older color-plate editions of the Thompson books again, these are the folks I'm going to first. I HIGHLY recommend them! > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy DIgest > > I do not think that we are getting to serious over the east-west topic (or > any other topic, for that matter). Part of the purpose of this digest is to > examine the series, discuss it, and hopefully come up with a better > understanding of Oz and ideas for more Oz books. Perhaps, but Oz is also supposed to be fun, and I'm not sure some people here are taking the whole thing lightly enough... > The countries themselves are not really in Oz; they exist in hyper-dimensional > bubbles with a magical link to Oz. You're kidding, right? (Anybody here ever hear of the KISS rule: Keep it simple and sweet? Do we REALLY need these hyper-convoluted explanations for things that don't need a lot of explanation?) > Someone already mentioned this, but Queen Coo-Ee-Oh in GLINDA OF OZ claimed > to be a Krumbic Witch, much more powerful than other withces, although there > is no evidence for this, and we do not know what makes a Krumbic witch > different from other witches. ...except for their use of machinery and technology. > From: David Bedell > Subject: Who's Who in Oz > > I checked the IWOC Special Publications page and I see they also have > Who's Who in Oz (178pp, illus., cloth, $16). Is this the same edition as > those at Books of Wonder? If different, can anyone compare them? Nope, no need to. They're all the same edition. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Various Subjects > > Baum's Education: > Maybe everyone can clear up something for me -- I heard a long time ago > that even after Baum's worse-than-living-under-Bastinda's-rule > experience at military academy, he turned right around and sent his > sons to military academy as well! Is this true? > (Or rather, *Say it ain't so!!!*) Er, um, I would, but my mommy told me not to lie. Yeah, 'fraid so, Baum sent two of his sons to military school. (And don't forget, Frank J. Baum was a career soldier, serving in both world wars.) Why do I get the feeling, though, that it was Maud, the rock in the family, who made the decision to send them? --Eric "Should I change my name on this list to 'Dave' so as to avoid any confusion?" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 16:44:37 -0500 From: HermBieber@aol.com Subject: Oz File [Forwarded to the Digest -- Dave] Dear Dave, Thanks for the fast service in sending the Oz file. I downloaded it, and when I tried to read it, I got the following message. "This document is too large to be opened by simple text" I am a fairly novice computer user, and have a Mac Quadra 610. My software is Microsoft Word 6.0, and also Claris. Any suggestions on how to proceed, or should I ask Apple or AOL. Appreciate any advice you may have. Regards, Herm [Please send replies privately to Herm as his system seems to be rejecting the Digest; I didn't realize the Digests were *THAT* large! -- Dave] ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 19:21:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Bastinda and other stuff 1) I realise that Bastinda is not a name used in the FF, but in The Woozy of Oz my coauthor and I have the Wicked Witch of the West and the Wicked Witch of the East show up and interact with people who know them personally, people who would speak to them using their first names, so since we wanted to avoid such awkward sentences as "So, Wicked Witch of the East, how are you feeling today?" we accepted Laumer's precedent for calling them Bastinda and Gigemma. 2) Currently I'm only toying with including jitterbugs in the Lurline's Machine series (The Woozy of Oz + Hiergargo and the Queasy in Oz + A Civil War in Oz + ... + Till Lurline Returns to Oz). In such a case they'll probably get twisted in some way. For comparison, the Royal Literary Critic of Oz and I are thinking of having Ev invade Oz and have Evardo XV have as one of his grudges that years earlier Ozma turned down his marriage proposal, which is without question a spoof of Ozma marrying Evardo in Sir Harold and the Gnome King. 3) Mrs. Pastoria begin named Ozette? OK...Anyone out there have any more precedents for names of the royal family of Oz? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 19:45:53 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/3/96 I successfully downloaded the December Ozzy Digest files last night and read them. I have a few things to say (I'd have a lot more if I indulged myself, but why strain the Net), which I'll do at the end of this posting if I don't think it's too long by the time I've commented on yesterday's posts. Mike Burns: Oziana #1 is probably not that easy to dig up, but "The Game's Afoot" ought to be something I could find, and probably should have in my library anyhow. Thanks for the info. As I said earlier, "Sir Harold and the Nome King" is probably easiest to find in the mass PB THE ENCHANTER REBORN - I can check the publisher if anybody wants to know, but just look in used bookstores under "de Camp" and you should be able to find it. Aaron Adelman: So how are you doing research into Old Ozzish, or does this really mean that you're making it up? I looked at the section about the play in THE ANNOTATED WIZARD and didn't see anything about Mrs. Pastoria II. Sorry. And Pastoria isn't in the index. Nathan Faut: You can bet that -I- noticed the incorrect title on the copyright page of GLASS CAT! Besides that, the ISBN numbers on that page are dummies, both ending in "HH-H" instead of "44-6" for the HC and "45-4" for the PB. However, the rest of the book is completely different. As to what value it might add to the book, probably nothing, since every copy printed has the same error. Of course, if it becomes wildly popular and they have to go into a second and third printing, and they correct the error in those, then the erroneous copyright page would be proof of a first printing. (Naturally I hope it becomes wildly popular and goes into a second and third printing, but I'm not holding my breath...) I'd be more excited at the news that your copy is the 350th signed edition if I didn't know that they don't ship them in order of number; I had one batch of HCs shipped to me with numbers ranging from 64 to 331. So I doubt if the collector's edition is already sold out. Since my understanding of my contract is that I only get royalties on the PBs, it doesn't mean anything to me financially one way or the other. There are quite a few typos in the original editions of the Oz books, and later editions don't seem to have corrected them. I know that "Lond of Oz" shows up in the BoW edition of DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD, as it has in every copy I've seen. Tyler Jones: Putting the mysterious little kingdoms of Oz into fourth-dimensional warps is certainly one way to accommodate an indefinitely large number of new places in Oz without having to make it so large that travel times get unreasonable, in a place where most travel is on shank's mare. I don't think it's really necessary, since as I said virtually all the "countries" we encounter in Oz are less than a mile square - most of them much less. Take a look at the map - only a handful are big enough to actually show boundaries, as opposed to being identified by a dot on the map. I don't actually remember but once that Dorothy got lost between the Tin Woodman's castle and the EC (in GRAMPA) - refresh my memory? Or are the other cases all in books outside the FF, IWOC, and BoW publications? Eric Gjovaag: The fact that Yew is civilized doesn't -necessarily- mean that it's not in the Oz universe; it certainly lowers the probability, but it doesn't rule it out entirely. We only know for sure that Oz itself isn't civilized, and the Good Witch of the North seems to attribute that in part to the Deadly Desert. My objection to DOT AND TOT isn't that it's offensive, but that it's boring. ROAD without the Scoodlers and the Neill art, which are the only redeeming features of that particular book, IMO. But if we count the THIRD BOOK in general, then it's even worse than D&T, which at least shows some imagination. I just wasn't counting it, or THE WOGGLE-BUG BOOK alone either. I don't think most of us who are speculating about whether it was -really- necessary to alter the text in PG are being critical of BoW; I'm certainly not. They made a decision; they had a rationale; it's been done, and the results will speak for themselves. I'd still be willing to pay $50 for an unexpurgated version of PG, if that's all it would take. Then I could donate my copy of the expurgated version to a worthy library. It's hard to imagine that the "Oz Squad" comics are any more "adult" than WICKED - or probably than "Mayhem in Munchkinland". Ozzy Digest for December 1995: There were a lot of things in those 300Kbytes that I'd have commented on if I'd been on the list at the time, but I don't want to go back now for most of them. (With any luck, the subject will come up again. :-)) But some people gave brief bios, and lists of favorite books and characters (and the reverse), and I thought I'd do those at least. So: I'm 59 years old, and in the mundane world make a living as a lens designer for a small optics company in the aerospace business. (These are lenses for TV and film cameras, lately mostly for space stuff or infrared systems for tactical aircraft.) With any luck I may be retired in another couple or three months, but in any case I will be in a couple or three years. I read my first Oz book (WIZARD, of course) when I was five, and began getting Oz books for birthday and Christmas immediately; I accumulated 15 of them in my youth, including LUCKY BUCKY, MAGICAL MIMICS, and SHAGGY MAN the years they were first published. A lady who'd been my parents' Latin teacher loaned me most of the rest of them, though her collection stopped with WISHING HORSE; as a result, I didn't get to read CAPTAIN SALT, HANDY MANDY, WONDER CITY, SCALAWAGONS, HIDDEN VALLEY, or MERRY-GO-ROUND until I was an adult. (The last, of course, wasn't written till I was an adult.) I picked up quite a few of the missing ones shortly after my daughter was born, though to my disappointment she much preferred animal stories to Oz, and the rest when I became prosperous enough that I could afford $50+ a pop to fill in the remaining gaps in my collection. I'm basically a fan of the text and art; I'd rather have a newly-printed edition in a good binding on good paper with all the color plates than a first edition, frankly, though I have a couple of the latter. (Well, at least one - I'm reasonably sure my copy of GIANT HORSE is a first, since it has the "Oniberon" typo on the frontispiece. I think my PIRATES is a first as well, but since I don't really care, I haven't checked for the relevant points of difference.) I'm not much into other collectables, though I've bought some of the stained glass from BoW and have some other odds and ends that people have given me because they know of my interest. Most important to me recently, as those of you who've been reading this all along well know, is that my book, THE GLASS CAT OF OZ, was published by ECP in November. Most response has been favorable so far; I'd be quite interested in comments from anyone who's read it. (E-mail me privately if you'd rather not clutter the Digest.) I also do some research for the Oz Research Group of the IWOC and have written short Oz fiction for both the IWOC and the Royal Club; one of my stories was in the 1995 Oziana. I've attended the last three Winkie Conferences, and plan to attend at least one Oz convention a year as long as I can. (I might do more if my wife were interested in Oz, but the only Oz book she's liked was GLASS CAT...) As for lists of favorites: Favorite Oz character: Cap'n Bill, although he's not in but two books in any significant way. Of the characters who are in a lot of books, Dorothy. If Baum books were the only source, the Wizard might win overall, but Thompson makes him a rather thoughtless egotist; I don't like her version at all. Favorite book: Wishing Horse, with Lost Princess and Rinkitink close. In all three the protagonists deal with serious problems, and they have a minimum of encounters with odd groups that appear to have no purpose except to depict an encounter with an odd group. Merry-Go-Round is probably the best-crafted book in the whole series, but it doesn't have the Ozzy "feel" that Baum and Thompson have. Least favorite book: Wonder City, with Scalawagons, Ozoplaning, and Road close. Unlike others, I rather like Lucky Bucky - possibly because it was one of the first Oz books I read, so its version of Oz doesn't seem skewed to me. Even those who dislike all of Neill will probably admit that he doesn't go as far overboard on gratuitous puns and other silliness in it as he did in his first two books. Edit out some of the italics and it's quite readable. Ozzy prized possession: No question now - the author's copy (lettered "D" of the 350-strong numbered edition - I don't know who got "A"-"C") of GLASS CAT. Long enough post for today. See everybody tomorrow. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 21:18:33 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> Subject: OZ DIGEST Dave, I really appreciate your picking up the load of keeping OZ on line with the Digest. I was a part of the OZ FANS net and later received the OZ Times. It would be interesting, for someone with a historical bent, to remind us of the history of these earlier "publications." Mike Burns - "Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson in Oz," by Ruth Berman? Could you supply a description of this item? I am a Holmes and Oz fan but have missed this one. You must be a generation X'er if you see "Was" and "Wicked" as "simply different." A twelve-year-old girl and a forty-year-old axe murderer are simply different too, but I wouldn't want the latter in my house. I don't want "Was" and "Wicked" in my house either. Unfortunately, I bought both and read them. I would never recommend either to a twelve-year-old girl or anyone who has the Oz "spirit." There is a lot of pathology loose in the world. One thing it does is to take something "good" and pervert it and call it art. Many examples come to mind. I think we have a sense for such things. Just ask yourself which books you have read that you wish you hadn't because they leave a slimy residue in your mind that you can't get rid of. I don't feel the same way about "Sir Harold and the Gnome King" or "A Barnstormer In Oz." They are, as David Hulan points out, simply "heretical." Both authors clearly loved Oz and were not in need of therapy. "IMO" I think the original "Flatland" appeared as a little paperback. It was reprinted in James R. Newman's four volume set, "The World of Mathematics." It is in volume four, available at most libraries if anyone is interested. Does someone have a reference for "Sphereland?" Regards, Bear (:<) ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 22:39:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Oz and Ends, the Ozette = Mombi Theory, and Prasmthrasm the Warlock , with the Infinite Neck 1) Herman, what is the address for the Oz and Ends Book Shop? I got to get a catalog. 2) Eric, I know my theory that Ozette (Mrs. Pastoria) = Mombi is absurd. I freely admit it was ludicrous from the beginning, when I originally intended it to be a half-truth Plumly the Four-Horned Cow tells over during her trial of Ozma in The Woozy of Oz. Though now I must admit I'm actually starting to buy into it, and trying to work out Pastoria's reaction to seeing Mombi alive. (The Royal Literary Critic of Oz's suggestion: First he kisses her, then he tries to strangle her.) The whole point of posting the idea was to find out whether there were any historical problems with the theory. So if anyone knows of why Ozette couldn't have been Mombi, please tell me so that I don't write it in as THE TRUTH as far as the Lurline's Machine series is concerned. 3) OK, anyone know a good publisher besides Buckethead which is not likely to mangle my book? 4) Bastinda replies to DavidXOE: Broiling? Now THAT would be an interesting form of torture for the disloyal. And my spell can be only be broken by the Wishing Stone of Rugle, which was swallowed by Prasmthrasm the Warlock with the Infinite Neck, so you can forget finding it. So quit this babbling and get back to work in the fields! We have to increase pumpkin exports be 15% this year! Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 22:09:54 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-03-96 And happy weekend to all of us...here I go.... 1. I just wondered if anyone said EE-vil-doo, since he evil did. Fred Meyer once suggested that pronunciation to me when I was working on the "Pronunciad," and it's always tickled me. An alternate to the norm for Kalidah is Kol-EYED-uh, which suggests that it's a clumsy sort of beast. 2. Welcome to the DIGEST, Herm. For those who don't know him, Herm Bieber is probably the very BEST source of Oz books. My shop is good, but it's a shop, and that means we have to pay overhead. Herm doesn't. His prices are more that reasonable and his resources are nothing short of phenomenal. (Herman, I guess I've just sent you a valentine here!) 3. Eric -- A while back I'd have agreed with your statement: "I think all of the leads on finding the actual film footage have dried up by now," but then they found the audio recording of the reprise to "over the Rainbow." I know that's not the same as film and that film from that time period is very perishable, but my hope has been rekindled. Let me dream.... 4. Aaron -- Maybe that Ozma Robinma explains why there are so many of us Winkies named Robin! At one time, we had at least four Robins present: Hess, Masterson, Olderman, and some other gal whose last name I've forgotten. And if anyone wonders why a gal who lives in East Texas considers herself a Winkie, all I can say is that only my body is in Houston. My heart is in the Portland, Oregon/Seattle, Washington area and I've been going to Winkies since Gjovaag was a kid/teenybopper. A very cute teenybopper. 5. David, please let me use DIGEST space to thank and compliment Ken Cope for the sketches he's already done in preparation for illustrating a story in this year's OZIANA. Most of y'all probably don't know it, but he's not only quite articulate (which you DID know, if you've read his comments), but he's also a VERY talented fellow with a pencil. Ken, they should know you used to be a Disney illustrator. I don't recall your ever having shared that with the DIGEST group, and I hope you don't mind that I just did so. Guys, he's just as good as you'd anticipate, knowing he was hired by the finest. Buy OZIANA '96 and find out. (Uh, end of OZIANA ad.) (Also, end of longer-than-usual post.) --Robin O. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 23:56:26 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Eric said: >Er, isn't this what I said in my earlier reply? Nope.........Button-Bright said it......... Bill W. David Bedell asked: > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-31-96 > Can someone refresh my memory as to Krumbic witches? I don't recall that > reference. You can find this answer in the Encyclopedia Oziana (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/) by navigating to the Characters section, and there select the "Roles" index. On the Roles index page you will find "Sorcery". Select that and it will give you all the names that appear in the first fourteen books (plus a few more) that are characters into magic. Krumbic Witch is in the list. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sunday 04-Feb-96 01:23:50 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy things Well, I got _The Game's Afoot_ from the library today and read _Sherlock Holmes in Oz_. Good, fun story! I don't want to say anything about the plot so as not to spoil it for everyone, but I recommend it! I also finished _Glass Cat of Oz_. I really enjoyed this tale in which Bungle, Trot, Capt'n Bill, the Hungry Tiger and two new "immigrants" to Oz, Barry and Becky Klien, save Oogaboo from the Bad Lads, who have taken possesion of Oogaboo's gun tree and plan to use it to take over the little Ozian provence. My favorite part of the story was Bungle & co.'s visit to the Cows of Cowville who are a hospitable race of bovine equivalents of the Houyhnhnms in _Gulliver's Travels_. George O'Connor's illustrations are the best that I've seen in an ECP book--very whimsical, and I'm intrigued by his somewhat Gene Tierney-looking Ozma! In all, another delightful Oz book from Books of Wonder! Thanks, David and Peter! With the talk about _Sir Harold_, I'd like to ask the group about my *Second* Oz book ( while I wait for the first to be published I'll write another! :) ). This next Ozzy installment of mine will revolve around Ozma and I mean to widely develop Ozma's character (as I did the Adepts' in my now finished Ozzy Opus #1), but I want to ask everyone how they feel about an (heretical?) idea I have: Giving Ozma a beau -- An idea whose time has come, or a definite, complete, unequivocal No-No??? I remember in one of the FF someone proposing to Ozma and her flatly refusing for reasons that make me wonder if giving the most beautiful girl ruler in Baumgea a romantic life is going over the line. Does anyone remember which book this was and/or who made the proposition, as I can't for the life of me remember... Besides David Hulan and myself, are there any other Southern Winkies on this list? ( I'm thinking of throwing a party in April or May, halfway between conventions; Excuse for having the party to be determined...to celebrate Jellia Jamb's birthday or something... :) ) Both _Flatland_ and _Sphereland_ have been re-published as nice-format paperbacks by Barnes and Noble (Harper and Row) and is available at their stores (should be in library too). For all the newcomers to the list, in case you're perplexed by all the abriviations, I'd though I'd post this brief list: FF - Famous Forty (i.e. the 40 original "official" Oz books) ILL - Inter-Library Loan BoW - Books of Wonder (Ozzy publisher) ECP - Emerald City Press (Subsiduary of BoW) (If anyone wants to add to this list, please do.) Also, I'd just like to explain my personal convention for abreviating Oz book names...I abreviate the major words in the title, then use an underscore to represent the word of/in and then 'Oz'. So some names/abrevs. would be: Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz - DW_Oz The Emerald City of Oz - EC_Oz The Patchwork Girl of Oz - PG_Oz The Wicked Witch of Oz - WW_Oz The Good Witch of Oz - GW_Oz -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 5, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 10:31:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Old Ozzish 1) DavidXOE, everything so far in my version of Old Ozzish is based on some sort of source (though the source material gets rather tenacious, e.g. I accepted the names of two dishes that Ozma is disgusted by in The Woozy of Oz which my brother made up as genuine Old Ozzish). My interpretation of the sources is definitely open to question. Currently I'm waiting for someone to post something on Laumer's version of Old Ozzish so I can get my version in sync with his. WARNING: THE FOLLOWING ITEM MAY BE CONSIDERED A SPOILER. READ IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. 2) Dave Hardenbrook, I would strongly recommend against Ozma getting a boyfriend because we have a precedent from Laumer (pardon the bluntness) that Ozma isn't interested in men in such a fashion, and I'm afraid I have to agree with him. Ozma was raised as a male, and while in the real world people raised as the wrong gender usually adapt to their new gender role eventually, there are those who don't manage to adapt. My coauthor, The Royal Literary Critic of Oz, and I happen to consider Ozma to be of the latter group, and as such we have written her thus in The Woozy of Oz, down to her having sworn people to never reveal that she was ever a boy and sneaking out of the Emerald City from time to time pretending that she still is a boy. Contact Tyler to find out who Laumer has her interested in. If Ozma ever gets a boyfriend, it will probably be under very unusual circumstances. By the way, Ozma is proposed to in Kabumpo in Oz by Prince Pompadore (I think). Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 08:46:21 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-04-96 > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Bastinda and other stuff > > 2) Currently I'm only toying with including jitterbugs in the Lurline's > Machine series (The Woozy of Oz + Hiergargo and the Queasy in Oz + A Civil > War in Oz + ... + Till Lurline Returns to Oz). In such a case they'll > probably get twisted in some way. For comparison, the Royal Literary > Critic of Oz and I are thinking of having Ev invade Oz and have Evardo XV > have as one of his grudges that years earlier Ozma turned down his > marriage proposal, which is without question a spoof of Ozma marrying > Evardo in Sir Harold and the Gnome King. *sigh* Okay, whatever. You do realize, though, Aaron, that by continuously posting so many details and asking so many questions about your books here, you're going to give too much away and either spoil the stories for your potential readers, or turn enough of us Old Guard fans off with your out-from-left-field ideas that we're not going to want to read it. Moderation is a good thing, as is leaving your readers wanting more. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/3/96 > > Nathan Faut: > You can bet that -I- noticed the incorrect title on the copyright page of > GLASS CAT! Besides that, the ISBN numbers on that page are dummies, both > ending in "HH-H" instead of "44-6" for the HC and "45-4" for the PB. However, > the rest of the book is completely different. I dunno, I noticed several words that were the same, such as "the," "Ozma," "Dorothy," etc. But at least in "Glass Cat" they were in different places... > As to what value it might add to the book, probably nothing, since every copy > printed has the same error. Of course, if it becomes wildly popular and they > have to go into a second and third printing, and they correct the error in > those, then the erroneous copyright page would be proof of a first printing. > (Naturally I hope it becomes wildly popular and goes into a second and third > printing, but I'm not holding my breath...) Since "Queen Ann" isn't sold out after more than two years, with quite a few still to go, I think it's probably wise not to be holding your breath. > Eric Gjovaag: > The fact that Yew is civilized doesn't -necessarily- mean that it's not in > the Oz universe; it certainly lowers the probability, but it doesn't rule it > out entirely. We only know for sure that Oz itself isn't civilized, and the > Good Witch of the North seems to attribute that in part to the Deadly Desert. But you've gotta admit, it's a lot less likely to be in the Nonestic Ocean than any place that actually HAS been visited in the Oz books... > My objection to DOT AND TOT isn't that it's offensive, but that it's boring. True . > I don't think most of us who are speculating about whether it was -really- > necessary to alter the text in PG are being critical of BoW; I'm certainly > not. Oh, then you must have missed all the calls for boycotts and speeches about how this will lead to book burning... > It's hard to imagine that the "Oz Squad" comics are any more "adult" than > WICKED - or probably than "Mayhem in Munchkinland". Tik-Tok going on a murder rampage in New York City and Dorothy having an affair with Jack Kennedy is more adult (and I use "adult" in its negative conotation here) than just about any other Oz I've read, IMHO. But at least in the current issues they seem to have gotten away from that. > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Oz and Ends, the Ozette = Mombi Theory, and Prasmthrasm the Warlock , > with the Infinite Neck > > 1) Herman, what is the address for the Oz and Ends Book Shop? I got to > get a catalog. Since it looks like it may be a while before Herm can read and reply to the Digest, I'll give a hand here: Oz and Ends Book Shoppe 14 Dorset Drive Kenilworth, NJ 07033-1417 Ph: 908-276-8368 I know I put this address in the pre-distribution copy of the FAQ, however, and I know you, Aaron read it. Did you not save it? Do I need to get cracking on getting version 1.0 out ASAP? > 2) Eric, I know my theory that Ozette (Mrs. Pastoria) = Mombi is absurd. > I freely admit it was ludicrous from the beginning, when I originally > intended it to be a half-truth Plumly the Four-Horned Cow tells over > during her trial of Ozma in The Woozy of Oz. Though now I must admit I'm > actually starting to buy into it, and trying to work out Pastoria's > reaction to seeing Mombi alive. (The Royal Literary Critic of Oz's > suggestion: First he kisses her, then he tries to strangle her.) The > whole point of posting the idea was to find out whether there were any > historical problems with the theory. So if anyone knows of why Ozette > couldn't have been Mombi, please tell me so that I don't write it in as > THE TRUTH as far as the Lurline's Machine series is concerned. IIRC, Ozette first appears in "Mister Flint in Oz," which I don't have and unfortunately haven't read (Anybody have a spare copy they'd be willing to give up?). Ozette later appears, albeit briefly, in another Buckethead book, ISTR it being "Betsy Bobbin in Oz." I don't know where these books fall in the HACC, but as in both books it's a full-fledged in-the-flesh appearance, and not ghostly fantasms or holographic projections or anything like that, if either book comes after "Lost King" (where Mombi is dealt with once and for all -- as I'm sure you know), then it's probably impossible for Mombi and Ozette to be the same person. (I say "probably" because I know that if you REALLY, REALLY want to, you will make them one-and-the-same, and come up with some odd explanation for why.) > 3) OK, anyone know a good publisher besides Buckethead which is not > likely to mangle my book? I also included a "So you have an Oz book you want to have published, eh?" section in the FAQ... > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-03-96 > > 3. Eric -- A while back I'd have agreed with your statement: "I think all > of the leads on finding the actual film footage have dried up by now," > but then they found the audio recording of the reprise to "over the > Rainbow." I know that's not the same as film and that film from that time > period is very perishable, but my hope has been rekindled. Let me dream.... Well, perhaps I should have said "current leads." New ones can pop up all the time, especially with John Fricke out there sniffing around... > 4. Aaron -- Maybe that Ozma Robinma explains why there are so many of us > Winkies named Robin! At one time, we had at least four Robins present: > Hess, Masterson, Olderman, and some other gal whose last name I've forgotten. Helfrinch. (For those of you who haven't been to Winkies, guess which of the above Robins is a man!) > And if anyone wonders why a gal who lives in East Texas considers herself > a Winkie, all I can say is that only my body is in Houston. My heart is > in the Portland, Oregon/Seattle, Washington area and I've been going to > Winkies since Gjovaag was a kid/teenybopper. A very cute teenybopper. *blush* The Oogaboos remember me from even further back than you do, Robin. Just ask Karyl or Lynn sometime about what I was like when I was twelve. > From: "W. R. Wright" > Subject: > > Eric said: > >Er, isn't this what I said in my earlier reply? > Nope.........Button-Bright said it......... I think this is getting silly. (Me? Silly? NAH!) > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy things > > With the talk about _Sir Harold_, I'd like to ask the group about my > *Second* Oz book ( while I wait for the first to be published I'll > write another! :) ). This next Ozzy installment of mine will revolve > around Ozma and I mean to widely develop Ozma's character (as I did the > Adepts' in my now finished Ozzy Opus #1), but I want to ask everyone > how they feel about an (heretical?) idea I have: Giving Ozma a beau -- > An idea whose time has come, or a definite, complete, unequivocal No-No??? Depends on who it is she falls for, and how it's handled. Remember, however, that Ozma is a powerful fairy, a member of Lurline's band. Fairies may be above such mundane human things as love and relationships -- they are immortal, after all. But if it's handled well, perhaps it could work! (But Dave, I REALLY don't think a week-long mad passionate affair would work at ALL!) > I remember in one of the FF someone proposing to Ozma and her flatly > refusing for reasons that make me wonder if giving the most beautiful girl > ruler in Baumgea a romantic life is going over the line. Does anyone > remember which book this was and/or who made the proposition, as I can't for > the life of me remember... "Kabumpo in Oz." And of course Ozma turned it down, seeing as how Pompa proposed after having JUST met her, she didn't know a thing about him or his parents, there may have been religious differences, or for all she knew he left the toilet seat up! > Besides David Hulan and myself, are there any other Southern Winkies on this > list? ( I'm thinking of throwing a party in April or May, halfway between > conventions; Excuse for having the party to be determined...to celebrate > Jellia Jamb's birthday or something... :) ) Gee, we've never even needed an excuse here in Oogaboo, we just throw one whenever we think of it... --Eric "Hmm, maybe we need to have an online Oz party some time..." Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 13:22:51 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Ozma's Beau and Other Things Dave, regarding giving Ozma a beau, something about that does not seem right. If you accept some of what Laumer did with her (and there is some logic behind that), then she would probably have to be working very hard to overcome that. Richard, I got a Barnes and Noble copy of Dionys Burger's _Sphereland_. The copyright year is 1965 and the ISBN is 0-06-463574-0 (librarians love it when you give them the ISBN). I have seen other editions; you might want to see if Dover has one. Among other things, I think Dover is reprinting the Baum books as well. It's pronounced kah-LEE-dah. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 13:37:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Civilized Island of Yew Just a thought: Yew not being in the same world as Oz because it's civilized wouldn't be a valid objection because there is an island of Civilized Monkeys in Oz's world. (Come to think of it, has anyone gotten around to naming that place? Hmm... Maybe since in The Woozy of Oz I call Hartilaf's valley Lari and Scowleyow's kingdom Kerli, maybe the Island of Civilized Monkeys ought to be called Shimp. I was thinking of having that air battle...) Come to think of it, since the events in Lurline's Machine happen on a planetwide, no, systemwide level, Yew will probably have to get mentioned in the subseries somewhere if it's on the Inside World... But for the moment my coauthor and I are arguing about what happens to the Anutherians... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 15:47:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Christine R. Gray" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-04-96 The book Flatland is available for $1 from Dover. There was a mate to this book; I think the title is Sphere Land? or something like that. christine gray ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 14:47:11 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-04-96 OZIANA anthology: The IWOC board has considered this project. I suppose if I told them I'd type the thing and set it up, they'd approve it. The idea is, frankly, daunting right now. Anyone else want to volunteer to help me type? I have a Mac and I use MS Word. I think that means I need another Mac user with the same program to help, so that the discs would be the same. Like Button Bright, I dunno. I can barely push the buttons in the correct sequence on the programs I'm using. I do not really understand computers. I figure for a 51-year-old-lady, I'm doing just fine hitting the little buttons.... Anyway, any interest out there? Old OZIANAs have some fine (and some not-so-fine) stuff in them, but retyping is definitely required. Oh, as editor, I do have all of the back issues. GLASS CAT: O.K. The only ECP book I've ever read is QUEEN ANN because I know, like, and trust Eric and Karyl. I think I'll invest in Dave's book, too--for the same reasons. It'll probably be a very good read. ERIC: Do ya think we made Herm blush with our rave reviews? He doesn't really need more business, but the business really does need more Herman Biebers. EVERYONE: It sounds like those of you who have never been to a Club convention would really enjoy yourself at one. For those of you who want to collect the books, and not just read them, the convention auctions are a very good way to augment a collection. Prices are frequently cheap enough so that we dealers bid, but very few dealers will bid against an individual collector. That wouldn't be Ozzy, and the conventions are very Ozzy. Full of fun. Also, you'll find yourself a part of an extended family there rather quickly. Folks are friendly. Busy, sometimes, but friendly. It'd be fun to meet some of you! ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 16:20:27 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/4/96 Eric Gjovaag: I second your call for omnibus reprints of OZIANA by decade. I have all of them from the '90s, I think, but would like to have older ones and would be willing to pay $20-25 per decade. Besides the typos, JACK PUMPKINHEAD has at least two pictures that are apparently upside-down. Who seems to be taking Oz overly seriously? I haven't seen any evidence of it during the time I've been reading the digest. That is, people are serious in their opinions, but they're not letting it spill over into personal animosity, which is the only thing I can see that would stop it from being fun. We know that Coo-ee-oh used more machinery (magically activated) than we're shown other witches using, but we have no particular evidence that that marks the distinction between Krumbic and other witches. Ozwoz uses machinery and technology, too, but he's a wozard, not a Krumbic wizard. Herm Bieber: I answered your question in E-mail, but in case anyone else has encountered this problem: when you just double-click on a document's icon, and the document was created by an application you don't have on your hard disk, the Macintosh will try to open it using SimpleText. Unfortunately, SimpleText is limited to files under about 2K. What you have to do is open a word processor and then open the document from inside the word processor. Most Ozzy Digests are more than 2K; I think I've only gotten two in the past ten days or so that weren't. Dave Hardenbrook: Glad you enjoyed GLASS CAT. I'm amused by the fact that your favorite bit was the cows of Cowville. That whole chapter was inspired as a bit of good-humored retaliation at my friend Bruce Coville, after he named the title character of his book MY TEACHER GLOWS IN THE DARK "Hoo-lan", and made him a short, fat, bald-headed blue alien. I am neither short nor blue... (And my name isn't pronounced "Hoo-lan" either; it's pronounced like "human" only with an "l" instead of an "m".) The proposal to Ozma was by Prince Pompadore in KABUMPO, as I'm sure six or seven other people will have told you. Mogodore in JACK PUMPKINHEAD was going to marry Ozma, but that was by force. Those are, as best I recall, the only instances in the FF where Ozma's marriageability was a plot point. In Shanower's graphic novel, THE ICE KING OF OZ, the Ice King not only proposes marriage but kidnaps Ozma when she turns him down. And in the Oz Comics the Nome King wants to marry Ozma, again more by force than persuasion. There may be other instances in books I haven't read. It's only my opinion, and if you write the book and get it published I'm sure I'll read it, but I think that giving Ozma a romantic interest would at least verge on the heretical - as would giving Dorothy or Trot or Betsy a romantic interest (presumably after letting them age a bit). It would involve a major change in an established character. If Jenny Jump were available (unfortunately, she won't be until 2015 without permission from the Neill estate) she could have a romantic interest; that's within the limits of her character as so far defined. I don't know how difficult it would be to get permission from the Neill estate, but I may check and see. While I don't like Neill's first two books at all, I do like some of his characters - particularly Jenny, Number Nine, and the Jones "cousins" - and would like to be able to use them in my own stories. (Actually, I did, in one of the missing chapters of GLASS CAT. But I knew I'd have to cut that one as soon as I decided to submit it for publication; I wrote the book for my own amusement and that of a few friends, and only sent it off to BoW when some of the friends said it was good enough to be published. A fair number of my cuts involved removing references to material still under copyright.) David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 16:57:08 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 02-03-96 *************************************************************************** Are you expecting a nice big tax refund this year? Do you feel lucky playing the lottery? Any nearby banks need robbing? If so: consider this offer I saw on rec.arts.books.marketplace: __________________________________________________________________ Wizard first issue, fine, primary binding, all points---$20,000 -- John Anthony Miller PHANTOM BOOKSHOP 805.641.3488 http://www.phantoms.com/~phantom/ The Books of Stan Deyo, Richard Senate John Anthony Miller Etchings, OZ, Jack London, E.R. Burroughs, Unusual __________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 23:20:01 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: Ozma Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman writes: > whole point of posting the idea was to find out whether there were any > historical problems with the theory. So if anyone knows of why Ozette > couldn't have been Mombi, please tell me so that I don't write it in as > THE TRUTH as far as the Lurline's Machine series is concerned. "Mr. Flint in Oz" is hopelessly incompatible with Ozette being Mombi. Of course, this is not a FF book, so you could always just ignore it. In "The Magic of Oz" Baum makes it clear that Ozma was born at the beginning of time. Apparently Lurline transformed her into a baby and at least temporarily took away her memories of being an immortal. I have always wondered if this was because she had committed some horrible crime (in the eyes of the fairies, that is). Dave Hardenbrook writes: > This next Ozzy installment of mine will revolve > around Ozma and I mean to widely develop Ozma's character (as I did the > Adepts' in my now finished Ozzy Opus #1), but I want to ask everyone > how they feel about an (heretical?) idea I have: Giving Ozma a beau -- > An idea whose time has come, or a definite, complete, unequivocal No-No??? In my opinion this is a definite No-No. On the other hand, she might be friends with a young man, just as she is friends with Dorothy, Betsy, and Trot. The young man might then fall in love with Ozma, in which case he would likely misinterpret her friendliness. Ozma's complete lack of romantic feelings would tend to blind her to the symptoms until the problem had become serious. Love, as old Blinky once noted, is extremely hard to kill. > I remember in one of the FF someone proposing to Ozma and her flatly > refusing for reasons that make me wonder if giving the most beautiful girl > ruler in Baumgea a romantic life is going over the line. Does anyone > remember which book this was and/or who made the proposition, as I can't for > the life of me remember... In "Kabumpo in Oz" the Prince had to marry the proper princess to keep his kingdom from disappearing. Kabumpo decided that Ozma was the proper princess since she was the most proper princess around. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 01:04:00 -0500 From: Tinhat1@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest! Dear Dave, Is there another way with I can access the digest? My mailserver is repackaging it as two parts...the second needs to be downloaded and I am missing portions of it frequently...not sure why. Perhaps my downloader doesn't like it...??? I receive another digest as regular mail...and it is frequently much longer than the Oz digest. Any ideas? Linda tinhat1@aol.com (I'll bet Glinda never has these problems with her Book!) [Please E-mail Linda personally, in case it doesn't show up in her Digest. Maybe all you AOL-ers especially can find a solution. :) --Dave] ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 23:31:09 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-04-96 After a fanfare like that from Robin, I've got no wiggling out from all the scribbling ahead of me for this summer's Oziana. Thanks, Robin, I'm glad you like the sketches, this is just the impetus I need to make the time to draw more of my favorite places and people. Now about the old East/West debate. I'm obliged to keep it simple, and if not sweet, at least not stupid. I'm working weekends, enjoying a few hours of Swiftian satire, and composing a reasoned position on a slightly more mathematical view of Oz. It seems that there are sufficient readers of this digest inclined to view the whole East/West "problem" as solvable by a scaling of negative one along the X-axis. When esteemed early members of the International Wizard of Oz Club such as Martin Gardner use Oz to illuminate scientific principles, I don't think we should leap to simplistic conclusions that rely on second guesses about the creative process. One can peel off a layer of oil paint to reveal an earlier drawing, but not without altering that which the artist chose to unveil. The maps presented in the pages of Tik-Tok, Lost Princess and and as late as Ozoplaning, all stick to the Winkies on the West, but right hand side, of Oz. That's what got published, and stories about what might have happened prior to publication are outside of the context of the FF. For all we know, Baum decided that Oz was the kind of place where the compass was different from anywhere else. He might have been extemporizing on a deadline, but the position taken was adhered to in subsequent work. That statement is an example of conjecture, and so is the story of the compass rose confusion. There is no compass rose on the picture of the Magic Lantern Slide, and even Mr. Hearn is the victim of a correction of the compass rose in his (now flawed) reproduction of Tik-Tok's endpapers. -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ahclem@netcom.com http://www.ozcot.com/ ============================================================================= Date: Monday 05-Feb-96 00:35:43 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Fairies in Love Eric wrote: >Fairies may be above such mundane human things as love and relationships ... I don't think so. Fairies fall in love in all manner of literary works from Shakespere's _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ to Glibert and Sullivan's _Iolanthe_ ( Is _Iolanthe_'s Queen of the Fairies Lurline??? :) ). Hmmmmm... Nope...In spite of what's been said, I'm adamant...I'm going to write an Ozzy love story for Ozma ( I'm really one for heeding advice, aren't I? :) ) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 6, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Monday 05-Feb-96 16:13:16 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Digest Table of Contents Someone suggested that each issue of the Digest have a table of contents. I think that this is a good idea, but I recognize that many people have servers that automatically name replies to a Digest message "RE: Ozzy Digest" which is not very informative. If anyone has any suggestions on how I might write a program to build a table of contents for each Digest from everyone's messages, please let me know, and I'll try to work something out too (I could do it "manually" I suppose, but it might be rather time-consuming). -- Dave ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 07:02:35 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Eric wrote: >I think this is getting silly. (Me? Silly? NAH!) .....a little silly helps make a happy day.........:) Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 08:22:55 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-05-96 > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Old Ozzish > > WARNING: THE FOLLOWING ITEM MAY BE CONSIDERED A SPOILER. READ IT AT > YOUR OWN RISK. > > 2) Dave Hardenbrook, I would strongly recommend against Ozma getting a > boyfriend because we have a precedent from Laumer (pardon the bluntness) > that Ozma isn't interested in men in such a fashion, and I'm afraid I > have to agree with him. But since when does Dave (or any other Oz author) have to agree with Laumer (or any other Oz author, for that matter)? For that matter, do we have to agree with you? > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Ozma's Beau and Other Things > > Dave, regarding giving Ozma a beau, something about that does not seem right. But if Dave does his job right, it WILL seem right. But that's the hard part... > It's pronounced kah-LEE-dah. In your opinion, of course. > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Civilized Island of Yew > > Just a thought: Yew not being in the same world as Oz because it's > civilized wouldn't be a valid objection because there is an island of > Civilized Monkeys in Oz's world. True, hadn't thought of that. But this is one small pocket of civilization amongst the rest of the Continent of Imagination. Yew, unlike the Island of Civilized Monkeys, is inhabited by humans, so it's something of a different case. (I'm not saying Yew CAN'T be part of the rest of that world, just that it's unlikely, in my opinion. But the final chapter of "Yew" makes it clear that there is no longer anyone who believes in magic or fairies there, making it more akin to our own world.) > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-04-96 > > OZIANA anthology: The IWOC board has considered this project. I suppose > if I told them I'd type the thing and set it up, they'd approve it. The > idea is, frankly, daunting right now. Anyone else want to volunteer to > help me type? I have a Mac and I use MS Word. I think that means I need > another Mac user with the same program to help, so that the discs would > be the same. Like Button Bright, I dunno. I can barely push the buttons > in the correct sequence on the programs I'm using. I do not really > understand computers. I figure for a 51-year-old-lady, I'm doing just > fine hitting the little buttons.... Anyway, any interest out there? Old > OZIANAs have some fine (and some not-so-fine) stuff in them, but retyping > is definitely required. Oh, as editor, I do have all of the back issues. I'm not sure you'd necessarily need someone else with a Mac and MSWord, all you'd need is someone with a modem who could send you the results electronically. But I DO happen to have a Mac and MSWord, and I'd love to help out. (No need to send back issues, I have every issue now in one form or another.) I can't do it any time soon, but maybe this summer... > ERIC: Do ya think we made Herm blush with our rave reviews? He doesn't > really need more business, but the business really does need more Herman > Biebers. No kidding! When I think of all the great deals I've gotten from Herm and Judy over the years, then I see all the other prices folks are charging, and the fact that they aren't carrying later and poorer copies that most people can't afford... > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/4/96 > > Eric Gjovaag: > I second your call for omnibus reprints of OZIANA by decade. I have all of > them from the '90s, I think, but would like to have older ones and would be > willing to pay $20-25 per decade. I hope they won't cost THAT much! > Besides the typos, JACK PUMPKINHEAD has at least two pictures that are > apparently upside-down. Ah, yes, another problem that plagued the Thompson books. Examples of this also happen in "Royal Book" and "Wishing Horse" that I can think of off the top of my head. > Who seems to be taking Oz overly seriously? I haven't seen any evidence of it > during the time I've been reading the digest. That is, people are serious in > their opinions, but they're not letting it spill over into personal > animosity, which is the only thing I can see that would stop it from being > fun. Perhaps what I should say is that a few people here are taking themselves to seriously, and not seeming to recognize the beliefs or opinions of others as being equally valid. (Granted, I've probably come across like this myself a few times...) > We know that Coo-ee-oh used more machinery (magically activated) than we're > shown other witches using, but we have no particular evidence that that marks > the distinction between Krumbic and other witches. Ozwoz uses machinery and > technology, too, but he's a wozard, not a Krumbic wizard. But Ozwoz's magic machinery was different from Coo-ee-oh's -- more user-friendly, IMHO. Besides, maybe he didn't like the conotations of being a Krumbic, so he made up a name for his type of magic instead. > From: cummingss@kenyon.edu > Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 02-03-96 > > Are you expecting a nice big tax refund this year? > > Do you feel lucky playing the lottery? > > Any nearby banks need robbing? > > If so: consider this offer I saw on rec.arts.books.marketplace: > __________________________________________________________________ > Wizard first issue, fine, primary binding, all points---$20,000 > -- > John Anthony Miller > PHANTOM BOOKSHOP 805.641.3488 > http://www.phantoms.com/~phantom/ > The Books of Stan Deyo, Richard Senate > John Anthony Miller Etchings, OZ, Jack London, E.R. Burroughs, > Unusual > __________________________________________________________________ If the copy is THAT good, $20K is probably about right! > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Fairies in Love > > Eric wrote: > >Fairies may be above such mundane human things as love and relationships ... > > I don't think so. Fairies fall in love in all manner of literary works from > Shakespere's _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ to Glibert and Sullivan's _Iolanthe_ But are these Ozian fairies? > Hmmmmm... > Nope...In spite of what's been said, I'm adamant...I'm going to write an > Ozzy love story for Ozma ( I'm really one for heeding advice, aren't I? :) ) GO FOR IT! --Eric "Just make sure he's an incredibly nice young man, we don't want Ozma falling in love with someone who isn't a quality fellow" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 12:37:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Back to the Drawing Board... 1) I guess that kills Pastoria first kissing then strangling Mombi... Does Ozma ever meet Ozette? If so, I guess I'll have to kill Plumly the Four-Horned Cow's claim that Ozette = Mombi completely or come up with an even more outrageous claim. Maybe Pastoria had two wives! No, even better, . 2) Concerning the four Robins: Maybe I ought to consider throwing in an Oz Robinus as well... 3) What do we know about the origins of Ozwoz the Wonderful. I've got some suspicions as to his ancestry and past actions, but has someone beaten me to it first? As I remember, he appears in Ozoplanning with the Wizard of Oz, so he should be public domain. 4) This whole thing about fairies being born at the beginning of time seems bound to cause trouble. While it is usually interpreted in connection with Ozma, the people of Oz themselves have been called a fairy people, yet clearly they all they all have existed much less time than the Oz universe. I'm beginning to suspect that there exists more than one type of fairy, the 'highest' having existed since the beginning of time and probably not very human and the 'lowest' having existed not so long and being pretty much human. Ozma is probably closer to 'lower' than to 'higher', as she seems to be pretty much hindistinguishable from ordinary magic-working humans I cannot accept the Pendexterian theory that a previously existing Ozma was born to the mortal Ozette, as this is in contradiction to The Lost King of Oz, which states that Ozma was adopted by Pastoria, not born as his biological daughter, though the idea is interesting. Perhaps this whole thing about fairies existing since the beginning of time is an exaggeration, perhaps invented by Lurline to bolster the reputation of her species. (: 5) What is the name of that guy Planetty married? He keeps popping up in conversation between me and the Royal Literary Critic of Oz, and I can't remember his name. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 16:38:33 -0500 (EST) From: David Bedell Subject: Enchanted Island of Yew; Dover Books How many reprints of _Yew_ have there been? Any in recent years? I know Dover reprinted several of Baum's non-Oz fantasies, but they hadn't done _Yew_ the last time I checked. (That was 10 years ago, so I don't know what they've come out with since. Does Dover have an Internet address or website?) David Bedell, University of Bridgeport, CT, USA ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 00:10:05 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/5/96 Well, I just got back from going shopping with my wife for a winter-weight suit; she's taking the train (she has an ear infection that makes the idea of flying, shall we say, Unattractive) to Chicago, leaving tomorrow night, to interview for a job there. If she decides it's what she wants, I'm retiring and probably won't be at Winkie Conference this year, though it's not impossible. I should still be here through April, though, Dave, so if you have your party then, I should be able to make it. (I have to get our house sold if we're moving, and houses aren't selling that briskly in SoCal these days...) Aaron Adelman: I'm not sure I buy the Laumer theory about Ozma as you imply it (not having actually read any of his books), but I don't think Ozma is likely to have a romantic relationship with either sex for other reasons. Eric Gjovaag: OK, nit-picker! (As one myself, I prefer the term "precisionist", but it's one of those irregular predicates - I'm a precisionist, you're a nit-picker, he's too dense to understand metaphor...) GLASS CAT has words in common with MAGIC DISHPAN, but I doubt if it has a complete sentence in common, and if it does it doesn't have many! I understood that the hardcover edition of QUEEN ANN is sold out, at least. But no, I'm not holding my breath that GLASS CAT will go into a second printing... Yeah, I missed any calls for boycotts and equations to book burning regarding the changes in PG and D&T - I only started getting the OD on 1/25 or 1/26, and while I've downloaded and read the December posts, I haven't seen a source for the January ones yet. I disagree entirely with any such calls, but since I haven't seen any in the past two weeks, I think the rabid ones have probably subsided by now. Those who have discussed it lately have been quite civilized, as far as I can tell. Have you read WICKED? Some of its events are at least as adult as Tik-Tok going on a murder rampage in New York (a tiktok robot murders an ovine professor, rather messily) or Dorothy having an affair with Jack Kennedy (the Wicked Witch of the West has an affair with a Winkie prince). Marcia's also getting some interest from a company in Portland, so it might be that we'd be in a position to attend an Oogaboo party if she takes that job rather than the one in Chicago. (I'd certainly rather move to Portland than Chicago, and so would she, but more would depend on the nature of the job offers...assuming that she gets both.) This, of course, assumes that we'd be invited to an Oogaboo party if we lived in the area. Robin Olderman: I volunteer to assist in typing up old OZIANAs, and I have a Mac running MS Word. (6.0.1 at the moment, but I can save in older Word formats if you have one of those. Or I could do the final formatting if you'd like; I'm pretty good at that. And Word 6 has a lot more page-layout features than earlier versions. I also have a Very Large font library.) The extent to which I can do it will depend on whether I retire soon or not - if I do, I'll have plenty of time for that sort of thing, but even if not I could probably manage to type in an OZIANA every couple of months, so I could do a decade's worth in less than a year and a half. Just for the record, while I answer to "Dave", I really prefer to be called "David". And since we have another "Dave" running this digest... Linda: I gave what advice I could in E-mail, since I'm on AOL too. But if you're not using Mac software I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I've never had any problem other than finding the downloaded file if I wasn't careful. Ken Cope: How's this for an answer to the great East-West conundrum? The world of Oz, for whatever reason, has its magnetic poles reversed. When the Wizard first came to Oz he had a compass with him and decided that the direction the compass said was north was north, even though that made the sun set to the right of a map oriented in the normal direction. But he called the sunset direction "west" anyhow. So east and west are mirrored in Oz. (Or maybe it was an earlier explorer from our world that we don't know about from the books, and not the Wizard. Doesn't really matter.) This is moderately plausible, since we know that Earth reverses its magnetic poles every few hundred thousand years... Dave Hardenbrook: As I said, write what you like and I'll probably buy and enjoy it. But I'll also probably feel that any book in which Ozma has a romantic interest is heretical. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 16:31:46 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Oh, boy! It's Monday, and I have 3 days worth of stuff to respond to! Please give us an anthology of OZIANA! I would pay about $20-$30 per decade (so far, there would be three of them). The only textual evidence that would bear on Mombi being Mrs. Pastoria is that she tried to get Cheeriobed (then the Prince of the Ozure isles and presumably the northern Munchkin country) to marry her. This COULD be after Mombi divorced Pastoria. However, it does not seem likely that Pastoria would marry Mombi. We don't know how many Ozroars there have been. Fred Meyer suggested this name for Pastorias father, and the name stuck. This person appeared in " The Blue Emperor of Oz" by henry Blossom in 1966. Marcus Mebes used this name to describe the "first" king of Oz. I used to assume that the two Ozroars were the same, but I no longer believe that, since the two are very different in character and it is unlikely (even in Oz) that the same king ruled for nearly seven centuries. Also, we do not know how many Ozroars there may have been between the first and the last. As for Aarons list of Ozzy rulers to help the tribvia game between the Sawhorse and the Kalidah, is it really necessary? The question is cool: " Who was the seventeenth king of Oz?", but publishing a list of all rulers of Oz puts us in a bad position. I have mentioned that a reasonable amount of consistency between all books is a good thing because it gives us a sense of continuity and an imaginary flow of history for Oz. From your postings, I believe that you also want some measure of consistency. However, let me remind you that this extends not just to Oz books that have been written, but to Oz books that will be written in the future. If you give us such a list, then one of two things will happen. Either people will be constrained by your list to do certain things, or (far more likely), you will invite deliberate contradictions. Neither of these things is desireable. If you use Eric's KISS rule (OK, not his, but he quoted it first), you could just have the trivia question without a lot of background info (i.e. the list). That way, you would still be able to tell your story, and leave the rest of Oz open-ended for everybody else. I like some of the names that you chose. Perhaps you could just drop hints about a few of the ancient rulers of Oz without dumping EVERYBODYS names complete with dates into our laps. Too much information can sometimes be a bad thing. Part of the problem (as I see it, anyway), is that you are trying to include too much and do too much in one story. Too many cooks spoil the soup, and too many villains, histories and other stuff spoil the plot. It is true that "Gingemma" "Bastinda" are Volkovs names for the Wicked Witches of (respectively) east and west. That is, Gingemma lost the battle with Dorothys house and Bastinda got water-logged. While there is no basis in the FF for these names, why not use them? It will create another link between Oz books and make the series more unified and stronger, and using their names will NOT sacrifice anybodys creativity. I would consider Noland and Ix to be civilized (at least partially), so I have no problem with Yew being in the Nonestic even if it is civilized. I am sure that the Good Witch of the North meant that only Oz has not come under that evil influence. yes, BOW is one of (if not the) largest childrens bookstores in the world. If you want a bookstore that is bigger, go visit Shakespeares in Manhattan. As soon as Eric gets his Web Page going, I'll link to it and the FAQ from my own Web Page. As for the east-west controversy, it is easy to say that the directions were simply garbled from time to time. This could explain why Thompson switched back and forth. I sitll say that Laumers explanation was very clever, and explains everything. I'll talk with Chris and see what he thinks about Oz-"Universe" books in the HACC. BTW, if a story covers many years, I feel it should be placed at the beginning, while Chris feels they should be placed at the end. Yes, the sting from the Jitterbugs could affect the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman if the stings were magical in nature, and not simply some kind of chemical. As for my idea of the hyper-dimensional links, I do not think that it is too complicated. It is a way to explain why people never (or almost never) visit the same strange country twice, even when travelling nearly the same way. It is a tool that will allow people to put as many countries as they want wherever they want, without bumping in to each other. I think that these things do need to be explained. On one level, Oz is a fun place where people have adventures, and we can just enjoy our favorite characters having fun (except for when the Nome/Gnome/Knome King tried to conquer them, of course!) and we don't have to worry about what one author says versus what another author says. On another level, (in the realm of imagination), Oz is a real place, and the people and places are equally real. Trying to reveal the truth about the land is a noble task, one that I am very happy to help perform. Explaining away certain things is a fun task, and in my opinion makes Oz stronger. I believe that people can enjoy Oz on both levels. As for a level of complexity, the Oz characters (and we ourselves) do not need to worry about the mechanics of how a link is created. From our point of view (and more importantly, the Oz characters), it is enough to know that sometimes these strange countries are there and sometimes they are not. I did this in the name of flexibility. We can visit countries whenever we want, but if we want to write about some- thing else in the same area, we do not need to to worry about the earlier countries. We can, in a sense, turn them on and off at will, yet they always exist, just in case we need them again. As David Hulan said, most of these countries are very tiny (less than one square mile), so there is no overcrowding problem yet. My point however, is that with my theory, there never will be. Of course, some countries really are in Oz. These would be the "normal" countries of average humans, such as Pumperdink, Ragbad and the Yips. It is only the weird kingdoms that I put "out there". Dorothy getting lost was only an example. As far as I know, she only got lost between the Tin Castle and E.C. once. Other countries have been found by people getting lost by a force of nature, such as flying fields and running roads. Names: I believe that Pastorias wife (Ozmas mortal mother) has been referred to as Ozia and Ozette in different Oz books. These were Mr. Flint and A Wonderful Journey in Oz. Perhaps Ozia is an affectionate nickname, or is the name of her fathers noble house. Ozette was only a minor character in these stories, but it is very unlikely that she was Mombi in disguise. I, too, like Cap'n Bill and I felt he should have been continued in the FF after MAGIC OF OZ. Someone once noted that THE GIANT HORSE OF OZ was the only time that Trot participated in a major adventure without Cap'n Bill. As far as an Ozzy party, who needs an excuse? I live in Tucson, AZ. if that can be considered "Southern Winkie", or perhaps Western Quadling. Or even Wulfenite City, for you Orange-color Till Orangespiegal March Laumer fans. 20 Grand for an Oz book, even the first one in good condition? HACHI MACHI! At times in the FF, Ozma was born at the beginning of time and born of a long line of Fariy Queens. For those of you who were not here for this, let me re-state the explanation which answers all of these: Ozma is indeed a Fairy, and has existed since the beginning of time. After Lurline enchanted Oz, she planned for one of her faries to rule. The enchantement would take a long time to have full effect, so she planned on having one of her faries born as a baby in the distant future. Ozma was born to Pastorias wife Ozette/Ozia (not Mombi!) and her mortal mother, by some fantastic coincidence, had some fairy blood in her:). This allows all the statements about Ozmas past (so far) to be true. Dave, love springs eternal. Let Ozma have a man! There is a non-Ozzy precendent for this. Remember SEINFELD? Susan dated George for a while, then dumped him and was no longer interested in men. Suddenly, they are getting married. Jerry: I thought she was a lesbian? George: It didn't take. There is even an Ozzy precedent. Ozga, who is a fairy and related to Ozma, fell in love with Private Files. Seriously, maybe her womanhood has finally "caught up" with her, and she can now have a love interest. David Hulan made a good point about character definition, however. One of the things that the FF provides is not only the physical situation (like the geographical makeup and the names of the important people) but it has defined the major characters by telling us what kind of people they are. However, I do not think that giving Ozma a love interest would constitute a major change to her character. Doing something like making Ozma into a cruel tyrant who enslaves and tortures her people WOULD do this, but hopefully Dave won't do that:). --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 18:31:57 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest This is one of the few times I have sent more than one message in a day, but I have news: My Web Page has been updated, but I am still working on the HACC. I noticed that it tends to off the screen. I did not like this, but I didn't want to squeeze in the columns either, so I will give each piece of information its own line. It may be done sometime this week, so hold on... for one more day.... (Wilson Phillips:)) --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 19:32:44 -0800 (PST) From: International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: FW: Wizard Of Oz Special movie offer Jane, I thought this might have to do with the Wizard of Oz in Concert show. Would you know anything about it? Dave, Would you please forward this to the digest group and see if anyone can provide an answer. Jim --- On Fri, 05 Jan 96 01:00:47 -0800 "Chip G. Younkin" wrote: About a month ago my girlfriend heard an ad on TV about a special offer on the movie and on a live concert and video. There was a number to call to make the order. I have lost that number since. Do you know it or anyone who can help me find it. My life is in danger!!!!! Please help me if you can. -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: International Wizard of Oz Club E-mail: International Wizard of Oz Club Date: 2/5/96 Time: 7:32:44 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Monday 05-Feb-96 22:28:49 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Aaron wrote: >What is the name of that guy Planetty married? King Randy of Regalia. David Hulan wrote: >As I said, write what you like and I'll probably buy and enjoy it. But I'll >also probably feel that any book in which Ozma has a romantic interest is >heretical. On the other hand, I believe that the dinosaurs were Hot-blooded, that Hannes Alfven's infinite, eternal "Pl-Ozma" Cosmology (*not* the Big Bang) is the correct theory of the universe, and that the Amiga is best personal computer in the world! So being a heretic is nothing new to me... :) Tyler wrote: >... I do not think that giving Ozma a love interest would constitute a major >change to her character. Doing something like making Ozma into a cruel >tyrant who enslaves and tortures her people WOULD do this, but hopefully >Dave won't do that:). No, I sure won't! I might develop her character a little bit, but she'll always be the same sweet, kind, lovely Princess of Oz! :) >My Web Page has been updated ... Everybody visit it! It's great! The URL once again is: http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/tyler_jones (or http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tyler_jones -- some servers don't like the ':80' and others require it.) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 09:41:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Nathanel J. Barlow" Subject: Ozianas You wouldn't even have to type the Ozianas in if you had access to a scanner with Optical Character Recognition software. I have access to just that, but by the time I'd have time to do it, I won't :( Nate ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 14:54:56 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Seinfeld and Ozma Tyler, I don't remember Seinfeld being part of the FF. As for Ozga, I don't recall her going through any early experiences like Ozma did which might have an effect on her that way. (Then again, she was picked off a rose bush, so she could have liked Files for his orchard for all we know.) Personally, I think the idea of Mombi being Ozette is ridiculous, but there is the serious problem remaining of why Mombi would go through all the trouble of turning Ozma into Tip and hiding her away for several years rather than disposing of her in a different manner (like turning her into a cannonball and keeping her in the attic, or, better yet, in the bottom of a well). One could argue that you can't do such a thing to a fairy, but in _The Lost Princess of Oz_ Ozma gets kidnapped and imprisioned in a nut, which is almost as good, so in terms of labor expended, turning Ozma into a boy was about the least brilliant thing she could have done since taking care of children is a HUGE expenditure of labor. This hints to some other motivation for Mombi to go through all this trouble, which Aaron's idea does present a solution to, though I find it rather improbable, and in any case, yes, he does leak far too much. I have other ideas of why Mombi did it, but I'll be wise enought to save them for the book. "Civilized" technically is supposed to mean city-delling. Given that the only major urban center in Oz is the Emerald City, Tattypoo's assertion that Oz was not civilized is pretty much correct. My impression has been that most of the people in Imagination live in farming communities, villiages, and town, with cities and towns mixed in here and there and the very occasional city. (For all I know, the Emerald City may be the only true city on the continent.) So, if we are to take the words in _Yew_ literally (as has been quoted here), Imagination would not be the continent referred to. However, people do tend to be fairly sloppy about using the word "civilized," so Baum may have been referring to Imagination if towns and villiages were considered "enough." I haven't read _Yew_ yet, so I don't know what kind of lifestyle people lead there, but if it happened to be nomadic or horticulturalist or hunter-gather, etc., then for someone like that, houses of the kind we (I am assuming the people on the digest here are from urban or suburban US) are used to (or even significantly smaller and poorer ones) in any accumulation would seem like huge and rich communities. I think someone asked if the title character in _Iolanthe_ was the queen of the fairies two or three issues ago. That she was definitely not; she was exiled by the queen for marrying a human man. I can't recall the queen's name off the top of my head, but if anyone cares I can look it up. ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 19:01:53 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-06-96 > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Back to the Drawing Board... > > 1) I guess that kills Pastoria first kissing then strangling > Mombi... Does Ozma ever meet Ozette? Yessssssss................................... > 3) What do we know about the origins of Ozwoz the Wonderful. I've got > some suspicions as to his ancestry and past actions, but has someone > beaten me to it first? As I remember, he appears in Ozoplanning with the > Wizard of Oz, so he should be public domain. Since Ozwoz appears in "Purple Prince," which IS still under copyright, no, nobody else has written about him. (Aaron, are there any characters you're NOT going to try and shoehorn into this book at one time or another?) > 4) This whole thing about fairies being born at the beginning of time > seems bound to cause trouble. While it is usually interpreted in > connection with Ozma, the people of Oz themselves have been called a fairy > people, yet clearly they all they all have existed much less time than the > Oz universe. The people of Oz, of course, were mortal at one point, they're not actually fairies. I suspect "fairy people" is used as a shorthand (and confusing) way of saying that they're now part of an enchanted fairyland. They seem to have no actual powers, as a general rule. Also to consider is that Baum had two different definitions of "Fairy": The pixie-like creatures who look like young women and are guardians over mankind, and a broader definition that encompasses ryles, knooks, wood nymphs, gnomes, sound imps, and various other immortal spirits of the Earth. (See "Life and Adventures of Santa Claus" and "Queen Zixi of Ix," among others.) > From: David Bedell > Subject: Enchanted Island of Yew; Dover Books > > How many reprints of _Yew_ have there been? Several were done in the 19-teen's and 20's, but so far only one modern-day reprint. > Any in recent years? Yes. > I know > Dover reprinted several of Baum's non-Oz fantasies, but they hadn't done > _Yew_ the last time I checked. (That was 10 years ago, so I don't know > what they've come out with since. Does Dover have an Internet address or > website?) Dover still hasn't come out with an edition of "Yew" (last time I checked they'd even dropped a number of Baum's non-Oz titles!), but there is a reprint edition of "Yew" currently available from Buckethead Enterprises of Oz. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/5/96 > > Have you read WICKED? Some of its events are at least as adult as Tik-Tok > going on a murder rampage in New York (a tiktok robot murders an ovine > professor, rather messily) or Dorothy having an affair with Jack Kennedy (the > Wicked Witch of the West has an affair with a Winkie prince). No, I HAVEN'T read it yet! So no more spoilers, okay? > Marcia's also getting some interest from a company in Portland, so it might > be that we'd be in a position to attend an Oogaboo party if she takes that > job rather than the one in Chicago. (I'd certainly rather move to Portland > than Chicago, and so would she, but more would depend on the nature of the > job offers...assuming that she gets both.) This, of course, assumes that we'd > be invited to an Oogaboo party if we lived in the area. Hey, if you give us an address we'll GLEEFULLY send you as many invitations as you want! (And that goes for any other Northwesterners, I might add...) > Dave Hardenbrook: > As I said, write what you like and I'll probably buy and enjoy it. But I'll > also probably feel that any book in which Ozma has a romantic interest is > heretical. But only mildly, compared to what some writers have had in their books... > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Please give us an anthology of OZIANA! I would pay about $20-$30 per decade > (so far, there would be three of them). How do you figure THAT? The nineties aren't over yet, after all, and I doubt the third volume would come out until most of the single issues are sold off... > As soon as Eric gets his Web Page going, I'll link to it and the FAQ from > my own Web Page. Well, for a while the web page WILL be the FAQ. But once I REALLY get it going... > I, too, like Cap'n Bill and I felt he should have been continued in the FF > after MAGIC OF OZ. Someone once noted that THE GIANT HORSE OF OZ was the only > time that Trot participated in a major adventure without Cap'n Bill. So "Lost Princess" didn't count then, eh? > 20 Grand for an Oz book, even the first one in good condition? HACHI MACHI! Look, I'm not saying that it's fair or decent. But if somebody has that much money to spare and wants it, it's there... > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > Aaron wrote: > >What is the name of that guy Planetty married? > > King Randy of Regalia. What, Dave, you couldn't use Randy's full name? (In case anyone here was wondering, it's Randywell Handywell Brandenburg Bompadoo.) --Eric "Should I just change my name to Dave to make this easier? Or Robin?" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 22:08:29 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/6/96 Dave Hardenbrook: Not sure what a table of contents for the Digest would consist of. Just the names of the contributors in order? Because most of the messages cover a variety of subjects, a ToC wouldn't be much more use than that. Personally, I'd just as soon not increase the length of the Digest any more; I enjoy all the people's postings, but wouldn't miss the lengthy (two full screens) list of addressees, or the long quotes from the messages being replied to. (Of course, this is the only E-mail I get most days. People who get something like this from several sources may find it harder to follow along without the extensive quotes.) Eric Gjovaag: I hope OZIANA compendia wouldn't cost $25-30 per decade, either, but would be willing to pay that much if that's what it would take to make them feasible. (Though if I do a lot of the typing work, as I've offered, I'd probably expect a complimentary copy...but would still buy one if necessary.) There's also definitely an upside-down picture in KABUMPO - more obvious than the ones in JP. I don't remember one in ROYAL BOOK, but don't doubt that there is one. Aaron Adelman: Ozwoz appears in PURPLE PRINCE, so he is -not- public domain yet (nor will be for a decade or so). The FF says nothing about his origins, so you can speculate to your heart's content. (And so can anyone else.) Planetty married Randywell Handywell Brandenburg Bompadoo, King of Regalia, usually known as Randy. In one of the two Oz books (of the FF) in which no Baum characters appear. Tyler Jones: I second your suggestion to Aaron about the list of kings of Oz. One of the principles of writing (particularly fantasy) that I've heard from quite a number of successful authors in the field is that the author should know a great deal about the background of the story, but only reveal those parts that are important to its progress. Knowing the rest is important to avoid internal contradictions, but the readers don't care how the author does that. In terms of what's exhibited and square footage, Prince and the Pauper in San Diego is probably bigger than Books of Wonder, and Children's Book Centre in London definitely was in the past, though it's gone downhill badly since the first time I visited it in 1982. BoW may have more total stock, though. And it's certainly a fascinating place to visit. (For one thing, it may be the only place where you can find GLASS CAT actually exhibited on a shelf...at least, I've never heard of any other store that carries it, though they'll special-order it.) Why does Chris think that a book that covers many years should be placed in the chronology at its end? Putting it at the beginning makes much more sense to me (as it apparently does to you). Cap'n Bill does appear in GLINDA, but I'm not sure he has a speaking part. And I don't think Thompson or Neill mention him at all - no, I lie, Thompson talks about his carving Peg Amy in KABUMPO, at least. Snow gives him a minor mention in MM, but that's about it. Well, he has a major role in GLASS CAT, anyhow... Tucson is Southern Winkie enough if you can make it over for Dave's party. But it's a long trip; I think he was thinking more of people who could drive to Torrance or wherever he lives (somewhere around there, as I recall) and back the same day. I'm sure anyone else would be welcome, though. Oz fans aren't regional exclusionists, as far as I've noticed. It might be possible to give Ozma a love interest without changing her established character, but it would be really difficult. Dave's setting himself a serious challenge there, but I'll echo Eric's comment - GO FOR IT! If it doesn't work, it's just heretical (like a number of excellent stories); if it does, it's way cool. >My Web Page has been updated, but I am still working on the >HACC. I noticed that it tends to off the screen. Maybe I should avoid your Web Page. I don't want it to off my screen; it cost me several hundred clams. :-) Dave Hardenbrook again: Well, I believe in the hot-blooded dinosaurs, too. I'm not familiar with Alfven's alternative to the Big Bang, and I've never used an Amiga, though I have a number of friends who swear by theirs, even though their computers are by now more or less orphans. I deduce that Amiga was superior technology badly marketed - a characterization that I have a bad feeling is on the horizon for my own favorite, the Mac. *sigh* David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 22:23:29 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-06-96 Aaron: Planetty marries Randywell, Handywell, Brandenburg Bompadoo, King of Regalia and all Regalians (PURPLE PRINCE, pp.269-270.) Of course, she doesn't meet Randy until her own book. David, Ken, Eric, et al: Wow! O.K. Let's see what Pete and Jane and the others think about getting out an OZIANA compendium this year. We should probably see how much we can print in a 48-page format--no more. It's hard to tell now how many years we can get in at a time. By the way, whoever it was that mentioned the 20K for the WIZARD. You betcha that's a lot of money, but if it's truly terrific, the price is probably not outrageous. I've been offered a mixed state at 16K. Yes, I turned it down. It was pretty, but not gorgeous, and it wasn't a first/first. David Hulan: If you can't go to Winkie, maybe we'll see you at Ozmopolitan? --Robin Olderman ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 23:48:40 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: various replies Dave Hardenbrook writes: > If anyone has any suggestions on how I might write a program to build > a table of contents for each Digest from everyone's messages, please > let me know, You might extract the "From:" line and list the words in the article that match words in a keyword file. I'm not sure that this is a solvable problem as some articles have replies to several people on several different subjects. Personally I don't need a TOC as I always read the whole thing anyway. "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > Does Ozma ever meet Ozette? In "Mister flint in Oz" Ozette is disenchanted by Ozma and returns to the Emerald City with her. > 3) What do we know about the origins of Ozwoz the Wonderful. ... > As I remember, he appears in Ozoplanning with the Wizard of Oz, > so he should be public domain. He appears in "Purple Prince", and would not be public domain (unless somebody forgot to renew the copyright). > 4) This whole thing about fairies being born at the beginning of time > seems bound to cause trouble. While it is usually interpreted in > connection with Ozma, the people of Oz themselves have been called a fairy > people, yet clearly they all they all have existed much less time than the > Oz universe. I'm beginning to suspect that there exists more than one > type of fairy, the 'highest' having existed since the beginning of time > and probably not very human and the 'lowest' having existed not so long > and being pretty much human. There are *many* different types of fairies. The true immortals were the ones created at the beginning of time, and they are the ones who have no romantic interest. Lurline's band and Ozma are fairies of this type. In addition to these fairies there was a mantle of immortality that would allow one mortal to join the ranks of the true immortals. This is described in "Santa Claus". The people of Oz are probably just ordinary people who were rendered fairylike when Lurline turned oz into a fairyland. > Ozma is probably closer to 'lower' than to 'higher', as she seems to > be pretty much indistinguishable from ordinary magic-working humans When Lurline turned Ozma into a baby, she probably also altered Ozma's appearance so that she would appear normal to the Oz people. > 5) What is the name of that guy Planetty married? Randywell, Handywell, Brandenburg Bompadoo, Prince of the Purple Mountain and King of Regalia. David Bedell writes: > How many reprints of _Yew_ have there been? Any in recent years? Buckethead has reprinted "Yew". I also have the text in a file named yew.zip at ftp.vnet.net directory pub/users/jnw . I put it there for someone who plans to give it a final proofing and then send it to project Gutenberg. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:33:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: "SPIZ OZA OZ. SMIDH TA, WA POR MAN TA HIPESH SPIZ?" 1) Someone please get around to posting info on Laumer's version of Old Ozzish. Mombi: Don't you even THINK of leaking anything on why you need that info, you red-haired freak! You do, and I'll turn you into a piece of chalk. Me: The things I got to do these days to keep leakage under control... 2) Who wrote The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West? I'm starting to think of trying my luck ILLing 'heretical' books, as Laumer's stuff has this tendency to not come through, though I have reason to believe that I'll be getting The Frogman of Oz soon, G-d willing. 3) I got the archived version of the digest for December, and looking through the stuff that was posted before I joined, I found a reference to Betsy Bobbin's birthday being August 31. Can anyone tell me please what is the source of this? I can't remember such information from anywhere in the Oz books I've read so far. 4) The list of rulers of Oz I drew up was mainly to have some sort of historical framework to work within, as I intend to delve significantly into pre-Dorothean history in the Lurline's Machine series. It should not be taken as cannonical in any way, shape, or form, as even I, the one who compiled it, am modifying it regularly to fit my story ideas. Though I would appreciate it if no one beat me to publishing the name of the seventeenth ruler of Oz so I don't have to rename him... But other than him and the rulers of Oz from Oz Roarus II Boz (= Ozroar Boz) onward, the field is wide open, and I won't hold anything against anyone who goes against my list, especially since I have no intentions of including it anywhere in Lurline's Machine. Note: If anyone wants to write about the ruler of Oz who Glinda made drink from the Fountain of Oblivion, they have my full permission and blessing to make him Oz Aharonus the Blunt and to endow him with my worst vices, especially as I have not plans for him. This is neither sarcastic nor a joke. Note: My informants in Burzee tell me that the apostrophe in Lurline's Machine is the transcription of a glottal stop, and hence is undroppable. (: 5) Shakespeare's may be bigger than BOW, but unfortunately I couldn't find any Oz books there. ): 6) I was under the impression that Ozia was Oz Roarus II Boz's wife, not Oz Pastorius II's! (Or Oz Pastoria I's, if you don't hold by my horizontal transfer from the play verision of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.) 7) I hereby give up the theory that Mombi was married to Oz Pastorius II. Mombi: Don't you even THINK of leaking-- Me: OK, OK, I won't leak what I replaced it with. Chill out. It's not like I leaked the major premise of The Woozy of Oz yet. Mombi: You'd better not. 8) On Ozga falling in love: She only did that AFTER she became mortal! 9) Get real, Dave. Macintosh is the best personal computer around. (: What do you think Tik-Tok's operating system is based on? 10) Uh, Tyler, I checked your new web page, and at the top it explained some status codes, but for some reason the status codes didn't appear in any of the book information. Nalrodi the Mind-Reader: I can see it now: The status codes were eaten by Snargle the Data-Eater! And he ate the apostrophes too! Prasmthrasm the Warlock with the Infinite Neck: I don't think so. What _I_ think happened is that the UNIX machine removed the status codes and apostrophes so that it could sell them to the Ozamalanders! 11) Considering the strange exchage I just wrote, I think I'll stop here, except that I'd like to ask if it is just my imagination or that there really is a dearth of magic-workers in Oz who call themselves 'warlocks' or 'wizardesses'. Prasmthrasm: What? _I_ don't count? Me: I conceived of you in a dream a few days ago. You haven't been published you, so no one can be expected to say anything about you. By the way, is your neck really infinite? Prasmthrasm: As a matter of fact-- Mombi: DON'T TELL HIM! DON'T TELL HIM! And YOU, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT LEAKING ANYTHING WHICH MIGHT APPEAR IN LURLINE'S MACHINE! Prasmthrasm: I think I'll be going now... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 8, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 12:56:37 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-07-96 > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Seinfeld and Ozma > > Personally, I think the idea of Mombi being Ozette is ridiculous, but there is > the serious problem remaining of why Mombi would go through all the trouble of > turning Ozma into Tip and hiding her away for several years rather than > disposing of her in a different manner (like turning her into a cannonball and > keeping her in the attic, or, better yet, in the bottom of a well). One could > argue that you can't do such a thing to a fairy, but in _The Lost Princess of > Oz_ Ozma gets kidnapped and imprisioned in a nut, which is almost as good, so > in terms of labor expended, turning Ozma into a boy was about the least > brilliant thing she could have done since taking care of children is a HUGE > expenditure of labor. This hints to some other motivation for Mombi to go > through all this trouble, which Aaron's idea does present a solution to, though > I find it rather improbable, and in any case, yes, he does leak far too much. Maybe Mombi's not as wicked as we think, and a small part of her took pity on the baby Ozma and decided to take care of her instead. Or maybe she had some other nefarious scheme in mind... > (For all I know, the Emerald City may be the only true city on the continent.) Apart from Nole, Evna, and the unnamed capital of Ix. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/6/96 > > Eric Gjovaag: > There's also definitely an upside-down picture in KABUMPO - more obvious than > the ones in JP. I don't remember one in ROYAL BOOK, but don't doubt that > there is one. In "Royal Book," when the Scarecrow lands in the Silver Islands, the text describes it as a head-first landing (I think). Neill illustrated this -- but then the picture was printed showing the Scarecrow's face right-side up, so it looks like he's floated very quickly to a domed roof or something! (I think Del Rey corrected this one, at least.) > Planetty married Randywell Handywell Brandenburg Bompadoo, King of Regalia, > usually known as Randy. In one of the two Oz books (of the FF) in which no > Baum characters appear. And the other one is also the only one that has no action whatsoever actually taking place in Oz, correct? (Bonus points, gang, if you can guess what book I'm thinking of.) > Tyler Jones: > In terms of what's exhibited and square footage, Prince and the Pauper in San > Diego is probably bigger than Books of Wonder, and Children's Book Centre in > London definitely was in the past, though it's gone downhill badly since the > first time I visited it in 1982. BoW may have more total stock, though. And > it's certainly a fascinating place to visit. (For one thing, it may be the > only place where you can find GLASS CAT actually exhibited on a shelf...at > least, I've never heard of any other store that carries it, though they'll > special-order it.) Mr. E's bookstore in Seattle, in the Pike Place Market, carries the ECP books. (I've even seen "Queen Ann" for sale there, almost went in and started autographing them all...) I'll bet THEY have "Glass Cat" on their shelves... > Why does Chris think that a book that covers many years should be placed in > the chronology at its end? Putting it at the beginning makes much more sense > to me (as it apparently does to you). Just remember, Chris is also the one who turned a joke I came up with once into a book called "Three-Headed Elvis Clone Found in Flying Saucer over Oz"... > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-06-96 > > David, Ken, Eric, et al: Wow! O.K. Let's see what Pete and Jane and the > others think about getting out an OZIANA compendium this year. We should > probably see how much we can print in a 48-page format--no more. It's > hard to tell now how many years we can get in at a time. While you're at it, could you convince somebody to speed up publication of the "Best of the Bugle" compilations? They still need to cover about a decade before all the holes I have get plugged. > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: "SPIZ OZA OZ. SMIDH TA, WA POR MAN TA HIPESH SPIZ?" > > 2) Who wrote The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West? "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West" (to give its full title) was written by Gregory Maguire, and published by Regan Books (a Harper Collins imprint). > 3) I got the archived version of the digest for December, and looking > through the stuff that was posted before I joined, I found a reference to > Betsy Bobbin's birthday being August 31. Can anyone tell me please what > is the source of this? I can't remember such information from anywhere > in the Oz books I've read so far. I can't tell you whatever source that was, but it DOES conflict with the date given in "Masquerade in Oz," October 31. So naturally Betsy has a Halloween-themed birthday party. > 9) Get real, Dave. Macintosh is the best personal computer around. (: > What do you think Tik-Tok's operating system is based on? MS-DOS. Which explains why he keeps winding sown so fast... (Before anyone screams or wonders, I'm a Mac user myself.) > 11) Considering the strange exchage I just wrote, I think I'll stop here, > except that I'd like to ask if it is just my imagination or that there > really is a dearth of magic-workers in Oz who call themselves 'warlocks' > or 'wizardesses'. Mombi called herself a "wizardess" in "Marvelous Land," since witches were outlawed in the Gillikin Country at the time. But that's just semantics, of course. --Eric "Is anybody else already getting tired of Mombi shuffling in from stage left?" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 16:37:23 -0500 (EST) From: David Bedell Subject: Yew; Baumless Oz books; East-West Thanks, Eric and John, for the tip on Buckethead's reprint of _Yew_. Can either of you (or anyone else) review it? Does it reprint the original illustrations? (Who was the illustrator? Not Neill, I think; Frank Richardson?) OK, trivia buffs, which book besides Silver Princess had no Baum characters? The East-West reversal can also be explained (and I'm sure someone has suggested this before) if Oz is on the interior surface of a Hollow Earth, like Burroughs' Pellucidar. If North is up, then E is left and W is right. But, you may protest, if this is the case, then why does the sun appear to rise and set in Oz? Well, the Hollow Earth Society claims this is an optical illusion. David Bedell, University of Bridgeport, CT, USA ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 16:05:21 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-07-96 Eric: Why would changing your name make things easier?????? By any chance, are the Oogabooans meeting any time between March 9-15? I'm thinking of flying to Portland for my spring break. Seattle's not all THAT far from Portland.... For anyone within driving distance of San Diego, The Prince and the Pauper is worth the drive. It's a grand shop, full of lovely books and knowledgeable staff. BoW probably carries more Oz on a more consistent basis, but P & P has quite a lot of it. That's the good news. The bad news is that they know their stuff and you're not likely to find "sleepers" there. But, oh, it's a terrific book shop, and not far from the Adams St. bookshop strip. Planetty: so the married name is Mrs. Bompadoo? Planetty Brandenburg Bompadoo? Wow! --Mrs. Olderman ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 16:08:16 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-07-96 Queen of the Faeries: Do you mean Queen Mab? Nate: I don't have a scanner. I wish I did. Maybe once my husband finds a job.... ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 22:04:01 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: a romantic Ozma There is a way that Ozma could become romantically involved with someone without contradicting the established fact that she has no romantic interest. First, a suitor falls deeply in love with her. She would not have any romantic interest in him, so he goes on a quest to find some way to win her. He finds some sort of magic talisman, such as a ring that causes any girl who wears it to fall in love with the guy who gave it to her. We know that Ozma can be enchanted, so there is no reason why the ring wouldn't work on her. Once the suitor gets her to try on the ring, she would be in love with him. At this point the romance can proceed in the usual way, with Ozma's unusual behavior being explained by her enchantment. Sometime before the wedding someone would take the ring off of Ozma's finger, at which point she would no longer be enchanted and would lose all romantic interest in the suitor. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 13:32:27 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest I apparantly forgot to send this file yesterday, so here are two days worth of digest rolled up into one! Dave vs. Aaron vs. March Laumer vs Eric vs.... No, nobody HAS to agree with any author, except for the FF, but making a little effort to be consistent with some details will make the relationship between Oz books stronger, so that it will resemble more of a series instead of a jumbled collection of books. A difficult task, and in some ways an impossible one, but the effort should still be made. Remember, that by writing an "Oz" book, you are continuing a story that has been told and re-told for nearly a century and are already committing yourself to conforming with the FF (unless you truly desire to write a Historically Inaccurate book, in which case all bets are off. You are also implicity accepting at least partial validity of the other non-FF books by writing a non-FF book of your own. While there is no "requirement" to agree with every other book ever written (you can't, by the way), a little "adjusting" here and there will keep the thread of Oz history intact and the Oz books will present a unified front. I still agree that the best thing about Oz stories is that people can write any story they want any way they want to (baring copyrighted characters), but you can still do that within the context of a reasonable amount of consistency. In this case (Ozma getting a love interest), I agree that he should be a "nice guy", like the Su-Dic of Flathead Mountain. NOT! :) The only reason that people think that Yew may be in the Nonestic is that it appears in the official map. Bu the only reason it appears there is because it was written by Baum. It may be in yet ANOTHER Universe, but we already have one paralell world (plus all of my hyper-dimensional bubbles), so do we really need another? I only have about five or six of the latest OZIANAs, so I cannot help with the typesetting. Besides, I have a lot of other projects that I never get around to anyway... I feel that others opinions and beliefs are equally valid with others, but I also believe that in many cases, the objective "real" truth can be found and that we should all strive to discover it. If one person is "wrong", that does not make his ideas bad, and the person who was "right" is not necessarily better. I use quotes here because this IS only a childrens series, or is it? Objective criticism is not the same as putting someone down and the simple fact is that EVERYBODY is not ALWAYS right. Even I myself have been wrong a couple of times, and other people have shown me ways to improve on my own ideas. The point is to work together to advance our knowledge and love of the magical, mysterious wonderful Land of Oz. Aaron, my advice is to dump the Pastoria = Ozia/Ozette and use your (insert idea here). I know next to nothing about Ozwoz. I'll take a look and see what I can find. I don't remember him being in OZOPLANING and I cannot remember him at all in any non-FF book. As far as I know, he is a clean slate. By having Ozma being born as a mortal baby to Patoria and Ozette (who had no other children), she can be said to have been "adopted" by Pastoria from a certain point of view. It's a little bit of a stretch, but I prefer explanations that make EVERYTHING true instead of just saying "OK, I like that book, so I'll accept what it says, but I don't like that book, so I'll reject what IT says". Just look at our own history. There are many seeming contradictions in history books, but each statement has a kernel of truth. Dave already mentioned Planettys husband, so I won't bother. If interested, his full name is Randywell Handywell Brandenburg Bompadoo. (von Smith :)) David Hulan: I assume you mean that Ozma is too busy running the kingdom to have a romantic interest, or that she is perpetual innocent. Both of these are indirectly supported by the FF, but as Leonard Nimoy said in an interview: "Fans like to the the characters in their traditional roles, but at the same time it's important that the character be challenged". In other words, I feel that branching Ozma out into new experiences does not violate the spirit of the FF, but changing her personality would. "Let them drink Lacasa!" :) Are you out there TINHAT1@AOL.COM? I looked around a little for WINGED MONKEYS, but I could not find it. Who is the publisher and where did you buy it? For those of you who may know this already, some of my web sub-pages are messed up. They work, but all the links are run together. I will hopefully fix this sometime this week, and also get the new and improved HACC out as well. DAY TWO COMMENTS Maybe Mombi hoped to use Tip/Ozma in some sort of claim to the throne, although she could easily have turned him/her into an inanimate object until the time was ripe. Maybe she just wanted to use him as a source of free labor. I was taught that "civilized" meant the existence of a written language. FYI, city-dwelling pre-dates the written word. People have used this word to mean many different things. I believe that the Good Witch of the North used the word to mean an industrialized society, which Oz (and most of Imagination) is not. Aaron, I honestly feel that you are trying to cram too much stuff and too many people into your book. This reminds me of those college kids in the 50s trying to stuff people into phone booths ("I know I can fit those invisible bears in here! Just push!"). As for the level of history, it would be much better for you to mention only that which advances the story. As Quindor Shandess said in FOUNDATIONS EDGE: "If Second Foundationers have to know much and say little, then Speakers have to know more and say less and the First Speaker must know the most and say the least". By giving only a little background and leaving the rest open, it paves the way for even more literary efforts. Trot did not play a "major role" in LOST PRINCESS. She was there (in the main party) but did not do much. However, Cap'n Bills only role in this story was in agreeing to be in charge of the Emerald City while everyone was away. (Or was this in GLINDA?) Also, Cap'n Bill was involved in the game of blind mans bluff at the beginning of ROYAL BOOK. I won't say more, as this is beginning to intrude on my top secret project. Chris feels that multi-year books are actually "flashbacks" from the time of the end of the book. He feels that any other way would require us to cut the book up into little pieces and spread them around the HACC. This is a little bizarre, so I think that the early placement is best. Giving Ozma a love interest would change her chartacter SITUATIONALLY, but would not necessarily change her PERSONALITY. A friend of mine used to have an Amiga and he said is was great. He used the thing exclusively for games, though. Aaron, I promise I will look at Laumers books and find his reference to old Ozzish. There was only one. I believe Betsys birthday was October 31, because in MASQUERADE IN OZ, Betsys birthday and Halloween were celebrated at the same time. I think you're right, Aaron. Ozia was Ozroars wife (the first Ozroar). Yes, Ozga fell in love AFTER she became mortal, but Ozmas being born as a mortal baby woul come close to that... --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 00:09:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Characters NOT Appearing in Lurline's Machine 1) Do any of the Seebanians other than Ojo and Steven/Nunkie appear in The Wishing Horse of Oz? 2) Eric, yes there are characters which are not going to appear in the Lurline's Machine series. As the series is nowhere near finished yet, I cannot say for sure who will and will not show up, but I can give you a very rough idea of who will and will not be in Lurline's Machine. Be warned however that just compiling this list will probably spark new ideas for who to include, so don't be surprised if, say Dyna and her living blue bear rug show up, even though I have no plans for them. Definitely not showing up: Nalrodi the Mind-Reader, as I intend to keep him mysterious. Almost certainly not showing up: Any character which is unquestionably still under copyright, though I really wanted to based one of the books aroud Lambert and call it The Marvelous Lamb of Oz. Though don't be surprised if some of these characters get referred to in indirect ways to= give reasons why they don't show up. Probably not showing up: Any characters from countries/kingdoms/cities which are of the type which Barry suggests pop in and out of existence regularly. Places inhabited largely be characters that are still under copyright will probably not be visited. No plans: Most of the characters appearing only in the last five Thompson books, though there have been discussions of bringing in Anutherians, possibly integrating some material I found in an Oz encyclopedia in a dream. Pigasus, though he works for the Red Jinn, who definitely shows up, so far has not made an appearance. Baumian characters that live outside of major population centers, such as the Cuttenclips and the Yips, so far do not make an appearance, with the exception of one character who does not have a permanent home. Dyna, her blue bear rug, Nimee Amee, Chopfyt, Dr. Nikidik, Dr. Pipt, Margolotte, and Tollydiggle have not shown up. Oz Pastorius II and Ozma Ozette, strangely enough, have not shown up yet. No one from Noland, Merryland, Hiland, Loland, Yew, Kerli (Scowleyow's kingdom), Lari (Hartilaf's valley), Aurissau, Ribdil, Junkum, Mulgravia, Lerd, Hohaho, Thumbumbia, Arol, Foxville, Dunkiton, Boboland, Voe, that bunch of countries to the south of Ev, Rinkitink, Ozamaland, the Rose Kingdom, or any of the islands in the Nonestic Ocean has shown up. Zixi has, to my surprise, not shown up yet. Most Moite characters have not shown up. I believe this is enough of a list to demonstrate that there are plenty of characters who have not so far been written into Lurline's Machine, and when the project is done, I expect many to be left over. 3) John, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for the on-line copy of The Enchanted Island of Yew! It is such a cool book! Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Wednesday 07-Feb-96 15:24:13 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Replies to yesterday's and today's Digests Nate wrote: >You wouldn't even have to type the Ozianas in if you had access to a >scanner with Optical Character Recognition software ... Can they be rented perhaps? :) Such a device is obviously very desirable. Imagine scanning in the text of the *ENTIRE FAMOUS FORTY* so that it was all available online!!! (I can dream can't I?) :) :) :) Barry Adelman wrote: >I can't recall the queen's [of the fairies in Gilbert and Sullivan's >_Iolanthe_] name off the top of my head, but if anyone cares I can >look it up. I don't think she was named...That's why I asked if she might be Lurline! :) David Hulan wrote: >Tucson is Southern Winkie enough if you can make it over for Dave's party. >But it's a long trip; I think he was thinking more of people who could drive >to Torrance ... Just for the record, the people I was "thinking more of" for the party were people I *WANT* to come, regardless of geography! :) And it is Huntington Beach (a little south of Los Angeles and Long Beach) where I live. >Well, I believe in the hot-blooded dinosaurs, too. :) >I'm not familiar with Alfven's alternative to the Big Bang ... There are many things in the theory, including the role electromagnitism plays on Intergalactic scales, but the most crucial point of the Alfven model is that the universe is eternal and ever-evolving, *not* slowly disintegrating and dying as the Big Bang theory insists. No chance of the protons in the Emerald City all decaying in the Alfven model! :) >I've never used an Amiga, though I have a number of friends who swear >by theirs, even though their computers are by now more or less orphans. No, they've been "adopted" by a German company named ESCOM ( who unfortunately outbid Smith & Tinker's :) ). >I deduce that Amiga was superior technology badly marketed You got it!!! (If Tik-Tok were marketed no better than the Amiga, then Ozma would store him in the palace game room and only wind him up when she wanted to play "Nome Invaders" :) :) ) Aaron wrote: >2) Who wrote The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West? This is actually the subtitle...The main title is _Wicked_, and the author is Gregory Maguire. BTW, the book is available from BoW, though their ad for it describes it as an "Oz pastiche", which, being 100% heretical, _Wicked_ certainly is *NOT*! (The non-Baum FF, ECP books, etc., etc. *ARE* pastiches.) >I found a reference to Betsy Bobbin's birthday being August 31. Can >anyone tell me please what is the source of this? Er, well, according to _Masquarade in Oz_ (ECP), Betsy's B-day is *October* 31. >5) Shakespeare's may be bigger than BOW, but unfortunately I couldn't >find any Oz books there. ): Well, if they have no Oz books, who cares if they're the size of the Alexandrian Library? (Hey Peter G., how about a BoW branch store in the LA area?) :) :) >What do you think Tik-Tok's operating system is based on? Surely not Win95... :) John White wrote: >There is a way that Ozma could become romantically involved with someone >without contradicting the established fact that she has no romantic >interest ... [Proposed scenario omitted] "Fact"??? Like the Big Bang, polkiothermic dinosaurs and the inferiority of the Amiga, I guess...Thanks for your idea, but I only do happy endings. :) Tyler wrote: >In this case (Ozma getting a love interest), I agree that he should be a >"nice guy", like the Su-Dic of Flathead Mountain. NOT! :) Absolutely! Ozma deserves the best, and she's gonna get it!!! (And we won't discuss what joy awaits the lucky guy!!!) :) :) :) -- Dave "Look for a feature on the Ozzy Digest in the next Baum Bugle!" Hardenbrook ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 23:59:39 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Dave wrote: >Can they be rented perhaps? :) Such a device is obviously very desirable. >Imagine scanning in the text of the *ENTIRE FAMOUS FORTY* so that it was >all available online!!! (I can dream can't I?) :) :) :) I suspect if you hang on a little bit you will be able to get on line access to the Baum portion of the FF. Some of them are already available from several different sites. Everyone that is available on line is linked to from their synopsis at my web site (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet -- the books section). However, only those Thompson books now in the public domain could be freely put on line. Does anyone out there know what the copyright status of each of the Thompson books is? And if we wanted to ask from a release for those still under copyright to put them on line, who would we ask? Who owns the copyrights today? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 09:09:58 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Glinda's book Tyler Jones: > > I was taught that "civilized" meant the existence of a written language. > FYI, city-dwelling pre-dates the written word. People have used this word > to mean many different things. I believe that the Good Witch of the North > used the word to mean an industrialized society, which Oz (and most of > Imagination) is not. Of course, by the definition that you were taught, Oz most certainly _is_ civilized. After all, what does Glinda's book of records write in, cartoons? Which brings me to another question: what the devil is the "horizon level (Computer Science term)" for that book? In another words, in can't possibly record _everything_ that happens everywhere, no matter how clever or magic ("Ozma is kidnapped. Glinda's magic book recorded the fact that Ozma was kidnapped. Glinda' book recorded the fact that it had recorded the fact that...."). So how important does an event have to be to trigger the record? --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 22:07:17 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digests, 2/7-8/96 I messed up and left the "H" out of Dave's address when I responded to yesterday's postings, so you'll have to put up with two days' worth this time: 2/7/96 Nate: After I'd sent my message off to the Digest last night, it occurred to me that hey, I have a scanner with OCR software and that would save a lot of work for people getting OZIANA into electronic form. Thing is, I got it for a birthday present and nearly two months later, I still haven't unpacked it and set it up, so I have no idea how good a job it will do - and I don't think of it routinely. I need to spend some time cleaning off my desk to make room for it, and I just haven't had the time since I got it. At least, though, it would provide digital copies of the text that the typists would only have to proofread and correct, rather than typing from scratch. I know -I'd- find that easier; somebody who's a really good typist from copy might not. (I'm a pretty fast typist when I'm writing my own stuff, but am a self-taught touch typist and go relatively slowly when typing from copy.) Barry Adelman: I think Mombi's declaration of intention to turn Tip into a marble statue, which she apparently believed she could do, is an indication that she wasn't deterred from dehumanizing Tip out of reluctance. However, I think the best explanation for why Mombi didn't turn Ozma - or Pastoria, or Pajuka - into rocks or the like is that she didn't know how. From all the evidence we have in the FF at least (which is mostly in LAND), Mombi wasn't a particularly powerful magic-worker. Baum, in fact, specifically says that she didn't really qualify as a witch, but only as a sorceress or at most a wizardess. She certainly gets magical powders and tricks from the crooked magician and the Wizard at various times, which is an indication to me that she is by no means as powerful as Glinda, or probably as the witches of the East and West and North. Odds seem good to me that she simply didn't know how to do anything worse to Ozma than turning her into a boy, until she got the recipe for the Liquid of Petrifaction from Dr. Pipt on the same trip that she got the Powder of Life. (Remember also that she said that the recipes she exchanged with him were worthless.) And taking care of a child is only a huge expenditure of labor if you care about the child. At a guess, Mombi persuaded or coerced some Gillikin woman into providing care for Tip until he was old enough to fend for himself a bit, and then let him do just that. I can't quite see her changing diapers, can you? (Of course, there isn't any evidence at all in the FF that anyone in Oz, including babies, needs to eliminate...but one presumes they nevertheless do.) Nole in Noland is apparently a pretty respectable city, so the EC isn't the -only- city on the continent of Imagination. I think Nole is the only other one we know of for sure, though. Gilgad in Rinkitink is called a city, but we never see it so we don't know how big it is. It's been a while since I reread Yew, but I recall it as being basically medieval in nature, with castles and barons and the like, but no cities of any consequence. (I know most of it was medieval; I don't remember is all of it was. And of course, even in medieval times there were substantial cities like London and Paris and Venice, though I don't think anything like that appeared in the book.) Eric Gjovaag: Sorry, I wasn't trying for spoilers about WICKED. But the affair is something that's been mentioned in every review I've seen, and the murder is something that's adumbrated so clearly long before it happens that nothing much is spoiled by knowing it's coming before you read the book. If we move to Portland I'll certainly inform the Northwestern Oz fans of my address there. Right, a romance for Ozma is only mildly heretical. About on the level of DOROTHY OF OZ, which puts Dorothy back in Oz, via the silver shoes, between OZMA and DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD (as far as I can tell), but coming to Oz from Kansas when the FF makes it clear that she wasn't in Kansas between the events of those two books. And if it's sufficiently well done, maybe not heretical at all. But creating a male character worthy of her is going to be a killer of a task! I think it's arguable that LOST PRINCESS wasn't a major adventure for Trot; she was along, but she didn't do much. She probably saw more action in KABUMPO, although she was on-stage less of the time. (I made a point about that, though, in one of the cut chapters from GLASS CAT - Trot was reflecting that it was the first time that she and Cap'n Bill and Button-Bright had all been off on the same adventure since they first came to Oz together, not counting traveling to the Skeezer country when none of them really had anything to do but watch.) Robin Olderman: See my comment to Nate about my scanner - that could save some trouble. Also, a 48-page format can hold almost unlimited amounts of information if you print in a small enough point size. (I have a 41-page version of the full text of GLASS CAT - the 42,000 word version - and only had to go to 9-point type. 7-point is still quite readable for normal vision, though it isn't kind to those whose eyes are aging or are otherwise impaired.) If I can't go to Winkie, I'll definitely go to Ozmapolitan. I might even go to both, depending on how things are going. After all, I'm an Oz Author now! Aaron Adelman: I think "The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West" is a reference to the subtitle of the book better known as WICKED, by Gregory Maguire. Your local library should probably have it, since it seems to have been selling pretty well; certainly ILL should be able to turn it up. (Or you could buy a copy, but $25 is probably a bit stiff for a student - which I infer you are - unless you're well-supported from home.) 2/8/96 Eric Gjovaag: I don't think we're shown enough of Evna or the capital of Ix to know that they're really cities, as opposed to feudal capitals like Pumperdink City. But I haven't reread either of those books in a while, so I could be misremembering. The other FF book without any Baum characters is, of course, CAPTAIN SALT. (Does anybody know if any non-FF book is totally devoid of Baum characters? I haven't seen one. From what I've heard, LAUGHING DRAGON may be one, but I haven't seen a copy of that book, much less read it.) I found out yesterday from Peter that GLASS CAT hasn't been released to other bookstores yet, so that explains why none of them are carrying it. I'm not sure when it will be, but he said that there had been a lot of interest in it and so I hope it will show up somewhere that I'll see it. He also said it was selling very well - in fact, the deluxe edition is virtually sold out. (May be sold out by now; there were only four copies unsold as of the end of 1995. If any of you want a copy with the hand-colored frontispiece, for only $125, it may already be too late! ) David Bedell: The original illustrator of YEW was Fanny Y. Cory. I think Richardson illustrated ZIXI. I think it would be very difficult to reproduce most of the original illustrations, since most of them are printed in a rather light red behind the text. (At least in my copy. I'm not sure what edition it is, but it's definitely Old. Twenties, at least.) Robin Olderman: The last time I was there, Prince and the Pauper was on Adams St. and part of the bookstrip. But I'll admit that it's probably been at least five years since I made it there, even though I'm really less than a two-hour drive away. As you say, they have lovely stuff, but you have to be willing to pay through the nose for it, and I'm usually not. No, Planetty's married name is Queen Planetty. Just as the present Queen Mum, when George VI was alive, wasn't "Mrs. Windsor" but "Queen Elizabeth". Royalty have family names, but they don't use them in address. (Also, in PURPLE PRINCE there's a cheer that goes, "Hail, Randywell, King Handywell, of Brandenburg and Bompadoo!" So Bompadoo may be something in the nature of a territorial title rather than a family name, something like "Empress of India" for Queen Vicky. Hard to tell; I'm not sure Thompson was very consistent in this regard. (Actually, I'm sure she was not very consistent in this regard.) John White: Your scenario would certainly allow Ozma to have a romantic interest without violating anything that's been presented about her so far, but IMO that's not a -real- romantic interest. Any more than Gloria really lost interest in Pon in SCARECROW. Things that happen under enchantments may have real consequences, but the emotions involved aren't real. Tyler Jones: I was under the impression that Robin was offering copies of OZIANA, on loan at least, for people to use in typing them up; if we're dependent on our own collections, then I don't think I have anything before about 1990, and can't really help. I don't think a romantic interest for Ozma would violate the spirit of the FF, but I think it wouldn't be consistent with her character that has been well established through those books. In the first place, she's described as being physically about 14 or 15 - which is, certainly, more than old enough to have a romantic interest, but not to be really marriageable. In the second, she's shown to be "married to her kingdom" - she's too devoted to the welfare of her subjects to be able to concentrate her affection on any one individual. But if Dave wants to accept the challenge - and to try to write a male character that Oz fans will think worthy of her - then more power to him. -I- sure wouldn't try it! Cap'n Bill was left in charge of the EC in LOST PRINCESS. He went along with the rescue party to the Skeezer "city" (with its 100 inhabitants) in GLINDA. Aaron Adelman: Yes, the King and Queen of Seebania appear in WISHING HORSE, though only in the big parade, and they're not named, just referred to by their titles. Dave Hardenbrook: Scanning in the text of the entire Famous Forty and posting it online would be illegal, y'know. Only the Baums, and a few of the late Thompsons whose copyrights apparently weren't renewed, would be legal. You live in Huntington Beach? That's even closer to me than I thought. Wonder why I thought you were further up the 405? (I'm in south Santa Ana, about a mile north of South Coast Plaza.) BoW used to have a store in Beverly Hills, but Forest Lawn (who owned the building) wanted to raise their rent too much after they'd been there a year or so, and they closed. Pity; I rarely drive that far to shop, but while they were there I made the journey at least four times. It wasn't as big as the NYC store (or at least, didn't have as much stock; I think it might have had more floor space), but it was still the best children's bookstore in metropolitan LA. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:10:02 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: Yew, Ozma, etc. David Bedell writes: > Thanks, Eric and John, for the tip on Buckethead's reprint of _Yew_. > Can either of you (or anyone else) review it? Does it reprint the > original illustrations? (Who was the illustrator? Not Neill, I think; > Frank Richardson?) Well, It's a 212mm tall by 134mm deep by 17mm thick paperback with a very plain cover. Inside it looks like a simple reproduction of the original. The illustrations are by Fanny Y. Cory. These include line drawings, mainly decorating the beginning and end of chapters, and some carefully drawn full page illustrations (I counted 7 in a thumb through). These illustrations include grayscale (I haven't seen the original, but these may have been color plates). Do you want a description of the plot? The main goal is mostly just to travel around Yew seeking adventure, except near the end. Several places visited have their own villain, or set of villains, who are always reformed in some nonfatal manner. On the whole it is a very interesting and imaginative book. In my opinion it is better than some of the Oz books, such as D&W and Road. Tyler Jones writes: > The only reason that people think that Yew may be in the Nonestic is that > it appears in the official map. Bu the only reason it appears there is > because it was written by Baum. There is a reference in chapter 3 of the text of _Yew_ that definitely links it with Oz. This is a reference to a mortal being turned into an immortal, which is clearly referring to something that happened in _Santa Claus_, and beings from this book attend Ozma's birthday party in _Road_. > Yes, Ozga fell in love AFTER she became mortal, but Ozmas being born as a > mortal baby would come close to that... Ozga was a fairy, but she was never a true immortal. Immortals cannot become mortals. Lurline may have given Ozma the form of a mortal baby, but Ozma is a true immortal and could never have actually been a mortal. Dave Hardenbrook writes: >Nate wrote: >> You wouldn't even have to type the Ozianas in if you had access to a >> scanner with Optical Character Recognition software ... > > Can they be rented perhaps? :) Such a device is obviously very desirable. My father has a scanner, and I can sneak in and use it when he isn't playing solitaire on his computer. The OCR software is a little old and is not trainable. It turns old fashioned double quotes into all sorts of weird things. Fixing the text up and proofing it takes time, but it is still better than typing. My Oziana collection starts at 1980. I would guess that the later Ozianas were done with the help of a computer, so the text should already exist in digital form. Does anyone know which years are already in computer form? > "Fact"??? Like the Big Bang, polkiothermic dinosaurs and the inferiority > of the Amiga, I guess...Thanks for your idea, but I only do happy endings. :) Well, the dinosaurs do seem to have been warm blooded, certainly the surviving branch is (most people call them "birds", though). The static universe theory, on the other hand, stands up to close scrutiny about as well as the theory that the earth is flat. Of course, the Oz universe may well be static, and the world there flat. In fact, I figure that the distance that Shaggy's party fell through the hollow tube in _Tiktok_ to get to the other side of the world is only tiny fraction of the diameter of our world, so the Oz world must indeed be rather flat. :-) My idea did have a happy ending. Ozma escaped from a horrible fate, and Oz remained as it was before. What more could one ask for? :-) >Tyler wrote: >> In this case (Ozma getting a love interest), I agree that he should be a >>"nice guy", like the Su-Dic of Flathead Mountain. NOT! :) > > Absolutely! Ozma deserves the best, and she's gonna get it!!! (And we > won't discuss what joy awaits the lucky guy!!!) :) :) :) Hmm, he appears to be a nice guy, but what is he really like? What about the ancient law of Oz which says if he marries Ozma it is he who will rule Oz? Why did he recoil in horror when he was offered eggs for breakfast? :-) :-) :-) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:51:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Lack of Surnames in Oz 1) The IWOC map marks the capital of Ix as the City of Ix. 2) The other FF book with no Baumian characters is Captain Salt in Oz by=20 Ruth Plumly Thompson. 3) I checked the digests for December and found that I am in error. It does say there that Betsy Bobbin's birthday is October 31. I must have confused her birthmonth with that of Ozma. 4) Tik-Tok cannot have his operating system based on MS-DOS. He's way too user-friendly. He winds down too fast since Smith and Tinker based his power systems on those of Macintosh PowerBooks. 5) It would appear that Oz cannot be on the hollow interior of a planet. Besides the Hollow Earth claims not holding water at all, one must keep in mind that Oz's world has been visited by two Anutherians. This would either force them to have traveled through solid rock via lightning (not too likely) or else would probably make Anuther blatantly visible all the time. Plus Benny would have come up through the ground rather than falling through the sky when he dropped ito Oz. 6) I can only remember one instance of a married woman in Oz taking her husband's last name, Mopsi Aru, but this may be due to the almost universal disuse of last names in Oz. Plus I have a fuzzy memory, awakened by replies to my request for Planetty's husband's name, of Randy being referred to as Randywell Handywell of Brandenburg and Bompadoo, so if anything, Planetty would change her name to Planetty Handywell. 7) How many people in Oz have true surnames anyway? (Immigrants from the Outside World don't count.) The only Ozite I'm sure of having a true surname, besides the aforementioned Arus of Mount Munch) is Omby Amby/Wantowin Battles, who is mentioned somewhere in the FF as having come from the family of Battles. The rest of the Ozite 'surnames' would appear to fall into three categories:=20 a) What are probably middle names, e.g., Randywell Handywell, Nimmee Ammee. b) Names directly descriptive of the person (I think the technical term is cogomen, but I'm not sure), e.g., Nick Chopper (= Niklaus the Chopper), Jack Pumpkinhead (= Jack the Pumpkinhead), Joe King (= Joe the King). Note: In support of my claim that names in categories a) and b) are not surnames, I note that none of these names is ever used alone to refer to the character, e.g., Jack Pumpkinhead is always referred to as "Jack", "Jack Pumpkinhead", or "the pumpkinhead", but never just "Pumpkinhead". c) Crop-based names, used only by Oogaboonians since they name all of their men Jo or, formerly, Jol, e.g., Jo Files, Jo Apple, Jo Cone. I wouldn't call this category true surnames, as they do not get passed down from generation to generation. 8) John, the idea of Ozma falling in love due to a magical object is interesting, but it must be noted that magical aphrodisiacs (can't think of a better word at the moment) may very well work in ways that are not desired. For example, the Love Magnet affected the Scoodlers by making them want to turn the Shaggy Man and company into soup. Considering Ozma's psychological background, a magical aphrodisiac in her might produce undesirable feelings as a side effect, love for the owner of the charm in some sort of unexpected way, or maybe even love for an unintended person. Perhaps the Royal Literary Critic of Oz, who has a master's in psychology, would care to give us an educated guess as to what might happen. 9) Uh, Tyler, I never theorised that Pastoria = Ozette, which would probably involve time travel, amnesia, and a more successful sex-change transformation than Ozma went through. I theorized that Mombi = Ozette, a theory which I have dropped for another idea which I can't tell you at the moment due to threats from the Leakage Policeperson of the Day, Terp the Terrible. 10) Terp has granted me permission to tell over my suspiscions about Ozwoz the Wonderful, as it looks like now that he won't appear in Lurline's Machine at all. I suspect that Ozwoz is a former ruler of Oz (then called Oz Wozus) who abdicate and took up a carreer in magic. Somehow I envision him as an older brother to Oz Pastorius II, though he could have been from anywhere in the royal family for all I know. Of course, having a name starting with Oz- does not not neccessarily make one a member of the royal family of Oz, as indicated by Ozwold, the oztrich from The Gnome King of Oz. 11) Ozma being born as a baby to a mortal mother is not adoption. For a precedent, I refer to religions which have deities born as babies to mortals, for example, Christianity. In no case, so far as can remember, is Jesus ever called Mary's adopted son. 12) Tyler, you do have a point about stuffing too much stuff into one book. This is why I'm accepting my coauthor's suggestion of stretching the planned trilogy into something like five or six books, and some of the stuff in the excised chapters from the Woozy of Oz is being 'recycled' in the second book of Lurline's Machine, Trot and the Queasy in Oz. (Sorry, Terp won't allow me to describe the Queasy at the moment.) Terp will allow me to say that a lot of loose ends will be left at The Woozy of Oz to be tied up by later books. Now if only I can convince the Royal Literary Critic of Oz to allow me to excise that chapter we discussed today... 13) Weren't there references in earlier editions of the Digest of someone already having all the books in the FF in electronic form? Then again, I think that might have been in private E-mail to me. But since these files exist anyway, would whoever has them please post all those he/she legally can for the benifit of the on-line Oz community. From what I've heard on this Digest, that would include everything by Baum, the last five FF Thompson books, and perhaps Snow's books. 14) What is a pastiche anyway? 15) Terp says hi and asks where Umbrella Island is at the moment. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 18:37:40 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest CAPTAIN SALT IN OZ was the only Oz book in the FF that had no action at all in the Land of Oz. In fact, it had no action on the mainland. It was entirely in the Nonestic. Despite this, it is one of my all-time favorite Oz books. I was a little surprised that they did not all troop back to the Emerald City for the traditional party after Ozma breezed in and saved the day with a wave of her hand and a whispered command to the magic belt, but it was not necessary. Someday, I hope to see an adventure with Tandy and the Umbrellaphant. Chris D. (Buckethead and the other half of the HACC) has some weird ideas, but overall his textual knowledge of the Oz books is incredible. For you GURPS people, I would give him an Oz books skill of about 25. Tik-Tok must be using UNIX! Eric Gjovaag may have hit on something when he indirectly suggested that, for the most part, all of the different names for people who use magic are just semantics and self-made labels. I believe that there are different applications of magical power, but I do not think that there are as many different methods as there are different names. OK, Aaron, here's March Laumers version of OLD OZZISH! It isn't Ozzish, exactly, but it's old. It is an explanation of the date on the Travelers Tree of 1120 O.Z. People usually assume that is a calendar dating from the enchantment of Oz or the beginning of the Oz/Ozma dynasty. Laumer, however, has a different idea. In THE MAGIC MIRROR OF OZ, Till Orangespiegal comes from a German family that migrated by methods unknown to Oz in 1716 A.D. His family, which was first called Ulenspiegal, then Eulenspiegal, then Orangespiegal, had awlays been historians and they took to recording the history of Oz. They used a calendar dating from the traditional founding of the Ulenspiegal family. They used "O.Z." from the Low-German "Ouwe Zeit" for "Old Time". Their historical efforts were of such a high quality that the Ozian leaders adopted their dating system, still in use today. Year 1 O.Z. is equal to 733 A.D., so the converters are AD = OZ + 732 and OZ = AD - 732. Therefore, the Ulenspiegals migrated in 984 O.Z. and the travelers tree was planted in 1852 A.D.. Dorothy arrived in Oz in 1899 or 1167 O.Z.. Sadly, Till has forgotten his heritage and history, but the calendar remains. Ozma having no love interest is "established fact" only because she does not have one in the FF. Chris D. might call such a book Historically Inaccurate because this would very un-Baum-like, but I do not believe that anything in the FF implied that she CAN'T have a love interest. I think Baum described her as being about fourteen or fifteen somewhere. Who's to say she hasn't decided to age a few years in the meantime? She can have a boyfriend and still be the same sweet loving person we all know. As far as I know, Ojo and Steven/Nunkie are the only Seebanians in WISHING HORSE, although I cannot possibly imagine what you that info for. Someday, the entire FF will be on-line, though it may take a few years. Isn't there something called the Gugenheim project which already has the first two FF on-line? Aaron, I can only conclude that we have VERY different literary tastes. You lOVED Enchanted Isle of Yew and How the Wizard Came to Oz and you did not care for Oz and the Three Witches and Mysterious Chronicles at all, while I feel the exact opposite. This proves, though, that people can have different opinions and still enjoy Oz. I am not sure, but I believe there is a BOW branch in Beverly Hills. I usually have lots of spare time at work to do stuff with my Web Page, but this week I am too busy (ironically enough, workign on ANOTHER Web Page), but I hope to get the new HACC and the fixed sub-pages up this week sometime. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 08-Feb-96 18:11:44 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things GLINDA'S BOOK OF RECORDS: Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky wrote: > ... Which brings me to another question: what the devil >is the "horizon level (Computer Science term)" for that book? In another >words, in can't possibly record _everything_ that happens everywhere, no >matter how clever or magic ... So how important does an >event have to be to trigger the record? Glinda's Book seems to be very erratic on this point ( Maybe *IT* runs under MS-DOS!! :) :) )...It sometimes records startlingly trivial things like, "Dave Hardenbrook sneezed at 3:36 PM today at the UCI Library computer terminals while browsing all the Ozzy Websites"; and then turns right around and says, "The Nome King is plotting to conquer Oz" and fails to mention anything important like WHERE he is, WHAT he's planning, and WHO is helping him! This annoying unrelability of the Book causes lots of trouble in my book (the finished one). "AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THERE IS REALLY ONLY ONE -- OZMA, OZMA IT'S YOU!": :) :) :) John N. White wrote: >Well, the dinosaurs do seem to have been warm blooded, certainly the >surviving branch is (most people call them "birds", though). The only question is: Is the Ork a dinosaur? :) >The static universe theory, on the other hand, stands up to close >scrutiny about as well as the theory that the earth is flat. I just said I don't like the Big Bang...I didn't reject a non-static universe per se. It isn't an "either-or" proposition (ditto the "Ozma's love-life" question). :) >My idea did have a happy ending. Ozma escaped from a horrible fate, >and Oz remained as it was before. What more could one ask for? :-) So what you're saying in other words is (Sorry Alan Jay Lerner :)), "You'd prefer a new addition of the Spanish Inquisition Than to ever let a man in Ozma's life"? :) :) :) Well, if you really believe that Ozma's finding romantic bliss would nessesarily mean the end of civil-Oz-ation as we know it, I won't try to argue...I just have to accept the fact that you can't please everyone. (For all I know there will be those who will read _The Good Witch of Oz_ and say, "He resurrected the Good Witch of the North, gave each of the Adepts a distinct personality, brought dinosaurs into Oz, and rendered Oz invasion-proof and Glinda nearly 'All-Powerful'???? That's *DISGUSTING*!") :) :) :) >Hmm, he appears to be a nice guy, but what is he really like? The nature of Ozma's sweetheart has already fermented in my mind, and what he's *REALLY* like is something even better than a "nice guy" -- He's *A GOOD MAN*!!! :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 10, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 09:15:27 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Re: Lack of surnames Aaron Adelman: > 6) I can only remember one instance of a married woman in Oz taking her > husband's last name, Mopsi Aru, What about Mrs. Yoop? Maybe Yoop really *was* the last name, and their first names never disclosed? --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky, coming to you from somewhere near the Invisible City (Baltimore), in case anybody shoul care ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 14:30:01 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Due to a technical error in the contracts, the last five Thompson books are inthe public domain (WISHING HORSE, CAPTAIN SALT, SILVER PRINCESS, HANDY MANDY and OZOPLANING). The rest are copyrighted. I believe that the person in charge of the Thompson estate is Dorothy Curtiss Maryott, Ms. Thompsons neice. I do not know how to contact her. Perhaps a club officer does. Rumor has it that she is VERY reluctant to allow people to use Thompsons characters, but she may be amenable to an on-line text thing. The level of detail in GLinda book, as Dave mentioned, has been very erratic in and out of the FF. I cannot believe that EVERY action in the ENTIRE world is recorded in COMPLETE detail. My feeling is that the book can "sense" events in the world and reports on as much detail as it thinks is necessary. The problem, of course, is that what the BOOK thinks is important may not be what WE think is important. Daves example of the book giving a blow-by-blow color commentary about his sneezes vs. a blurb about the Nome Kings plans of conquest was hilarious! we know that "Oz info" is is red, so the book may have most of its CPU time slices directed in the local vicinity. We have never seen Gilgad, and our look at Evna was very brief. If the army of Ix is twice as big as Nolands, we can assume that their overall population is at least comprable to Nolands, and thus the capital of Ix is probably at least as big as Nole. Builing a city is not hard, after all. You just have to get a bunch of people to live in the same area. Now, getting a city to function well is another can of worms altogether... I put DOROTHY OF OZ between DOTWIZ and ROAD for the same reasons as the Random Housies, which was the same reason David Hulan mentioned, that Dorothy left and returned to Kansas and that she was not there between OZMA and DOTWIZ. If I have not mentioned this before, March Laumer wrote about Dorothys return trip from Australia, including the heretofore unrecorded meeting between Toto and Eureka. I do not remember an "ancient law" of Oz that states when a man marries the queen, he assumes the throne. In a society where a man or a woman can rule, sovereign power is not transferable. That is, when the ruler marries, he or she is still the sole ruler of the land and the spouse has no authority. If the ruler is a man, his wife is called "Queen", but if the ruler is a woman, his husband is called "The royal consort". When Gloria married Pon, she declared that he would rule by her side, but in THE GARDENERS BOY OF OZ, we see that it was only symbolic. As David Hulan remarked, the "City" of the Skeezers had only 101 people, so what the Imagination-ers call a city may be only a small village to us. As far as I can remember, very few is any Oz people had last names, apart from descriptive or titular (ex. "Percy Vere"). From what we know of Oz, their communities for the most part are very small, and the need for additional names may not be that important. I never mentioned a Pastoria=Ozette theory. I was discussing the inter- changeability of Ozia/Ozette, although for the most part it seems that Pastorias wife was Ozette and the first Ozroars wife was Ozia. The previous rulers of Oz may have had many children, not all of whom were rulers. They may have spread out over Oz and started their own families. Eventually, the name "Oz" could have become part of many peoples family tradition, even after they had forgotten where it came from. Therefore, there could be hundreds of people called "Oz"-something without necessarily being rulers. Ozma, at times, is said to have been born as a mortal baby, adopted, born of a long line of Fairy Queens, and existed since the beginning of time. If we say that she was "given" Patoria and his wife Ozette (who happened to have some fairy blood in her), all these statements are true. Yes, to say that the transfer of Ozma from a fairy to a human baby is an adoption is a VERY loose interpretation, but I prefer to come up with an explanation that satisifes all these statements rather than to just pick and choose based on what I already want the answers to be and to summarily reject the others out of hand. I will no longer gripe about too many characters/situations etc. in one book, since Lurlines Machine is now a series. Have at it! The Ork, That's "Flipper" to you, pardner :), could be a dinosaur or a descendant of them. In answer to John Whites statement about the distance through the hollow tube, I whipped out my calculator and did some figuring. Assuming that the earth is a perfect sphere with a diameter of 8000 miles, a person falling through a hole dug through the center would take 38 minute to pop out the other side. That is, he would take 19 minutes to fall the 4000 miles to the center of the earth, gaining speed all the time, and then another 19 minutes, slowing down all the time, to go the other 4000 miles to the other side. We already know from DOTWIZ that the land of Imagination has some different laws of physics than our world. For instance, as you go closer to the center of the earth, gravity weakens. In our world, gravitational force increases as you approach the center of mass. Therefore, our friends from TIKTOK would fall at a slower rate of acceleration than they would have if they had been in our world. Also, there is evidence that the Hollow Tube is not through the exact center, so there would also be some slowing through that effect too. Of course, maybe Imagination IS flat and people live on both sides, but not the edge, which would be built up a little to prevent water from spilling over the edge. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 16:49:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: 1001 On-Line Books of Oz 1) Today I discovered on Dennis's system of Web pages that he has made available the full texts of all previously off-line Baum 14 Oz books, Queen Zixi of Ix, the Magical Monarch of Mo, the Trot books, and American Fairy Tales. Even though they are not yet proofread, I would like to say THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to him and Warren, who contributed most of the texts, as as an Oz author, this makes my life much easier, as most of my and my brother's Oz books are in Charleston, while I am in New York. Also, we previously did not have copies of the Trot books at all, so this is saving The Royal Literary Critic of Oz the hastle of ILLing them. Today I am a happy camper. 2) Come to think of it, Mombi taking care of Tip as a baby might explain why she has a cow... 3) DavidXOE, the HACC puts Dorothy of Oz after Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz= . Also: $25 is way too stiff for me, especially as I'd rather put the money into FF books that are not yet part of my collection. 4) Strange, I thought the Big Bang theory was more or less correct and that steady-state thing trashed by practically everyone. 5) John, since when was there an ancient law in Oz where if a man marries= a ruling queen, he takes over the rulership of Oz? If this is actually so (and I can't remember it in any of the ~50+ Oz books I've read), I'd better seriously revise my list of rulers of Oz... 6) Tyler, on Tik-Tok using UNIX: HERESY! If it was so, Tik-Tok would be= completely and utterly aristocratic and evil, which is definitely not the= way he is. Also: Tyler, you have no idea why I'd want to know which Seebanians appear= in The Wishing Horse of Oz? Excellent! I'm getting better at leakage control. Also: I must concur with you on agreeing to disagree as far as tastes in Oz books is concerned. Hopefully we will be able to both have positive opinions of each other's books when they (G-d willing) come out. n) From the anatomy of Orks, I would say that they are what Nalrodi the Mind-Reader has termed nonhistoricals, having popped into existence on the whim of the Magic Machine at a magical hot spot at some point. n + 1) Ozma finding romantic bliss wouldn't mean the end of Ozite civilization, but it would require some serious explination why this character Ozma falls in love with doesn't appear in the later-dated Laumerian and yet-to-be-finished Adelmanian Oz books. Maybe some tragic accident happens to him... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 21:28:51 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/9/96 Bill Wright: I'm not positive - someone else may be - but I think the Thompson books from WISHING HORSE on are now public domain, because the copyrights weren't renewed when the first ones ran out. And I'm pretty sure that the current rights to the others are held by her niece, Dorothy Maryott. From what I've heard, I doubt if she'd give permission to post them on-line, but I've never had any contact with her myself so I don't know. Michael Turniansky: Glinda's Book of Records seems to record different things at different times. In "Tik-Tok", for instance, it says that if a child stamps its foot in anger, the Book records it, and Baum seems to always say it records anything that happens anywhere in the world. Glinda must be a great speed-reader to keep up with it, if so. But in Thompson's books it seems to be much more selective, and what few events it mentions are mentioned very cryptically. John N. White: It sounds as if the Buckethead version of "Yew" doesn't include the illustrations that were printed behind the text in the copy that I have. The full-page illustrations are indeed plates, rather pastel but very attractive. Cory was a fine illustrator, probably Neill's equal though very different. Aaron Adelman: A lot of places are called "city", in both the books and the IWOC map, that clearly aren't what we think of as cities - think of Quick City, Fix City, the "city" of the Skeezers (known to have only about 100 inhabitants), and Crystal City, to name a few. So we still don't know if the City of Ix is really what we'd call a city, or just a village that's grown up around Zixi's palace. (Nole, on the other hand, is described in enough detail that we can be pretty confident that it's a real city.) Ix is -probably- a real city, but it isn't certain. The wives and children of the men of Oogaboo do take the surname of their husband or father, according to both QUEEN ANN and GLASS CAT, though in the former the children change their names when they become old enough to take up separate interests of their own (and the latter doesn't contradict that). And it would appear that the royal family went further than that, since Queen Ann retains the surname of "Soforth" even though that was her father's surname as well. As to other Ozian surnames, there's Captain Fyter, of course, but I'm not sure if that's really his surname or his first name (like Cap'n Bill). I'd have to spend more time thinking about it than I have to feel confident one way or another. A pastiche is a piece of fiction by a writer in imitation of another writer's work, that is respectful of the original writer's intent (as opposed to a parody, which pokes fun at the original work). I'm not sure what the precise literary definition is (if there is one); by some standards, all the non-Baum Oz books, even the ones in the FF, are really pastiches. Some authors seem to draw writers of pastiches in great numbers, and others never draw any. Probably Sherlock Holmes has drawn the greatest number; Oz may well be the second most popular. I've also seen pastiches of Austen, Burroughs, Asimov, Rex Stout, and "Kenneth Robeson" (author of the Doc Savage stories), to list a few that spring to mind quickly. Tyler Jones: I'm afraid that I don't share your enthusiasm for CAPTAIN SALT. It's not bad, but it's my least favorite of Thompson's books from OJO to SILVER PRINCESS. The Oz books, by and large, fall into two broad categories - the "quest" and the "tour". In the former, a problem is presented early in the book (beyond just getting the mortal visitor home) and the plot involves solving that problem. In the latter, the usual goal is just to get to a specific place (most of the time the Emerald City), and the action details the strange places and curious inhabitants of Oz and/or its environs that the protagonists meet. The most classic "quest" is probably PATCHWORK GIRL; the most classic "tour" is probably ROAD. I substantially prefer the former style, and CAPTAIN SALT is probably the second purest "tour" in the FF. (There are exceptions that are neither - LAND, for instance, or the first two Neills. But those two general themes include 80% or more of the FF.) Of course, some "quest" books turn out to be little but a tour (GRAMPA comes to mind), while some that seem to have no goal but getting a character to a place come up with a much stronger plot than most of the tours (OJO is an example). Still, I think it's a useful distinction. I guess my literary tastes are closer to Aaron's than yours - while I wouldn't say I LOVE "Yew" or "How the Wiz", I like them better than "Oz and the 3 Witches" or "Mysterious Chronicles". I consider "3 Witches" hardly a story at all - just an Oz Research Group paper in fictional form. And "Mysterious Chronicles" spent far too much time retelling the plots of WIZARD and LAND, without enough amplification to be particularly interesting. And "Madden"'s writing style, while OK, didn't really seem of professional quality to me. I've reread the book twice, and will probably do so again before long, but I wouldn't put it near the quality of "Yew". "How the Wiz" I haven't reread at all yet; I may find that it doesn't hold up, though I quite enjoyed it (except for its brevity) the first time I read it. See my comments yesterday regarding the Beverly Hills BoW. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Friday 09-Feb-96 20:20:09 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things OZZY PARTY: Hey, David! I didn't realize you were so close either! :) Once again, everyone (on this list, anyway :)) is invited to my party, but please E-Mail me if you really think you can come. :) BAUM'S OZ BOOKS ONLINE: Aaron wrote: >1) Today I discovered on Dennis's system of Web pages that he has made >available the full texts of all previously off-line Baum 14 Oz books ... Thanks for the info, Aaron! It would have been nice if you'd have given us the URL though... :) THE OZZY BANG THEORY: Aaron wrote: >4) Strange, I thought the Big Bang theory was more or less correct and >that steady-state thing trashed by practically everyone. The Hoyle-Narliker Steady State theory is indeed bankrupt, but Hannes Alfven's and Eric Lerner's "Pl-Ozma" ( really "Plasma" :) ) Cosmology is a recently proposed theory that is entirely different and attempts to resolve serious problems in the current Big Bang Cosmology (like stars that appear to be older than the universe itself!) Here are the main propositions of the three cosmologies ( in Ozzy terms :) ): Steady State (a.k.a. "Continuous Creation"): The universe always existed and always will. New matter appears in space spontaniously like raining popcorn in Mo. The universe as a whole always remains the same (like Baum's Oz). Big Bang: The entire universe (and all fairies, including Ozma) burst into existence _ex nihilo_ in a colossal explosion. At first the evolution of the universe was rapid, but like Tik-Tok, the universe is slowly running down, and without a cosmic "Dorothy" to wind it up again, the universe will ultimately disintegrate into a cold, endless, lifeless smog of degenerate subatomic particles (uplifting, huh?). "Pl-Ozma" (Plasma) Cosmology: The univese is eternal both in the past and future, as in the Steady State, but the difference is that the universe is constantly evolving toward greater energy, complexity, vibrance, and life. The universe through the eons stays basically the same universe we know and love, but the capacity for growth and improvement is always there ( This is how *I* like to think of both the Cosmos and Oz :) ). MY UNIVERSE OR YOURS?: Aaron wrote: >Ozma finding romantic bliss wouldn't mean the end of Ozite >civilization, but it would require some serious explination why this >character Ozma falls in love with doesn't appear in the later-dated >Laumerian and yet-to-be-finished Adelmanian Oz books ... Very simple. The Hardenbrookian universe containing the Oz in which Ozma finds eternal romantic bliss is separate from the Laumer-Adelmanian universe, and thus exists elsewhere in the "Whole Sort of General Mish Mash" ( Sorry Douglas Adams! :) ). >From the anatomy of Orks, I would say that they are what Nalrodi the >Mind-Reader has termed nonhistoricals, having popped into existence on >the whim of the Magic Machine at a magical hot spot at some point. Darwin is valid in the Hardenbrookian cosmos. -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 10, 1996 (SPECIAL EDITION) Hi Ozzy folks! This is a special edition of the Ozzy Digest containing a long review of the 1925 silent version of _Wizard of Oz_. Thanks to Nate for posting it! :) -- Dave, your Ozzy editior ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 11:37:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Nathanel J. Barlow" Subject: Fwd: Silent Reels 7: Wizard of Oz Dave, You might want to send this out as a separate issue. It's a review of the 1925 Wizard film that somebody just sent me. Nate ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 07:42 EST From: Rodney Schroeter <0005791716@mcimail.com> To: "Nathanel J. Barlow" Silent Reels, by Rodney Schroeter Column #7: Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" The 1925 version of "The Wizard of Oz," directed by and starring Larry Semon, is one of the weirdest, wackiest movies I've ever seen. Larry Semon was born in 1889. According to the _Motion Picture Studio Directory and Trade Annual, 1920_, published by Motion Picture News, Inc., he played on stage as a child with his father, Zera Semon. He went on to become a professional magician, a cartoon artist, and a tumbler in vaudeville. Film titles he worked in for Vitagraph include "Players and Puppy Love," "Rooftops and Ruffians," "Huns and Hyphens," "Pluck and Plotters," "Traps and Tangles," "Scamps and Scandals," and "The Head Waiter." (Shucks, that last one broke the pattern!) Semon's films became very popular. One person who attests to this was Oliver Hardy, who worked quite a bit with him. In John McCabe's book (see the list of references toward the end), Hardy is quoted: "No one was bigger than Larry when he was on top. He was a good comedian--a very good acrobatic comedian--and he always knew a good gag when he saw one. He used to have a little black book that he'd keep in his back trouser pocket. That little book was worth thousands and thousands of dollars because he always kept all his comedy ideas in it. I never saw anyone work harder at making a gag work out, except maybe Stan." (Stan Laurel also worked--briefly--with Semon. According to Randy Skretvedt, the association "was abruptly terminated when Semon thought Stan was getting too many laughs." And Walter Kerr writes that Stan "worked for Larry Semon, where he was reportedly tied to a tree to keep him from outracing and outmugging Mr. Semon.") As Semon's fame increased, so did artistic control over his own work. More money became available and, unfortunately, he became too extravagant, making it difficult for his pictures to earn back the money put into them. "He helped bring about his own downfall," Hardy said, in McCabe's book. "I can remember one instance that was typical. Understand this now. We were doing a two-reeler called _The Sawmill_. Just a regular two-reeler, to be done on a regular two-reeler budget, which wasn't a lot. But Larry took us up on location and I mean location. It was a North Woods picture, and Larry took a very big company up into the wilds of the California mountains. He built--believe it or not-- he _built_ permanent log cabins and buildings for a full company with all the comforts of life, and we spent about three months on that picture. Vitagraph after a while insisted that he become his own producer because they just weren't going to foot all those bills. And then when the bills started to come in, he'd worry--but then he was always worrying, and the funny thing is that he was never able to figure out why things weren't going well for him. We always had a lot of fun, and I loved working for Larry, but you can't have a lot of fun and make a lot of money--not under those conditions anyway." Kathryn Leigh Scott writes, "Once a millionaire, who briefly enjoyed a popularity rivaling that of Chaplin and Lloyd, the broken and bankrupt Semon suffered a nervous breakdown and died of pneumonia in New York in 1928 at the age of thirty-nine." (Her book features a lobby card, bearing a strikingly frightful closeup of Semon, from his 1920 short, "The Suitor.") Semon's version of "The Wizard of Oz" is not for everyone. Walter Kerr, for example, called it "a film that ought to have bankrupted everyone associated with it." I admit that I enjoyed it very much. Your own reaction to it will likely be one of the following: Total revulsion; utter hilarity; a sudden and deep lapse into psychosis. The movie has little to do with the original Oz stories. It is narratively disjointed (hey, there's a new phrase for you), and doesn't even have a satisfactory conclusion. And the whole story isn't even happening--it's being told by an old man to his granddaughter. (He's reading it out of an Oz book, but he's certainly changing things at whim as he goes along.) The story starts in Oz. The Wizard, a phony poseur with no powers whatever, tries to impress Lady Vishus and Prime Minister Kruel, who are threatening to take over the political scene. The Wizard conjures up a beautiful, magical dancing lady. (This "Phantom of the Basket," as "she" is referred to in the credits, is played by Frederick KoVert. I hesitate to speculate.) An unimpressed Prince Kynd (say, can you tell the good guys from the bad guys here?) says, "That's a lot of applesauce!" Remember that expression? The honest people of Oz want their queen, Dorothy. But Dorothy vanished when she was an infant, eighteen years before. I'm impatient with this story. So is the little girl that Grampy is reading to. So we go to Kansas. Dorothy lives on a farm with her Aunt Em and Uncle Frank. Larry Semon and Oliver Hardy are farm hands. Both are admirers of Dorothy's. There is a long series of gags and mishaps that have absolutely nothing to do with the story. Larry is kicked into a cactus patch by a mule. (Do cacti grow in Kansas?) Barrels full of milk or whitewash go flying and crashing on people. A goose steals Larry's lollipop. Larry tries to whack the goose with a stick as it pokes its head through a hole in the fence. But the goose squirts Larry with some milky substance. An animated swarm of bees menaces Larry and the others. A bee crawls into one of Larry's ears--and crawls out the other ear. Semon's comedy is very physical, and filled with stunts that will leave one side of the audience yowling, "Wow!!" while the other side howls "Yow!!" Another farm hand is a black man named Snowball, played by G. Howe Black. And--wait a minute! Is that a racist slur? Some people will interpret it as such. Well, what to do about it? Censor it? That's just what the Politically Correct would advocate--violate an actual right (the right to free speech), in an attempt to protect an alleged, but impossible and non-existent right: the right to not be offended. But let's be consistent here (for, one test of a principle's validity is whether it can be applied consistently, given the context which defines it; a false principle cannot, while a true principle not only can be, but should be). I have the same right to not be offended. It offends me that popular culture, especially movies, portrays one segment of our society in the most viciously slanted, stereotypical way. I refer to a type of person who is responsible for, and should be thanked for (not condemned, as they are), our current high standard of living and our high life- expectancy. The group Ayn Rand identified, in her 1961 article, as "America's Persecuted Minority--Big Business." Had enough? All right, back to Oz, where the evil schemers, fearful of a popular uprising, fly to Kansas in an airplane, intending to fetch Dorothy, return her, and placate the populace. It's then that Uncle Frank explains to Dorothy that she was left on their doorstep as an infant. He digs up the documents that prove her identity. The villains want Dorothy, and they want those documents. Hardy, thinking he sees a chance to win her, makes a deal with the Oz men. Semon starts fighting with him. They battle at the top of a double silo, Semon falling onto a cart of hay, Hardy falling on the ground, hard. Uncle Frank won't yield the documents, so the crooks hoist Dorothy to the top of a water tower, dangling her by a rope around her waist, and build a fire under the rope. The rope breaks, but Larry reaches the spot below her, just in time for her to fall on him. A terrific storm comes up. Lightning starts persecuting Larry, knocking off his hat, then his bow tie. The storm's fury increases. Larry, Dorothy, Uncle Frank, Aunt Em, and Hardy take refuge in a shed. The farm buildings, the silos, are all blown away and their shed shelter tumbles into the air. G. Howe Black starts running, is blown into the air, chased by lightning, and he catches up to the shed. They land in Oz, a very visually impressive place, and someone says, "I wonder where we are!" (properly using the declarative rather than the interrogative punctuation). Semon and Hardy escape from the corrupt Oz officials (the others are taken prisoner) and, to escape death, they disguise themselves-- Hardy as a Tin Woodsman, and Semon as a living Scarecrow. If I've indicated that this movie is far from perfect, I want to state this: Semon's personification of the Scarecrow, with nose painted black and large circles around his eyes, is one of the most appealing characters I've ever seen on the screen. And his act as the Scarecrow, which comes an hour into the film, is all too brief. When he first reveals himself, he lets the phoney Wizard in on the deception with a perfect example of a Classic Wink. The Classic Wink consists of the following. Person A, in on the gag, tilts his head slightly and winks (opening the mouth slightly is optional). Person B, eager to be in on the gag, too, moves his head in a cane shape--up slightly at first, to the side a little, then down. The wink is performed, and (again, opening the mouth is optional) the jaw is thrust to the same side as the winking eye. (I have yet to do a detailed analysis on left vs. right-side winking.) Another excellent example of the Classic Wink is to be found in Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last" (1923), where Harold is discovered in the boss's office by an office boy. (Someone please tell me who played that kid, and whether he went on working in movies.) The evil Ozzies throw Semon and Black into the dungeon. Hardy throws in with the bad guys. Black dresses up as an outrageously fake Lion, and guess what--he's Cowardly! One of the dungeon's worst tortures is to be thrown into a vat of chocolate, or mud, or both. And there are real lions, which sets up the obvious though still humorous situation of the Scarecrow being followed by a real lion, while thinking it's the disguised Black. Black jumps out of a window, and does an incredible series of flopping somersaults down a hill. In one uninterrupted shot, he does at least ten forward rolls. Have the remote ready, to rewind this part and play it over. There is no conclusive ending to this film, and I won't give away what it is. I've made a big deal in past columns, just how great it can be to share a silent film with children. So, you might justifiably ask, how is this one with kids? I can relate two anecdotes. First, I lent it to a friend, who played it for her own children and a few other kids. During the film, there were cries of protest: "What's this?" and "Turn on something else!" But every time she asked whether she should turn it off, she was shouted down by those who wanted to see it. Second, I showed it to my nieces, age five and nine. Early in the film, the older girl turned to me in frustration and said, "I don't know what's all going on." I had to admit to her, "I don't, either." An unqualified success? Nothing like it, if one compares their reactions to a typical Keaton or Lloyd masterpiece. On the other hand, they sat and watched it, and found it entertainingly humorous. Credits for "Wizard of Oz": Dorothy Dwan Dorothy Mary Carr Aunt Em Virginia Pearson Lady Vishus Bryant Washburn Prince Kynd Josef Swickard Prime Minister Kruel Charles Murray The Wizard Oliver N. Hardy Farm hand / Tin Woodsman William Hauber William Dinus Frank Alexander Uncle Henry Otto Lederer Ambassador Wikked Frederick KoVert Phantom of the Basket Larry Semon Farm hand / Scarecrow G. Howe Black Snowball / Cowardly Lion I've seen a few of Semon's shorts (short films, that is). Many feature Semon's wife, Dorothy Dwan, as well as Oliver Hardy, the very large Frank Alexander, and G. Howe Black (anyone know what this guy's real name was?). I sent Super Sleuths the price for a typical video, and asked them to put as many short silents on as they could. They sent me a tape with these Semon comedies: "Her Boy Friend" (1924); "The Sleuth" (1922); "Well I'll Be" (1919); "The Bell Hop" (1921); and "The Bakery" (1921). These wild pieces feature incredible sight gags and real stunts. People soaked in ink, or plaster; dives out of 3rd-story windows onto the pavement; a dive off the high mast of a boat into the water; swinging on ropes; chewing-tobacco jokes; dope gags (with an accidentally doped Semon doing a psychedelic dance); bodies flying through the air, diving into rain barrels & bursting them. "Her Boy Friend" Larry is a detective after some bootleggers. The lady detective helping him is certainly no helpless simp; she climbs buildings and jumps out of a high window into a fireman's net. Larry is rendered goofy when a vamp blows smoke (of a questionable nature) into his mouth with her cigarette holder. "The Sleuth" Once again a detective, Larry pretends to be an evil man's chauffeur. He runs the car into a wall, bending the tires. As the auto wobbles down the road, it vibrates so badly that pieces fall from it, leaving little but the chassis by the time they reach their destination. "Well I'll Be" Larry is a frontier town sheriff. A villain offers a fair maiden a drink. She sniffs it, shakes her head in disgust, and throws the drink away. A cowboy catches the stream of liquid in his mouth! At the end, Semon falls and, facing the camera, mouths the words "Well I'll be--" and something that sure looks like "ham." "The Bell Hop" The lobby of a hotel is so crowded, a traffic cop is needed to direct movement. A little girl discovers a wonderful fish bowl with--what fun!--salamanders. Just the kind of thing you'd expect to see in a hotel lobby. She tosses one on Larry, and he goes into a Classic Wiggle. Hardy plays a desk clerk who is furiously frustrated with Larry. "The Bakery" Larry is a worker in--aw, you guessed it. Oliver Hardy is the boss. A mouse crawls down a woman customer's back, and Larry has an ingenious method of drawing it out. He has her put her head down, then lightly rubs the exposed skin of her neck with a cheese. The mouse can't resist, and when it pokes its little head out from the woman's dress, Larry whacks it with a sack of flour. This causes the black cat to jump into a barrel of flour. It pokes its powdered head out in wide-eyed perplexity. The various hijinks in this film made me think, sadly, of my 5-week job in a cheese factory. All those missed opportunities for hilarity. Those chutes down which fresh, wiggly logs of Provolone would slide down, into vats of greenish salt water... I wonder if a human body could have fit on one of those chutes. Well, maybe not Oliver Hardy's body. Books quoted in this article: In print: _The Silent Clowns_ by Walter Kerr (ISBN 0-306-80387-9). There is a short but informative and perceptive write-up on Semon in a chapter called "Some Imperfect Clowns." _Laurel and Hardy, The Magic Behind the Movies_ by Randy Skretvedt (ISBN 0-940410-29-X). A wonderful book about Stan & Ollie, featuring many photos, one of which is Larry Semon, Dorothy Dwan, and Oliver & Myrtle Hardy attending the premiere of "The Wizard of Oz." Not in print (but I wish they were!): _Mr. Laurel & Mr. Hardy_ by John McCabe, first copyright 1961. _Lobby Cards, The Classic Comedies_ by Kathryn Leigh Scott, first printed 1988. Video dealers worthy of your attention: Video Yesteryear / Box C / Sandy Hook CT 06482. VY carries "Wizard of Oz" and several short comedies by Semon, including "The Sawmill," mentioned in one of Hardy's quotes. Grapevine Video / Box 46161 / Phoenix AZ 85063. Grapevine lists "Wizard of Oz" in their catalog, as well as three films from 1914, based on the Oz stories and characters, which were directed by author L. Frank Baum! I've seen one of these-- "The Patchwork Girl of Oz." It, too, is incredible and bizarre. I want to see the others. Grapevine offers an attractively priced single tape with all three of them. Super Sleuths / 3353 South Main Street #545 / Salt Lake City UT 84115. In my 4th Silent Reels column, I wrote with great enthusiasm about "The Man Who Laughs" (1928). Recently, I showed this to a 9-year old boy and a 12-year old girl, after giving them a brief idea of what the movie was about. I had no idea whether it would keep their interest--but it did! The perceptive comments made by both of them throughout the film showed that it was not over their heads. (Of course, considering the high quality of the _contents_ of those two heads, I'm not surprised.) At least one contemporary critic, however, did not care for the film. Photoplay, of May 1928, had this to say: "This picture may get by in Europe under the name of Art, but in this country it will have little interest. Dragged into a super- production by extremely slow action, it loses the dramatic value of a story which might have succeeded under the name of 'something different.' Historically it gives an insight into the lives of the yokels of the King James II period. Conrad Veidt does a splendid piece of acting." This quote is from a book published in 1982 by Scarecrow Press: _Selected Film Criticism 1921-1930_, by Anthony Slide. (I also picked up the 1912-1920 volume.) I suspect the books are out of print, as the Scarecrow Press catalog was selling them half price, and said "Limited quantities available." You can order a catalog from them by calling 1-800-537-7107. In a previous column, I had a trivia question (for which I did not know the answer) about the spelling of a certain actor's name. The most common spelling I've seen is: Tote Du Crow. Well, I've found a photo of this man! You can see it in Jerry Vermilye's book, _The Films of the Twenties_ (ISBN 0-8065-1195- 8), in his write-up of Douglas Fairbanks' "Thief of Bagdad" (1924). New trivia question! Which of the following names is the correct spelling: Rockliffe Fellowes Radcliffe Fellows I've seen it both ways. Answer: sometime soon. Interesting actress name I came across: Lydia Yeamans Titus. Interesting actor name: Antrim Short. (Reverse the two. Get it? Get it?) Rodney Schroeter / Box 37766 / Milwaukee WI 53237-0766 579-1716@mcimail.com 8-27-95 Entire contents of this column Copyright 1995 by Rodney Schroeter. Permission is given by the author to freely copy and distribute this article, if kept intact & unchanged. Such permission may be withdrawn in the future--from specific individuals, or from the general public. ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 11, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 06:46:32 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-09-96 Before I get started, I'm going to put this call out again (and I'm going to keep doing it every once in a while until I get some replies)! Can anybody suggest some appropriate newsgroups, other than rec.arts.books and rec.arts.books.childrens, where this Digest, the FAQ (once I get it up and running), or any other general Ozzy announcements can be advertised? There are probably some appropriate movie groups, Oz has become big in comics of late... C'mon, rack your brains and let me know where you think Ozzy items might get some interested traffic. (Specific group names, please, something like "something with 'movies' in the group name" is not very helpful.) > From: "W. R. Wright" > Subject: > > I suspect if you hang on a little bit you will be able to get on line access > to the Baum portion of the FF. Some of them are already available from > several different sites. Everyone that is available on line is linked to > from their synopsis at my web site (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet -- the > books section). > However, only those Thompson books now in the public domain could be freely > put on line. Does anyone out there know what the copyright status of each > of the Thompson books is? And if we wanted to ask from a release for those > still under copyright to put them on line, who would we ask? Who owns the > copyrights today? For the Thompson books (except "Wishing Horse," "Captain Salt," "Handy Mandy," "Silver Princess," and "Ozoplaning," all of which are public domain), talk to her niece, Dorothy Maryott. For the Neill books, ask his daughters. The Snow books are public domain, so no problems there. For "Hidden Valley" and "Wicked Witch," ask Rachel Cosgrove Payes. For "Merry-Go-Round" and "Forbidden Fountain," ask Eloise Jarvis McGraw. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digests, 2/7-8/96 > > > Nole in Noland is apparently a pretty respectable city, so the EC isn't the > -only- city on the continent of Imagination. I think Nole is the only other > one we know of for sure, though. Gilgad in Rinkitink is called a city, but we > never see it so we don't know how big it is. (/me smacks forehead) Gilgad! Of course! Why didn't I think of THAT one in my list of Imaginary cities? > Eric Gjovaag: > Sorry, I wasn't trying for spoilers about WICKED. But the affair is something > that's been mentioned in every review I've seen, and the murder is something > that's adumbrated so clearly long before it happens that nothing much is > spoiled by knowing it's coming before you read the book. But I haven't read ANY reviews of "Wicked," nor heard anything about it outside of the BoW catalog. > The other FF book without any Baum characters is, of course, CAPTAIN SALT. (/me does Ed McMahon impression) YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR! > (Does anybody know if any non-FF book is totally devoid of Baum characters? I > haven't seen one. From what I've heard, LAUGHING DRAGON may be one, but I > haven't seen a copy of that book, much less read it.) Nope, no Baum characters (well, L. Frank Baum characters, anyway) in "Laughing Dragon," but had the sequel been published, I'm sure some would have popped up in there. > David Bedell: > The original illustrator of YEW was Fanny Y. Cory. I think Richardson > illustrated ZIXI. (See my Ed McMahon impression above.) > I think it would be very difficult to reproduce most of the > original illustrations, since most of them are printed in a rather light red > behind the text. (At least in my copy. I'm not sure what edition it is, but > it's definitely Old. Twenties, at least.) My edition is from the teens (it's a Donohue reprint), and I don't have any of that! Considering how cheaply made the Bobbs-Merrill editions of Baum's books reprinted in 1920 were (such as my "Dot and Tot"), I suspect you may have an even older edition than that! (Anybody have the "Bib Baumiana" column on "Yew" handy?) > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: Yew, Ozma, etc. > [re: Buckethead's edition of "Yew"] > The illustrations are by Fanny Y. Cory. These include line > drawings, mainly decorating the beginning and end of chapters, and > some carefully drawn full page illustrations (I counted 7 in a thumb > through). These illustrations include grayscale (I haven't seen the > original, but these may have been color plates). Fortunately my older edition of "Yew" DOES have color plates, so yes, I can confirm that the grayscale pictures in the Buckethead version are the color plates -- rendered in grayscale, of course. > There is a reference in chapter 3 of the text of _Yew_ that definitely > links it with Oz. This is a reference to a mortal being turned into > an immortal, which is clearly referring to something that happened in > _Santa Claus_, and beings from this book attend Ozma's birthday party > in _Road_. But Santa Claus has visited our world as well, as evidenced by portions of "Life and Adventures" -- as well as all those presents many kids find under their tree ever Christmas . So while, yes, I agree that that line refers to Santa Claus, but I don't necessarily agree that that ties Oz and Yew together in the same world. > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Lack of Surnames in Oz > 1) The IWOC map marks the capital of Ix as the City of Ix. Only because it was never named in "Queen Zixi of Ix." > 7) How many people in Oz have true surnames anyway? (Immigrants from the > Outside World don't count.) The only Ozite I'm sure of having a true > surname, besides the aforementioned Arus of Mount Munch) is Omby > Amby/Wantowin Battles, who is mentioned somewhere in the FF as having come > from the family of Battles. The rest of the Ozite 'surnames' would appear > to fall into three categories:=20 And which category does Jellia Jamb fit into? > 15) Terp says hi and asks where Umbrella Island is at the moment. Er, are you confusing Terp (from "Hidden Valley") with Terrybubble (from "Speedy")? --Eric "Let's try to keep 'em brief, folks, it's now taking me HOURS to deal with Digests!" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 07:00:00 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-10-96 > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > we know that "Oz info" is is red, so the book may have most of its CPU time > slices directed in the local vicinity. When was THIS info about Glinda's Book of Records mentioned in the FF? (Yes, I know many authors -- Karyl and myself included -- have used this, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the FF.) > In answer to John Whites statement about the distance through the hollow > tube, I whipped out my calculator and did some figuring. > > Assuming that the earth is a perfect sphere with a diameter of 8000 miles, > a person falling through a hole dug through the center would take 38 > minute to pop out the other side. That is, he would take 19 minutes to > fall the 4000 miles to the center of the earth, gaining speed all the time, > and then another 19 minutes, slowing down all the time, to go the other > 4000 miles to the other side. In "The Annotated Alice," Martin Gardner (another long-time Oz fan) states that this time would be 42 minutes, not 38. And that it would take the same amount of time no matter what two points on the globe the tube connected, so long as the tube was straight. (Gardner also mentiones "Tik-Tok of Oz" and Hiergargo's tube in the relevant note.) > We already know from DOTWIZ that the land of Imagination has some different > laws of physics than our world. For instance, as you go closer to the center > of the earth, gravity weakens. In our world, gravitational force increases > as you approach the center of mass. Therefore, our friends from TIKTOK > would fall at a slower rate of acceleration than they would have if they > had been in our world. Not necessarily. The less-than-average gravity may have been localized in the Land of the Mangaboos, not a planet-wide phenomenon. (It didn't seem to be in effect anywhere else underground in "Dorothy and the Wizard.") > Also, there is evidence that the Hollow Tube is not > through the exact center, so there would also be some slowing through that > effect too. What's THIS evidence, then? > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: 1001 On-Line Books of Oz > > 2) Come to think of it, Mombi taking care of Tip as a baby might explain > why she has a cow... > 4) Strange, I thought the Big Bang theory was more or less correct and > that steady-state thing trashed by practically everyone. Remember, though, that it's a theory. Someone may come up with a better idea down the road that will eventually become the scientific norm. Thus is the nature of science... > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > BAUM'S OZ BOOKS ONLINE: > Aaron wrote: > >1) Today I discovered on Dennis's system of Web pages that he has made > >available the full texts of all previously off-line Baum 14 Oz books ... > > Thanks for the info, Aaron! It would have been nice if you'd have given > us the URL though... :) Yeah, I want to put it in the FAQ! (Althiugh if it's what I think it is, I may have it in the revised version already.) --Eric "Then I can get to work on MY web page..." Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 11:48:23 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-10-96 Mike Turniansky: Baltimore is the Invisible City? Tell it to Cleveland! Tyler Jones: The fact that Ix presumably has a larger population than Noland doesn't necessarily mean that Ix City is comparable to Nole in size. Noland may be much more urbanized, cf. England and Spain in the 16th century, when London was far larger than Madrid even though Spain was more populous than England. But I agree that it's probable that Ix City is a real city. The reason for my location of DOROTHY before DOTWIZ is that the Wizard doesn't appear to be in Oz for its events. But maybe he was taking a long nap or something... As you know, I'm writing about Dorothy's return trip from Australia and the first meeting between Eureka and Toto, too. And will almost certainly contradict Laumer. I'll leave it to you and others to try to reconcile the stories, assuming EUREKA IN OZ gets published... I think John was kidding when he referred to the "ancient law" of Oz where a female ruler turned her authority over to her husband upon marriage. It was in the context of three smiley emoticons. I certainly took it as a joke and not a reference to anything from a book. I think we can safely conclude that the orks are magical and not natural creatures. Steven Jay Gould had an essay in NATURAL HISTORY, reprinted in one of his books, explaining why no animal has ever evolved wheels, despite their obvious advantages for many purposes. In brief, a body part can't allow unlimited rotation because there's no way for the rest of the body to get nutrients to it. The propellors of the orks, like the wheels of the Wheelers, therefore define them as magical and not natural. Umm...I think you miscalculated how long it takes to fall through the earth. You have to remember that gravity decreases as you go toward the center - only that part of the earth's mass that's below you has a net attraction. (One of the standard theorems in integral calculus proves that the net gravitational attraction inside a hollow sphere is zero - which is why, incidentally, Burroughs' Pellucidar is impossible; all its loose material - like people - would be inexorably drawn into the central sun. It's also why Oz couldn't be on the inside of our world. It could, of course, be on the inside of a hollow, as long as there's more material on the side of the hollow that's "down" than on the other side. But I see no reason to think that; in fact, I believe that there are references to the horizon somewhere in PIRATES and/or CAPTAIN SALT, and if there's a horizon then Oz is on a convex surface.) So the acceleration due to gravity diminishes as you fall. 38 minutes is what you get if you accelerate at 32.2 ft/sec^2 the whole way, but you don't. As I said yesterday, I did the integration once many years ago and remember it as being a few hours, maybe four or five. Some mathematically-inclined person reading this may want to try it as an exercise. The acceleration due to gravity is inversely proportional to your distance from the center of the earth, since the mass attracting you is proportional to the cube of your distance from the center and the acceleration due to the attraction is inversely proportional to the square of your distance from the center. All this, of course, assumes a uniform density for the earth, but in the Oz-earth, where such a tunnel is possible in the first place, that's probably true. Which is to say that you're also wrong that in our world, gravitational force increases as you approach the center of mass. This is true only as long as you're external to all the mass. The negligible gravity Dorothy and friends encountered in DOTWIZ couldn't happen in our world - not in a place habitable by humans - but gravity really would be lower deep under the earth. (Sorry about that, but my degree is in physics...) Aaron Adelman: Hey, good news about all those books on line! Not that I want to read them (since I already have all of them in print editions, which are much handier for most purposes), but I think I may download one or two just run a word count and see if my estimates are fairly accurate. It might also be useful to have them for research; the computer can look for words a lot faster than I can (though I usually have a much better idea where to start looking). Dave Hardenbrook: Not all versions of the Big Bang have the universe "ultimately disintegrate into a cold, endless, lifeless smog of degenerate subatomic particles". Depends on the value of the cosmological constant, which appears to be very near the critical value. If it's on one side of it, your scenario is right; on the other side, the universe will eventually stop expanding and will contract back into a single-point singularity again. Not, of course, that this is much more hopeful - although since in either case we're talking tens of billions of years, probably hundreds of billions, I don't think it makes a serious difference in how we live our lives or write our stories. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 13:32:35 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-10-96 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: >BAUM'S OZ BOOKS ONLINE: >Aaron wrote: >>1) Today I discovered on Dennis's system of Web pages that he has made >>available the full texts of all previously off-line Baum 14 Oz books ... > >Thanks for the info, Aaron! It would have been nice if you'd have given >us the URL though... :) > Dennis" site is hotlinked from my web page that provides links to Ozzy sites (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/weblinks.htm). I would appreciate it if you know of any Ozzy sites that I don't have listed. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 13:45:09 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest Special Issue, 02-10-96 At 03:37 PM 2/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Ozzy folks! This is a special edition of the Ozzy Digest containing >a long review of the 1925 silent version of _Wizard of Oz_. Thanks to >Nate for posting it! :) > >Silent Reels, by Rodney Schroeter > Column #7: Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" > Nate, can you fill us in on Rodney and "Silent Reels"? Who is he? (As I reluctantly admit my ignorance :) ) And is Silent Reels a book, or a periodical column that he writes? Also, not having had the opportunity to see the movie, is it correct for me to assume that his review is accurate. And, are there similar reviews published for the other Oz silent films? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 23:51:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: 1001 E-Texts of Oz, part 2 1) Mike, you may be right about Mrs. Yoop. Add her and Mr. Yoop to my list of characters not scheduled to appear in the Lurline's Machine series. 2) Tyler, considering the anatomy of Orks, I would really hesitate the derive them from dinosaurs. I really don't see where the wings and propeller on the tail come from. Kalidahs, on the other hand, could definitely be assumed to be derived from some sort of carnivoran mammal that arrived on the Inside World millions of years ago. 3) I cannot imagine a flat Imagination with people living on two sides, as Thompson already threw another planet (Anuther) into the system. Currently I am assuming Oz, Ozamaland, and Antozia (my current name for the continent which contains Tititi-Hoochoo's kingdom) lie on an Earthlike planet with a whole bunch of subterranean hollows and at least two holes going straight through it (one Ev to Antozia hole made by Hiergargo the Magician, one Mo to Antozia gulf near Maetta's castle). 4) The whole lot of on-line Oz/Baum books are at http://rrnet.com/~djamund/books/index.html. Sorry to have not included that info last time. 5) DavidXOE, Soforth may be derived from either a standard Oogaboonian last name (somehow I imagine a dangerous crop, such as anvils) or may be a cogomen derived from an Old Ozzish word. Currently I assume the latter, though my coauthor made me excise a title for the Tin Woodman I derived, Winkisoforth (used in the context "Winkisoforth Niklaus Chopper"). While I'm on the topic, I am also assuming that Ku Klip's last name is an Old Ozzish word for smith, though he hasn't even shown up in what's written so far of Lurline's Machine at all. Getting off this topic, I must concur with you that How the Wizard Came to Oz is too short, as are all the Books of Wonder Oz books I've read so far. I don't remember ever saying I exactly loved it, though I did enjoy it and have adopted it for consistency checking instead of The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz and Oz and the Three Witches. Yew, on the other hand, I do love, though the psychology is pushed to the limits at times. 6) Dave, And the Royal Literary Critic of Oz accused ME of introducing science fiction into Oz! With some clever footwork we could work in Ozma falling in love with a man consistently with the Laumerian-Adelmanian model of Ozma's psychology (Ozma might be attracted to both men and women, perhaps, or she might be more accepting of this man in question if he has been through a similar transformation). Therefore I do not believe it is neccessary for you to deliberately split the series into some sort of treelike structure just so Ozma can fall in love with a man, though your second book (give us a provisional title so I can talk about it easier, please) will probably have to be post-Laumerian because in Laumer's books Ozma is not interested in men, at least not yet. However, if you want them to get married and that marriage to last forever, you will put yourself in a very difficult position if you want to avoid splitting. I can see either one of three possibilities of how you might do this: a) Your second book could overlap Lurline's Machine, coming no earlier than concurrently with my second book, Trot and the Queasy in Oz, as Ozma in The Woozy of Oz does not display any interest in men. This would require you, me, and the Royal Literary Critic of Oz to work very closely together to avoid contradictions, and considering the events happening in Lurline's Machine (which I am not at liberty to divulge on this Digest), this would almost certainly require that we give each other permission to directly refer to each other's events and use each other's characters. b) Your second book could come after Lurline's Machine. Though Lurline's Machine is intended to mark the end of the Oz series (and is placed indefinitely in the future so that people can contine writing Oz books for some time to come), a post-Adelmanian Oz book is possible since my coauthor and I have no intention of dropping Oz's planet into a black hole or anything that destructive. However, post-Adelmanian Oz is going to be a VERY different place from the Oz that everyone on this digest is familiar with, so if you really want to write something that comes after Lurline's Machine, you had better be prepared to relearn what Oz is like. This also has the problem that it has not been decided what post-Adelmanian Oz is like in more than a few major details. c) You could make your book post-Laumerian and beg me and my coauthor to rewrite a whole bunch of great material we have written already on Ozma and give us permission and have Book of Wonder give us permission to use this character you want Ozma to marry, because there is no way I can realistically write this guy (provisionally name him, please!) out of The Woozy of Oz. McGraw and McGraw's Toby and Lambert can be written around, even though one would expect them to appear near the end of the series in a book where Ozma is a main character. But Ozma's husband would be impossible to write out; he'd be there at all times, he'd probably accompany her on any extended journey, and it would be difficult to write it so that Ozma wouldn't mention his name. I am REALLY not keen on this idea, considering I have several chapters to rewrite already, and I don't know at all if Books of Wonder would be willing to give me the needed permission, especially as I'm uneasy of the idea of publishing The Woozy of Oz with them because I'm getting nightmares of having my book cut short to the point where it's damaged (as I write this, it is 47,151 words long, and I still have to add several chapters). Having said all this, please Dave, think about what you're doing. Don't split the series! Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Saturday 10-Feb-96 21:47:42 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things POTENTIALLY OZZY NEWSGROUPS Eric wrote: >Can anybody suggest some appropriate newsgroups, other than rec.arts.books >and rec.arts.books.childrens, where this Digest, the FAQ (once I get it >up and running), or any other general Ozzy announcements can be >advertised? ... C'mon, rack your brains and let me know >where you think Ozzy items might get some interested traffic. ...... :) Okay Eric, here's some suggestions: rec.arts.sf.announce; rec.arts.sf.written (They apparently discuss literary fantasy too) rec.arts.comics.misc; rec.arts.comics.info (For Ozzy comics) rec.arts.books; rec.arts.books.tolkien (You never know, might be some Ozzy fans floating around here...) rec.arts.disney (Fans of _Return to Oz_, perhaps?) rec.toys.misc (For "Ozian Artifacts"?) AARON'S PLEA TO ME NOT TO "SPLIT" THE SERIES: Frankly, I like Tyler's assessment that Ozma's--er, um, , well you know...--simply "didn't take"... :) Seriously, I'll have to take time to really consider your suggestions ( it's after midnight now! :) ) and I'll get back to you... If you really want to talk about Ozma's love story deviously behind my back :) , my working title is, _The Fairy Princess of Oz_. ( And if anyone cares, my finished Oz book is tentatively titled _The Good Witch of Oz_ :) ) MR. DARWIN'S ORK THEORY >I think we can safely conclude that the orks are magical and not natural >creatures. Steven Jay Gould had an essay in NATURAL HISTORY, reprinted in one >of his books, explaining why no animal has ever evolved wheels, despite their >obvious advantages for many purposes ... The propellors of the orks, like >the wheels of the Wheelers, therefore define them as magical and not natural. On the other hand, maybe in Fairyland magic acts as a catalyst in evolution/natural selection, allowing creatures to aquire magical adaptations. I'm thinking as an example the little creature in one episode of Disney's _Aladdin_ that has evolved a unique defense mechanism...When a predator is threatening it, it instinctively uses magic to grant the predator a wish so that the little fellow can get away while its assailant is delighted and distracted by its just getting its heart's desire. Perhaps there are "magical mutations" in Baumgea (Cont. of Imagination) that give rise to Orks, Woozies, Wheelers, and other "Very Hopeful Monsters Indeed". :) THE BAUM 14 ONLINE Bill W. wrote: >Dennis" site is hotlinked from my web page that provides links to Ozzy sites >(http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/weblinks.htm). I tried to download the post-_Road_ Oz books from there, but it kept saying, "Download failed -- File empty"...If anyone succeeds in accessing those files for _Emerald City_, _Patchwork Girl_, etc., etc. could they let me know? OZZY MUSIC, OR THE UNKNOWN MAN IN OZ :) This may sound like a silly question, but I was wondering if there was any special music that anyone likes to listen to while they read (or write) Oz books. For me, while I'm doing something Oz-related, I like to listen to the music of Vangelis and Enya, especially Vangelis' album _Direct_. Every track on that album paints an Ozzy picture in my mind. For instance, _First Approach_ makes me see Ozma walking serenely in the Emerald City gardens, with the birds singing and the wind blowing in her hair. _Elsewhere_ creates a picture of an Ozian countryside with various people and creatures enjoying a joyful existence in Oz. _Message_ suggests to me a vision of the Wizard performing a spectacular visual display of sorcery. And _Glorianna (Hymne `a la Femme)_ inspires for me a picture of Glinda riding majestically through the Ozian skies in her swan chariot. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else has a special piece or pieces of music that for them is "Ozzy"... -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 12, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 09:43:24 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/11/96 Eric Gjovaag: Jellia Jamb looks like one of those names that could be a middle name, if you don't accept MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES. (Since Jellia had a brother or father - don't remember which - named Jimb Jamb.) For Oz news in red in the Great Book of Records, try page 109 of KABUMPO. Martin Gardner is a good enough mathematician that maybe 42 minutes is right, but it seems unlikely to me that the decreasing acceleration would add only four minutes to the total transit time. I may just have to do the calculation again myself... The evidence that the hollow tube isn't straight through the center of the world is that those who fall into it are depicted as sliding along one surface, which implies that the gravity vector isn't coincident with the axis of the tube. Aaron Adelman: The orks' wings could be modified ribs; I don't have a problem with that. (It's the only way a classic dragon, with four legs and wings, could have evolved, since all vertebrate life on Earth is limited to four limbs. But there are "flying" lizards that indeed use modified ribs to provide wing-like parachutes; additional evolution might convert them into true wings without costing the dragon a pair of limbs.) The propellor, on the other hand... It's highly doubtful that Anuther is a planet in the sense that we think of one, based on Planetty's descriptions alone. Remember that in the Oz universe, stars and planets seem to exist within the atmosphere, and don't seem to be subject to gravitational attraction. Which means that maybe Anuther just hangs up above a flat Imagination, or orbits around in a circle above it. (I don't think Imagination is flat for other reasons, but the existence of Anuther isn't one.) Have you read GIANT GARDEN? It's the longest of the BoW Oz books. It's as long as some of the originals, though from what you're saying WOOZY is going to be longer than any of the originals. Which may mean that however good it is, you'll have to publish it yourself if you want it to appear intact. I think you're being entirely too restrictive, trying to insist that Dave make a story he's working on consistent with one that you're working on. If there's an irreconcilable contradiction between them (and Tyler and others have been very ingenious at reconciling apparent contradictions), then either one grants splitting Oz universes or chooses to consider one work or the other heretical. But trying to coordinate with another writer on works in progress is far too restrictive of one's creativity. As far as I'm concerned, all that's necessary is to be consistent with the FF. Consistency with all other books is optional. Dave Hardenbrook: I don't argue that the orks couldn't have evolved - just that the propellor means that magic had to be involved, because there is no natural mechanism that could make it possible. (It's even tougher than a wheel, which at least only has to rotate passively. It's possible to envision a species growing non-rotating wheels whose bearings harden and separate after the wheels have grown, thus allowing them to rotate - though it's hard to imagine such a creature surviving during the growth process. But only magic could make an ork's propellor drive it through the air.) I do almost all my Oz reading in bed, shortly before going to sleep, and I don't listen to music during that time. I also rarely listen to music while I'm writing - well, I never really -listen- to music while I'm writing, but I rarely even have music playing in the background. When I do, it's usually Mozart, most likely one of his wind concertos. (Clarinet concerto is my favorite, but I also like his oboe, flute, bassoon, and horn concertos a lot.) Nothing that I think of as "Ozzy", though. Thinking of pieces of music that might have an Ozzy feel to them...the only thing that really comes to mind is Smetana's "The Moldau", and that only to a minor degree. I'm totally unfamiliar with Vangelis, however - in fact, this is the first time that name has crossed my path. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 06:50:57 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-96 Dave, today's Digest came through fine here! > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-10-96 > > Mike Turniansky: > Baltimore is the Invisible City? Tell it to Cleveland! I just want to add here that, even before this whole Seahawks fiasco, I decided to boycott the entire NFL, since those initials now stand for No Fan Loyalty. (You can KEEP 'em, L. A.!) > The reason for my location of DOROTHY before DOTWIZ is that the Wizard > doesn't appear to be in Oz for its events. But maybe he was taking a long nap > or something... ...such as taking magic classes from Glinda? (He had to learn SOMETIME...) > From: "W. R. Wright" > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest Special Issue, 02-10-96 > > At 03:37 PM 2/10/96 -0500, you wrote: > > >Hi Ozzy folks! This is a special edition of the Ozzy Digest containing > >a long review of the 1925 silent version of _Wizard of Oz_. Thanks to > >Nate for posting it! :) > > > > >Silent Reels, by Rodney Schroeter > > Column #7: Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" > > > Also, not having had the opportunity to see the movie, is it correct for me > to assume that his review is accurate. It's accurate... (Bill, I have the movie, so any time you want to see it... It's also available on video, and NOT just from Video Yesteryear. I know of a place in Burien that carries all of the silent Oz films at quite reasonable prices.) > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: 1001 E-Texts of Oz, part 2 > > 5) DavidXOE, Soforth may be derived from either a standard Oogaboonian > last name (somehow I imagine a dangerous crop, such as anvils) or may be > a cogomen derived from an Old Ozzish word. Or it could just be a shortening of a whole bunch of royal names and titles ("King Jol Jemkiph of Oogaboo, Lord of the Muffin Trees, Protector of the Fertile Valley, Defender of the Realm, and so forth..."). And Aaron, you are NOT the only Oz writer in the world, and you have no right to try and dictate to Dave what he can and cannot do in his own book, any more than he can tell you what to do in yours. I realize that that was not your intent, but that's sure how it seemed to me! There is no longer one Royal Historian of Oz, so you're just going to have to accept the fact that some books are not going to jibe with your own. Those who feel the need for consistency will work something out, and those like me who don't will just read the books and enjoy them. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > POTENTIALLY OZZY NEWSGROUPS > Eric wrote: > >Can anybody suggest some appropriate newsgroups, other than rec.arts.books > >and rec.arts.books.childrens, where this Digest, the FAQ (once I get it > >up and running), or any other general Ozzy announcements can be > >advertised? > > Okay Eric, here's some suggestions: > > rec.arts.sf.announce; rec.arts.sf.written (They apparently discuss > literary fantasy too) Ooh, yes, these are excellent ones! > rec.arts.comics.misc; rec.arts.comics.info (For Ozzy comics) Not bad choices at all. > rec.arts.books; rec.arts.books.tolkien (You never know, might be some Ozzy > fans floating around here...) Hmm, dunno about the Tolkien group. Still, an occasional post there wouldn't hurt. > rec.arts.disney (Fans of _Return to Oz_, perhaps?) r.a.d. is no more, it was split up some time ago into a number of different groups. I'll figure out which one Oz announcements should go in, but I think this is stretching it a bit... (Is there a good general-purpose movie group I can post in?) > rec.toys.misc (For "Ozian Artifacts"?) Yes, good one. --Eric "Suggestions noted" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:51:51 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest Dave, Well done!! Your new Terminal program produces a terrific product, IMHO. And may I add my thanks to you for producing the Digest on a daily basis. We all appreciate your time and effort. Dick (What about "Hardenbrook for President") Randolph (DIXNAN@aol.com) ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 13:02:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Surnames in Oz 1) Eric, you may be right about Jellia Jamb having a real last name. The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz (someone explain THAT name, please) gives her father's name as Jim Jamb. However, as I do not have any scruples against contradicting Madden, I could always claim that 'jamb' is an Old Ozzish word for 'housekeeper'. I am especially inclined to do this as Madden made the error of making the Jambs live next door to Mombi, Jellia and Tip living in the immediate vicinity of each other for several years. However, in The Marvelous Land of Oz Tip and Jellia don't seem to know each other at all. 2) I am not confusing Terp with Terribubble. Terp claims to be the 36th cousin of the giant who got hit in the head with Umbrella Island (can't remember his name off the top of my head), and they were shmuzing the other day and got to talking about various things they've been hit by, and of course Umbrella Island came up, and Terp was so intrigued that he now wants to know where Umbrella Island is so that he can see it for himself. 3) The sound of the impromptu name Ix City is grating to my ears, so I hearby propose, based on my research into Old Ozzish, the names Ixna, Ixezia, and Zixiezia instead. 4) DavidXOE, what? You too? Is everybody out to split the series? I got told not to give up on Laumer so soon, so unless you have some good reason for rejecting his work, you are hereby nudged to reconsider what you are doing and asked to write about some topic no one else has tackled. I suggest Oz Aharonus the Blunt if you care to wreak revenge on me for telling you that what you are proposing is a bad, bad idea. 5) Concerning Orks and Wheelers: I was under the impression that their wheels and propellers were made out of a dead substance, which not having to be nourished would be free to rotate with impunity. Just how they grow these structures is another matter. Flipper: We do it during the moulting season. During that time we're grounded. 6) Dave, I was under the impression that you were going to name your book something in the way of The Missing Witch of Oz since Laumer had already used the title The Good Witch of Oz. You could also name it The Purple Witch of Oz, Locasta of Oz, Some Dinosaurs in Oz, or The Three Adepts of Oz. Of course you could go ahead and start a dangerous precedent. Personally, I think The Magic of Oz would be a great title for my first book... 7) Dave, I had no trouble whatsoever in downloading any of the stuff on Dennis's page. I advise you to give your local VAX or UNIX machine a swift kick in the motherboard and try again, and if that doesn't work, bug the sysop. 8) I've been wondering for a while what Glinda sees when she looks in a mirror. If it can be assumed that Glinda and Zixi use basically the same sort of magic, then Glinda may very well not keep mirrors around her palace at all. On the other hand, my coauthor has postulated that Glinda may have used her magic to arrest her aging, so she may appear in mirrors somewhat younger than Zixi does, though possibly not the same as she does to the naked eye. Also: Is there any evidence that Zixi can fool a camera? Also: Might one also assume that Mombi kept no mirrors in her cottage at all, lest Tip look into one and get shocked out of his wits? 9) Can anyone out there tell me and my coauthor something about Mr. Tinker in Oz? 10) Out of curiousity, is The Disenchanted Princess of Oz about Ozga? 11) What is a Rewolf? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 15:05:58 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-96 Been a long time since I heard any kind of update, so: Have any OGILVY editions (post-Hill, pre-Bobbs/Merrill) of THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ ever turned up? David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 12:13:45 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Dave Hardenbrook wrote: >THE BAUM 14 ONLINE >Bill W. wrote: >>Dennis" site is hotlinked from my web page that provides links to Ozzy sites >>(http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/weblinks.htm). >I tried to download the post-_Road_ Oz books from there, but it kept saying, >"Download failed -- File empty"...If anyone succeeds in accessing those >files for _Emerald City_, _Patchwork Girl_, etc., etc. could they let me >know Dave, I haven't had any problem accessing them. But from time to time Dennis' server is down. You just have to try again later. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:06:10 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-96 Why would Terp or Terrybubble be looking for Umbrella Island? Terrybubble already lives there. Terp was shrunk at the end of HIDDEN VALLEY. You might mean Loxo, the SPEEDY giant, except that he's been shrunk, too, and, last we heard, wanted to get married and settle down. For further information about UMBRELLA ISLAND, read this year's OZIANA. --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 21:48:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Dennis J. Amundson" Subject: Ozzy Digest: re: 1001 On-Line Books of Oz > Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 16:49:12 -0500 (EST) > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: 1001 On-Line Books of Oz > > 1) Today I discovered on Dennis's system of Web pages that he has made > available the full texts of all previously off-line Baum 14 Oz books, > Queen Zixi of Ix, the Magical Monarch of Mo, the Trot books, and American > Fairy Tales. Even though they are not yet proofread, I would like to say > THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to him and Warren, who contributed most of > the texts, as as an Oz author, this makes my life much easier, as most of > my and my brother's Oz books are in Charleston, while I am in New York. > Also, we previously did not have copies of the Trot books at all, so this > is saving The Royal Literary Critic of Oz the hastle of ILLing them. > Today I am a happy camper. As has already been pointed out, the URL for the index for these On-Line Baum texts is: http://rrnet.com/~djamund/books/index.html There should be a tilde (~) in the above URL. Please make note that this is not meant to be a purely Baum index: I fully hope to provide texts of other authors when time and copyright permits. I have provided another page for a list of Baum-only works: http://rrnet.com/~djamund/books/baum/list_works.html As mentioned in the page, thanks are to be given to Warren Baldwin and John White for provided most of the texts. I am merely proofing them one additional time, and formatting them for inclusion into the Gutenberg archive, as well as HTML for the Web. Time has slowed me down a little, but I hope that all the listed texts will be proccessed by the end of the year, either by myself or by the help of others. I do not intend to pursue collecting non-Baum Oz texts for the near-term future. I do believe that most of the rest are still under copyright protection (I know that there was discussion about this earlier on this list). That's all for now. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for the future of these texts (errors in processed texts, improvements, favorite formats, etc.) Thanks, Dennis ------------------ Dennis J. Amundson Voice: (701) 239-2442 PO Box 1103 Internet: djamund@rrnet.com Fargo ND 58107 ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 22:42:11 -0600 (CST) From: "Dennis J. Amundson" Subject: Ozzy Digest: Glinda of Oz by Thompson? Please forgive me if this is an FAQ or "dummy" question... Are there any sources or opinions out there on how much of _Glinda_ was done by Baum, and how much was done by others (his son Frank, or Thompson perhaps)? I've only have one source currently available to help me answer sort this out. Our local library has "Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land" by Raylyn Moore, which is a critical study of Baum's Oz books that was published in 1974. In the bibliography provided in this study, the following is used to describe _Glinda_: --start quote (pg 186 of _Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land_)-- Glinda of Oz. Chicago: Reilly and Lee, 1920. Doroty and Ozma become imprisoned in a crystal dome on an island submerged in a lake. Glinda comes to the rescue. There is a tense search for the magic word which will activate the machinery which raises the island. Although the publisher referred to this as "the last book written by Baum," there is reason to believe much of the final writing was done by Ruth Plumly Thompson, the first of a succession of writers employed to continue the series after Baum's death. --end quote-- In the actual text of the study, this question is addressed again, with quite a different answer: --begin quote (pg 89 of _Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land_)-- Baum died on May 6, 1919, at "Ozcot," his Hollywood home, among his prize-winning chrysanthemums and dahlias, his respectful family, and his voluminous correspondence with enthusiastic readers. The manuscript on which he was then at work, _Glinda of Oz_, was edited by his son Frank and published posthumously. Notes and a fragmentary draft of still another story, _The Royal Book of Oz_, were presumably turned over by his publisher to a successor, Ruth Plumbly Thompson, but no one seems to know exactly how much of this book was really Baum's work; the feeling is that the publisher may have exaggerated Baum's part in it to ease the transition. In any case Miss Thompson, as the new Royal Historian of Oz, brought is out, along with eighteen more Oz books in the years to follow. --end quote-- To me, the first quote seemed to support that Thompson did much of the work on _Glinda_, while the second quote seems to eliminate Thompson's contribution entirely. I had read _To Please a Child_ some months back, and thought that this source had also touched on this question, but I fail to remember what exactly was mentioned. Any thoughts/sources/opinions (no flaming war, please)? Thanks, Dennis ------------------ Dennis J. Amundson Voice: (701) 239-2442 PO Box 1103 Internet: djamund@rrnet.com Fargo ND 58107 ============================================================================= Date: Monday 12-Feb-96 02:18:45 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things MORE ABOUT THE ORK David Hulan wrote: >The orks' wings could be modified ribs ... Definite possibility, but there is another, which is that the Ork's wings, like a stegosaur's plates, are modified dorsal armor-scales attached to strong muscles (alligators have these kind of scales). Not many know this, but _Stegosaurus_ and its kin *could* flap their plates(!) and perhaps the Ork's wings are a homologous ( read "same as" :) ) structure. ( Lurline, next thing you know we're going to be drawing out cladograms showing the evolutionary relationships of Ozian creatures! :) ) As for the tail, I think I can see how even it could have evolved, but it's too complicated to explain without diagrams. :) MY OZZY MUSICIAN David wrote: >I'm totally unfamiliar with Vangelis ... Vangelis is considered an electronic composer, though he uses acoustic instruments too. He is probably most famous for his score for the movie _Chariots of Fire_, and his music used in the PBS science series _Cosmos_. MORE NEWSGROUPS Eric wrote: >(Is there a good general-purpose movie group I can post in?) rec.arts.cinema rec.arts.movies MISCELLANIOUS Dick wrote: >Dick (What about "Hardenbrook for President") Randolph :) Aaron wrote: >Is everybody out to split the series? I got >told not to give up on Laumer so soon, so unless you have some good >reason for rejecting his work, you are hereby nudged to reconsider what >you are doing and asked to write about some topic no one else has >tackled. David and Eric have both commented with an eloquence I can't hope to match, so I won't. :) I'll just say that you *SHOULDN'T* "give up" on Laumer, as neither am I, until I read his books...But I feel that you also shouldn't take the absolute opposite extreme position and treat Laumer as as supreme and irrefutable an Ozzy authority as Baum himself (not until you actually read him anyway)... >6) Dave, I was under the impression that you were going to name your book >something in the way of The Missing Witch of Oz since Laumer had already >used the title The Good Witch of Oz ... Sorry, my error...I guess I'm still mentally thinking of it as "Good Witch". :) I might call it _Missing Witch_, or _Lost Witch_ (except that there are two "_Lost_" books already). _Locasta of Oz_ is growing on me...I was initially against it as a title because I felt I shouldn't have a new character's proper name in a title, but then what about _Rinkitink_, _Kabumpo_, etc.? The Adepts and dinosaurs play important roles, but the story is really about Locasta, so _Some Dinosaurs in Oz_, and _The Three Adepts of Oz_ are probably inapproprate (for THIS book anyway). -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 13, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:41:00 -0500 From: larrys@zk3.dec.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-96 >Can anybody suggest some appropriate newsgroups, other than rec.arts.books >and rec.arts.books.childrens, where this Digest, the FAQ (once I get it >up and running), or any other general Ozzy announcements can be >advertised? FAQ files of all types are appropriate for news.answers. There is no Oz-specific group I am aware of, nor more generic group that would be appropriate outside of the ones you mention. I can, however, provide pointers to someone who wants to create a newsgroup for Oz-specific dis- cussion. It is a fairly straightforward process, but painful for reasons having little to do with process. Let me know if you want more information or help. regards, Larry Smith ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:11:12 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Eric wrote: >It's accurate... (Bill, I have the movie, so any time you want to see >it... It's also available on video, and NOT just from Video Yesteryear. >I know of a place in Burien that carries all of the silent Oz films at >quite reasonable prices.) Thanks, Eric. I'll take you up on that. What's the name of the place in Burien? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:13:38 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: >Dave, > Well done!! Your new Terminal program produces a terrific product, >IMHO. And may I add my thanks to you for producing the Digest on a daily >basis. We all appreciate your time and effort. > >Dick (What about "Hardenbrook for President") Randolph >(DIXNAN@aol.com) I second the nomination!!!!! Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:20:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Length of the Books of Oz 1) David Hulan, the E-text of The Patchwork Girl of Oz I have open on my computer at the moment (I have to double check to see that I'm doing the Woozy's personality right) is about 57,000 words long. As the latest version of The Woozy of Oz (#23, to be exact) is about 47,000 words long and nearing completion, I suspect that it may turn out to not be longer than all the Baum books. 2) Dave Hardenbrook, I see you've been reading Robert Baker's The Dinosaur Heresies! Though I'm not sure other paleontologists go for the idea of a plate-flapping Stegosaurus. Last I heard, someone had proposed that Stegosaurus had only one row of plates, all of which stood up straight on its back. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:06:37 -0500 From: larrys@zk3.dec.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-96 >I think we can safely conclude that the orks are magical and not natural >creatures. Steven Jay Gould had an essay in NATURAL HISTORY, reprinted in one >of his books, explaining why no animal has ever evolved wheels, despite their >obvious advantages for many purposes. In brief, a body part can't allow >unlimited rotation because there's no way for the rest of the body to get >nutrients to it. The propellors of the orks, like the wheels of the Wheelers, >therefore define them as magical and not natural. Yes and no. Yes, it is biologically extremely difficult to get nutrients to a rotating body part, which would make it very difficult for evolution to produce such a creature and no, there are a number of microorganisms that _do_ use propellors - actually, flagella. In an interesting series of experiments reported on in Scientific American some years ago, some of these critters were treated with a chemical that would glue their flagella down to a glass slide and were then examined under a microscope, where they were observed with their _bodies_ now twirling gently in a circle rather than wobbling back and forth as expected. So rotary motion _has_ evolved on Earth, but for the very mechanical reasons Gould alludes to, it has never been found outside of microorganisms. However, it points up that there _is_ one way it can be done by evolution - if the rotating part does not _require_ nutrients. If the Ork's prop were bone, for example, if would not need nutrients, and so would have no problem rotating. It would imply that the prop must grow to full size _before_ the Ork uses it for propulsion however. I don't recall if there was ever any discussion of how baby orks are limited in this way. However, given the background of the books, I think it is safe to assume the orks and wheelers were thoroughly magical in nature. >(One of the standard theorems in integral calculus proves that the net >gravitational attraction inside a hollow sphere is zero - which is why, >incidentally, Burroughs' Pellucidar is impossible; all its loose material - >like people - would be inexorably drawn into the central sun. Except that ERB noted that the Hollow Earth had 1000 mile diameter polar holes, and the interior sun would have very little gravity. ERB hand-waved something about things being lighter for outer-shell Earthlings in "At the Earth's Core" but otherwise ignored the science involved. He did not, it must be pointed out, invent the Hollow Earth. He was following the "facts" of an old "scientific" theory which is still popular with New Age lunatics even today. regards, Larry Smith ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:51:16 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-12-96 > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/11/96 > > Eric Gjovaag: > For Oz news in red in the Great Book of Records, try page 109 of KABUMPO. /me finds page 109 in "Kabumpo" and reads it. /me does his Homer Simpson impression. D'OH! > Martin Gardner is a good enough mathematician that maybe 42 minutes is right, > but it seems unlikely to me that the decreasing acceleration would add only > four minutes to the total transit time. I may just have to do the calculation > again myself... Well, I consider four minutes to be a relatively small difference. (To see just what Gadner said, check out "The Annotated Alice" -- we all do have a copy, don't we? -- Chapter 1, note 4. He also mentions "Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz" and "The Royal Book of Oz.") > I think you're being entirely too restrictive, trying to insist that Dave > make a story he's working on consistent with one that you're working on. If > there's an irreconcilable contradiction between them (and Tyler and others > have been very ingenious at reconciling apparent contradictions), then either > one grants splitting Oz universes or chooses to consider one work or the > other heretical. But trying to coordinate with another writer on works in > progress is far too restrictive of one's creativity. As far as I'm concerned, > all that's necessary is to be consistent with the FF. Consistency with all > other books is optional. Aaron's already found that out, of course, in rejecting "Oz and the Three Witches" and "Mysterious Chronicles" in favor of "How the Wizard Came to Oz." > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Surnames in Oz > > 2) I am not confusing Terp with Terribubble. Terp claims to be the 36th > cousin of the giant who got hit in the head with Umbrella Island (can't > remember his name off the top of my head), and they were shmuzing the > other day and got to talking about various things they've been hit by, > and of course Umbrella Island came up, and Terp was so intrigued that he > now wants to know where Umbrella Island is so that he can see it for himself. /me rolls his eyes. Unlikely, as Terp wasn't a true giant, but became giant through magical means, whereas Loxo in "Speedy" WAS a true giant. (I don't think Terp ever got anywhere NEAR as big as Loxo, anyway.) > 3) The sound of the impromptu name Ix City is grating to my ears, so I > hearby propose, based on my research into Old Ozzish, the names Ixna, > Ixezia, and Zixiezia instead. And these AREN'T grating to the ear??? (Besides, wouldn't the name be in Old Ixian instead of Old Ozzish?) > 4) DavidXOE, what? You too? Is everybody out to split the series? The moment there was more than one royal historian, the series was split, Aaron. (Compare "The Laughing Dragon of Oz" with what Thompson was putting out at the time.) To accuse anyone here of trying to split the series is ludicrous, it's been going on for a long, long time now. As I said before, you are not the sole royal historian, nor is David, nor Dave, nor Karyl and me, nor Roger Baum, nor even Rachel Cosgrove Payes and the McGraws. It is IMPOSSIBLE for us all to be consistent with each other, so while we can make the effort, to expect it is stifling to creativity, and strikes of Mc Carthyism to me, if not Gestapo tactics. A number of us have said it before, and I'll say it again: The only source you REALLY, REALLY need to worry about being consistent with is the FF. Any other book does not carry the same weight, and therefore you don't have to worry about being consistent with it if it gets in the way of you telling your story the way you want to tell it. But please bear in mind that the rest of us Oz authors are holding to the same rule. > 8) I've been wondering for a while what Glinda sees when she looks in a > mirror. If it can be assumed that Glinda and Zixi use basically the same > sort of magic, then Glinda may very well not keep mirrors around her > palace at all. On the other hand, my coauthor has postulated that Glinda > may have used her magic to arrest her aging, so she may appear in mirrors > somewhat younger than Zixi does, though possibly not the same as she does > to the naked eye. There actually seems to be little or no corelation between the types of magic Glinda and Zixi practice, so I very much doubt that they use the same techniques. I can't recall off the top of my head, but does anyone remember if Glinda has mirrors in her palace? I suspect all those visitors she gets from the Emerald City need to freshen up, and need a mirror to see how they look... (But then, what do visitors to Queen Zixi's castle do?) > Also: Is there any evidence that Zixi can fool a camera? Can vampires? Can Sam on "Quantum Leap"? (Actually, in response to the latter, whenever Sam sees a picture of the person he's leapt into, or we see him through a camera lens, we see the person everyone ELSE thinks Sam is, not Sam. But that's really not a good example, since our ability to see Sam as Sam is a convention of the show. Everybody else -- and there some evidence that even Al -- see him as whoever Sam is taking the place of.) > Also: Might one also assume that Mombi kept no mirrors in her cottage at > all, lest Tip look into one and get shocked out of his wits? Why do you assume this would happen? If I put on a mask and look in the mirror, I see the mask, not my face. Since Mombi actually physically transformed Ozma, Tip would see Tip, not Ozma. (Hmm, maybe what Zixi uses is some sort of magic hologram, or some other way to deceive the senses. But the refraction of light from a mirror or other reflective source breaks it up, and her true countenance is seen.) > 9) Can anyone out there tell me and my coauthor something about Mr. > Tinker in Oz? It was a little kiddie book put out in the 1980's. All I remember about it is that Mr. Tinker comes back down from the moon and to Oz. Don't worry about it, it's not part of the FF nor particularly noteworthy. > 10) Out of curiousity, is The Disenchanted Princess of Oz about Ozga? Dunno. Is this one of those books in the HACC that has yet to be published? > 11) What is a Rewolf? Spell it backwards, and you'll get an idea of what this wolf-like creature has a passion for... (It's also the title character of one of Roger Baum's picture books.) > From: David A Gerstein > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-96 > > Been a long time since I heard any kind of update, so: > Have any OGILVY editions (post-Hill, pre-Bobbs/Merrill) of THE > WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ ever turned up? I never knew there WAS an edition between Hill and Bobbs-Merrill! Why wasn't this noted in "Bibliographia Oziana"??? Peter Hanff (you are reading this, aren't you?), as the only author of "Bib Oz" who is online, what can you tell us? > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-96 > > For further information about UMBRELLA ISLAND, read this year's OZIANA. Ooooh, sounds good!!!! I've always liked Umbrella Island. (Is Gureeda in the story? I like her!) Oh, and Robin, I may finally have and idea for a short story that you may want to publish in "Oziana" some day. Maybe I'll get to work on it once I get the FAQ and web page up and running. > From: "Dennis J. Amundson" > Subject: Ozzy Digest: re: 1001 On-Line Books of Oz > > I do not intend to pursue collecting non-Baum Oz texts for the near-term > future. I do believe that most of the rest are still under copyright > protection (I know that there was discussion about this earlier on this > list). For the record, you could use "Wishing Horse," "Captain Salt," "Handy Mandy," "Silver Princess," "Ozoplaning," "Magical Mimics," "Shaggy Man," and maybe "Who's Who." An online version, with updates, may not be a bad idea at all... > From: "Dennis J. Amundson" > Subject: Ozzy Digest: Glinda of Oz by Thompson? > > Please forgive me if this is an FAQ or "dummy" question... > > Are there any sources or opinions out there on how much of _Glinda_ was > done by Baum, and how much was done by others (his son Frank, or Thompson > perhaps)? The complete manuscript for "Glinda" exists, and a lot of Baum's correspondene with Reilly and Britton exists which mention it and the progress of the work. I think these all indicate that it was Baum's work entirely. It couldn't have been edited by Frank J. Baum, as he was still in Europe in the aftermath of World War I. And since Ruth Plumly Thomson was contracted to be the next Royal Historian in 1920, when "Glinda" was probably already in the process of being published, I very much doubt that she had any hand in it. (Besides, none of "Glinda" seems at all Thompsonian to me.) > I've only have one source currently available to help me answer sort > this out. Our local library has "Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land" by > Raylyn Moore, which is a critical study of Baum's Oz books that was > published in 1974. While an excellent book, "Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land" is not the greatest resource to rely on, as Moore does make some assumptions and comes up with some poorly supported theories. > In the bibliography provided in this study, the > following is used to describe _Glinda_: > > --start quote (pg 186 of _Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land_)-- > > Glinda of Oz. Chicago: Reilly and Lee, 1920. > Doroty and Ozma become imprisoned in a crystal dome on an island > submerged in a lake. Glinda comes to the rescue. There is a tense > search for the magic word which will activate the machinery which raises > the island. Although the publisher referred to this as "the last book > written by Baum," there is reason to believe much of the final writing > was done by Ruth Plumly Thompson, the first of a succession of writers > employed to continue the series after Baum's death. > > --end quote-- > > In the actual text of the study, this question is addressed again, with > quite a different answer: > > --begin quote (pg 89 of _Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land_)-- > > Baum died on May 6, 1919, at "Ozcot," his Hollywood home, among his > prize-winning chrysanthemums and dahlias, his respectful family, and his > voluminous correspondence with enthusiastic readers. > The manuscript on which he was then at work, _Glinda of Oz_, was edited > by his son Frank and published posthumously. The fact that WWML has two different explanations should make one suspicious... > Notes and a fragmentary > draft of still another story, _The Royal Book of Oz_, were presumably > turned over by his publisher to a successor, Ruth Plumbly Thompson, but > no one seems to know exactly how much of this book was really Baum's > work; the feeling is that the publisher may have exaggerated Baum's part > in it to ease the transition. In any case Miss Thompson, as the new > Royal Historian of Oz, brought is out, along with eighteen more Oz books > in the years to follow. Actually, no notes were ever found for Baum's version of "The Royal Book of Oz." (A couple of chapters WERE found of a new book, but none of that material was ever used by Thompson.) Reilly and Lee records and other papers indicate that "Royal Book" was entirely Thompson's work, but Baum's name was used on the cover and title page to ease the transition, as Moore speculated. Del Rey's edition of "Royal Book" was the first time Thompson was ever properly credited with her authorship of "Royal Book." --Eric ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:38:39 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Answers, anyone? Hi, all you Digest folks. I've got a question for Tik-Tok that I need some background information on. This person wants to know about Lurline, and I want to be able to include all references to her. Problem is, my Oz books aren't indexed (!). So, can someone tell me what books Lurline appears in or has a major mention in? I know about "Life and Adventures," "Queen Zixi of Ix," and the illustration of her in "Magical Mimics," but are there others? Also, here's a list of the newsgroups I've discovered that might be appropriate for Ozzy announcements: rec.arts.books; rec.arts.books.childrens; rec.arts.sf.announce; rec.arts.sf.written; rec.arts.comics.misc; rec.arts.comics.info; rec.toys.misc; alt.movies.silent; rec.arts.movies. announce; rec.arts.movies.misc; rec.arts.movies.past-films; rec.arts.movies.production; rec.arts.sf.movies; alt.books; rec.arts.books.marketplace; rec.books; rec.arts.cinema I haven't ruled out rec.arts.books.tolkien, but if I use that I may also include alt.books.cs.lewis and alt.books.cs-lewis as well. Any comments or additions to this list anybody would like to make? (Some of the groups may receive only parts of the FAQ that pertain to that particular newsgroup, with pointers to the Digest and where to get the rest of the FAQ.) --Eric "Version 1.0 should be up and running soon" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:26:01 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-12-96 I've never heard of anyone seriously believing that Baum didn't do most, if not all, of GLINDA himself. I assume it was edited, but the writing feels very much like Baum's. What it does NOT feel like, is R.P.T's. Even if she were trying to sound like Baum, there's nothing in it to suggest that Ruth had anything to do with the book. Even the syntax is Baumian. I'm curious to find out what the rest of you know/think. --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:31:34 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Yikes! FOUR digests to respond to! Almost Un-DIGEST-able. This joke is almost as bad as Aarons about having a cow... I sent Dave a message about a person who wants to join our little group. He works in the Interlibrary loan department at a University. This will be a valuable addition. I had no problems receiving the digest with the new system. It works! Maybe Tik-Tok uses a non-graphical version of MAC-OS. I'm sure I'll enjoy Aarons books when it arrives. How would we explain the absence of Ozmas beau in future books? We don't. It has already been established (I hope) that EVERY major and minor character does not need to appear in EVERY story, even if they live in the Emerald City. There are hundreds of them after all. If someone does not appear, we can assume eitehr that he IS there and just was not mentioned, or that he was on a trip. After all, if Ozma DOES meet someone, too bad it's not me! :), it would be terrible if be befell some awful fate... Baum must have been exaggerating the level of detail in Glindas book. I just cannot believe that it recorded every individual action. Just imagine how many keystrokes I am using to write this message and the space it would take up to describe each one! :( Most capital cities outside Oz have a name that relates to their kingdom, such as Evna, Ev; Nole, Noland; Gilgad...Rinkitink (Uh, never mind) Wasn't Ann Soforths father named Jol Jemikiph? Maybe he grew Jemikiphs and Ann took her mothers name. Of course, what's a Jemikiph? Many names are alliterative, such as Curious Cottabus, Elegant Elephant, Gnostic Gnu, Musical Moose, Doubtful Dromedary, Cowardly...Lion. Once again, never mind. I like Davids categories of "quest" books and "tour" books, although in many books where there is a problem to be solved, the problem is usually put on the backburner while we go through a whirlwind tour of umpteen odd little kingdoms. CAPTAIN SALT struck me as good probably because it was so different than the standard "I'm going to conquer Oz!" fare that permeates the Ozzy Universe in and out of the FF, and then, Scooby-Doo-like, "And I'd have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!" (the dog is optional). OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES is not as much of a story as others, and David was very accurate in his description of it as a Oz research paper in book form. However, it provides a great deal of information and it is presented very realistically. For those new people who may not know, this book takes place the day after DOT&WIZ. Glinda flies to E.C. and meets the Wizard for the first time. The Wizard then tells about his early days as ruler of E.C. and his struggles against the Wicked Witches. This story is a little grittier than other Oz stories, but I still rank it in the "excellent" category, not in story-terms, but in terms of scholarly information. Thanks for the review of the film, Nate! It was very informat The "Oz info in red" appears somewhere in the Baum 14, I just KNOW it does! I'm getting a vision "... but not another red sentence appeared". Maybe it was somewhere in GLINDA. Also in TIKTOK, Quox remarks that, since the tube does not go through the exact center, his claws scrape the sides of the tube, requiring him to sharpen them. I agree with David now that Ix is not necessarily a large city just because it's total population is as large or larger than Nolands, but it is probable. Some small states have cities that are quite large (Honolulu, for example). Of course, we have already noted that what THEY call a "city" may not be what WE call a city. "Oh, yes, it's a very large city. It's so big, we had to put in a second stop sign." The standard excuse we use when a major character does not appear in a story after he is an established citizen of E.C. is that he is on a trip. More on this later. David, you story concerning Dorothys return trip to Kansas from Australia may not necessarily contradict March Laumers at all. Most of the plot concerned some other stuff, and he only brushed on it. The only sticking points are that she and Uncle Henry (and Eureka, of course), sailed from there to San Fransisco. I won't need to do a lot of "Well, what REALLY happened was...". I will defer to you on the time it takes to fall through the earth. I always thought that an object exerted all of gravitational force from the center of mass, but apparantly it does not. Also, now that I think of it, my physics book was describing the pull of gravity getting less as you go farther from the center only when you are ABOVE the surface. It said nothing about going underneath. By the way, your analysis of the situiation in Oogaboo was excellent. By making the walk-in-air a local (magical) phenomenon, it will avoid any contradictions with any other under-the-earth story that may come out. Thanks for pointing that out. It's too bad that this makes Pellucidar impossible. Of course, it is only impossible in our world. It could easily happen in Imagi-Nation. David already mentioned that Anuther Planet may not be a REAL planet, so flat earths are possible. To clarify, I did not mean the world of Oz to be an infinite plane with people living on both sides. Maybe it is a square slab of matter, 10,000 miles to a side, and perhaps a couple thousand miles thick. In this case, the sun could revolve around Imagi-Nation. In an interesting (non-Ozzy) aside, I was creating a world for a fantasy play-by-mail game that to be in the shape of a cylinder. I did this so I could map the surface on a 2D piece of paper with no distortions and also so every point on the surface would have sunlight at a 90 degree angle. The "poles" (the top and bottom of the cylinder) would not be used. By the way, are we using Imagi-Nation to mean the planet Oz is on or the Universe it is in? I believe it is possible for Dave and Aaron to write their books the way are doing so now and to have no contradiction. I will probably use the "variable interest" method. Ozma is still unsure of herself. While she loves Daves dude, she swings back and forth between men, women, both and neither. There is no discernible pattern to her mood swings. The only thing that is constant is her love for that one special person. This way, no matter what each person does, the books will not contradict each other. The only potential problem is if Aaron repeatedly mentions that Ozma has no love interest and never has. I can't see that this would be a necessary element of your story, but if you do this, I'll think of something. I maintain that it IS possible to write a story about Ozma AFTER getting married and not mention him at all, except in vague terms. Perhaps Ozma has sent him on an extended diplomatic tour of the rest of Fairyland and he only pops in occasionaly. By some fantastic coincidence, he never visits during the time of your books. There is almost always a way out and in my opinion there is no need to split the series. Magic would definitely be a large factor in the evolutionary process of Imagi-Nation. When I did the calculation, I assumed a starting velocity of zero and a constant acceleration of 9.8 meters / sec / sec. I calculated the time it would take to fall to the exact center and got 19 minutes. I assumed that the time to "fall" to the surface with an acceleration of -9.8 would take the same amount of time, so I just multiplied by 2. Assuming Davids comments, the whole calculation is wrong. Workign with another author to ensure that there are no major contradictions does not stifle creativity, in my opinion, and can only improve things. I would say that consistency with the FF constitutes about 90% of all efforts to create "true" Ozian history. For the other ten percent, here are a few rules of thumb to follow: 1. Do not assume that you are the first person to write about somone. These characters are not "yours" or "mine". They belong to everybody. Therefore, someone else may have written about somebody before and slightly changed their situation. The easy way out is to just be vague about how the person got to where they are today. For example, if someone is going to write about the Giant Yoop (Mr. Yoop, not Mrs. Yoop), it is not necessary to give a detailed dissertation on where he has been, what he has been doing Ann Soforth. Just have him "there" and don't sweat the details. 2. Do not assume that you are the LAST person to write about someone. The same as above. For example, turning the Nome King into something that is un-enchantable would ruin anybody using him again. Of course, nothing is permanent, and even if an author says that it is, it still isn't. The person who created the magic may BELIEVE that it is unbreakable, but some more powerful magician may break it anyway. 3. Do not intentionally contradict someone Chris and I have always been able to come up with clever explanations to fit all stories into one continuous timeline (barring raw contradictions with the FF), but if people intentionally try to contradict each other, then it is possible that we will paint ourselves into a corner. In that case, we will have no choice but to split Oz into a Multiverse (to use a D&D word). We do not that to happen. The purpose of writing Oz books is to tell a fun story, not to engage in a dogfight trying to shoot each other down. This attitude is petty and childish. Nobody has done this yet, and I hope in the spirit of Oz that nobody ever does. 4. Tread with care in Pre-Dorothean History This is a tough one. Most books avoid this topic, and the truth is that that it does not need to come up very often. This is the one field where I believe that people need to work together. Chris and I have done some fancy footwork in the past, but it would be easier for us (and better for Oz) if the few people who want to write about this engage in a group effort. This will avoid any traps and give us solid unified version of history that will make ALL Oz books better and stronger in the long run. As somebody once said, just write your Oz books, have fun, and stay within the framework of the FF. I can't who said this, but Eric Gjovaag may know. This will take care of 90% of all problems and following the rules of thumb will take care of the rest. For a whole discussion of books like DOROTHY OF OZ and other taking place before or after DOTWIZ based on the appearance of the Wizard, you can look at my Web Page. The whole page has yet to be polished, but all the stuf is there, except for the new HACC. Be patient, it will appear soon. Go to my web page and look in the OZ section. Go to the Oz Projects page and from there go to the Rules page. Once there, you can link to the Random Housies example, and geta complete explanation of what was going on back then. my web page is http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/tyler_jones Some computers don't like the :80 and some computers need it. Have fun! There already ARE two Oz books with the same name. Fortunately, one of them is in direct contradiction with the FF, so it is not in the HACC. As far as we know, Zixi has never been in contact with electric or electronic media, so she may or may not be able to fool a camera. DISENCHANTED PRINCESS indirectly refers to Ozma, even though she does not appear. It also refers to a new character in the book, but I can't tell you about it... A Rewolf is an Ozzy animal that lives on flowers (spell Rewolf backwards if you don't believe it). If nobody else does, I'll look over MR. TINKER IN OZ and give you a full report in the next digest. GLINDA, in my opinion, was written entirely by Baum. It is told in his style and none of the book is anything like DINAMONSTER or LAUGHING DRAGON. At that time, Thompson was not conencted with the Oz series, so she could not have written any of it. Reilly and Lee originally credited ROYAL BOOK to "L. Frank Baum" and said that it was "enlarged and edited" by Thompson. This was to continue the continuity of the series and smooth the transition between one author and the next. In my opinion, ROYAL BOOK was entirely the work of Miss Thompson. THe book is very similar in style to her other ones and very unlike the other Baum books. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:54:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Consistency is Saved in Oz 1) I just had an idea on how to preserve consistency between Dave's unwritten The Fairy Princess of Oz, Laumer's stuff, and my and my brother's Lurline's Machine without me forcing Dave into my model of Ozite history or Ozma's psychology. Let us suppose that Ozma, having made at some point before The Fairy Princess of Oz takes place made a full psychological recovery from her transformation, falls in love with a young man (who I provisionally name George, for lack of a better name) as Dave proposes, and they eventually, presumably after some adventure together, get married and live happily ever after, that is, as far as Dave sees into the future. Thus The Fairy Princess of Oz ends as Dave likes it, and he lives happily ever after. Then, after all the 'classic' Oz books (come to think of it, The Fairy Princess of Oz would be the end of the 'classic' Oz books, as Ozma getting married is without question a major change of the status quo), George meets with a freak accident which completely destroys him. Ozma, in grief and dispair, becomes so ill tempered that the inhabitants of the palace cannot stand her anymore and beg Glinda to help them. In the course of discussions of what to do, Tik-Tok suggests that they make Ozma drink from the Fountain of Oblivion, thereby forgetting her anguish and hopefully becoming her sweet self again. This idea is rejected because that would make Ozma forget everything else as well, but the Scarecrow modifies the idea by proposing that Glinda make Ozma forget everything about George so that she would have nothing to feel terrible about and presumably would stop yelling everybody. This proposal is accepted, and Glinda immediately performs the spell. The spell is successful, and Ozma returns to her normal self. However, the spell has a side effect that she regresses somewhat on her recovery from her transformation, thus reaching the state she is in when she appears in Laumer's books. And so Laumer lives happily ever after. Sometime before The Woozy of Oz, someone, through error or stupidity, leaks information about George to Ozma. I, of course, get to use this fact in a devious matter in my book, and so I too get to live happily ever after, especially if Dave will agree to allow me to directly refer to George in The Woozy of Oz. Hence consistency between Dave, Laumer, and my brother and I is saved, and one potential split it removed from the history of Oz. 2) Now onto puzzlement. Quiberon, a not so nice monster, appears in The Giant Horse of Oz. As this is not one of Thompson's last five books, Quiberon is presumably under copyright, and anyone caught using him without sufficent permission gets sliced thin by Roquat and fed to the seven-headed dogs. How come then does Quiberon appear in Lurline and the White Ravens of Oz? Nalrodi the Mind-Reader: I see it now. It wasn't Thompson that invented Quiberon, but Mebes. However, a copy of Lurline and the White Ravens of Oz was taken back in time by Hiergargo's son Jopolopofloofosnorf and given to Thompson the year before she wrote The Giant Horse of Oz. "Hmm," said Thompson, reading the book, "I like this monster Quiberon. I think I'll use him in my upcoming book The Giant Horse of Oz. Then I can sue Mebes for copyright infringements when Lurline and the White Ravens of Oz comes out." Somehow, I think not. 3) David Hulan, somehow I had assumed that the Oz universe had 'normal' stars and planets like our own, but that there were also a whole bunch of objects ('stars' and skylands) floating around the atmosphere of the Inside World as well. Also: I have not read The Giant Garden of Oz yet. I couldn't get it through ILL, unfortunately. 4) Wild idea: I have postulated in The Woozy of Oz that pure, unthinking machines are capable of performing magic. Hence, it is conceiveable that some Inside Worlder creatures could have genes which could magically cause them to develop in ways they would not be able to otherwise, e.g., dragons growing fire-resistant structures inside them so that they don't incinerate themselves. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:13:19 -0500 From: Athos4@aol.com Subject: Missing Tildes I don't know if this applies to everyone or just to AOL users, but when I receive a URL which contains a tilde, the tilde just disappears, leaving nothing to mark the fact that it was ever there -- not even a space. Example, D. Amundsen's Web site with the Ozzy texts: http://rrnet.com/djamund/books/index.html There is supposed to be a tilde immediately preceding "djamund" but in my e-mail it's never there. Needless to say, this is an annoying thing as one never knows whether, if you can't get the site, it's due to your error, to traffic, or to something else. Also, Dennis had a helpful suggestion: if you still can't get the site with the correct URL, tilde and all, try substituting the group "%7E" for the tilde and see what happens. I know it's a lot to ask, Dave, but it would sure help if when you get a URL for inclusion in the Digest you could substitute "%7E" for a tilde or add a note describing precisely where the tilde is supposed to be. 'Twould be very pleasing to AOL users. Thanks! Athos4@aol.com (Warren Baldwin) ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:56:24 -0500 From: Athos4@aol.com Subject: Who Wrote Glinda? Dave, I found an interesting thing while working with the electronic forms of some of the Oz books. If you divide the length of the file by the wordcount, you get an average wordlength figure. This figure is remarkably consistent for all the Baum Oz books! The stat for Glinda fits right in. At Royal Book, however, there is an abrupt change, and if you go on in the series you find that the figure for R.B. fits right into the range for Ruth Plumly Thompson. This is evidence enough for me -- I should think one's natural wordlength, even if you were consciously aware of it, would be remarkably hard to change without completely altering your writing style -- that Baum wrote Glinda and Thompson wrote Royal Book. Not the last word on this topic, but mine own. Athos4@aol.com (Warren Baldwin) ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:36:45 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/12/96 Eric Gjovaag: What makes you think we -want- the Seahawks? You should have seen the letters in the sports section of the LA TIMES the Saturday after Behring's announcement. There wasn't one that didn't say, in effect, if getting a new NFL team means we have to take one that Behring owns, we don't want it! Unfortunately, the fans don't have any more influence with the local politicians than they have with the owners... (What does this have to do with Oz? Well, if Ozma were running this country, she wouldn't let stuff like that happen!) I haven't reread DOROTHY in a while (it's near the top of the list now, though), but as I recall Glinda is fairly actively involved in Dorothy's adventure. If the Wiz is taking classes from her, you'd think that at least he'd say howdy to Dorothy, since they're old friends. But it's not -necessary-, whereas Dorothy's departure from Kansas definitely implies a date after DOTWIZ. Aaron Adelman: In TIK-TOK, the Shaggy Man and Polychrome don't seem to know each other at all, even though they spent a considerable time together in ROAD. I find it no more difficult to reconcile the fact that Jellia and Tip don't seem to know each other in LAND when MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES says they lived on adjacent farms. I do not intend to consider Laumer in deciding what I'm going to write about Oz. Especially when I'd written close to half of EUREKA IN OZ before I even knew Laumer had had anything to say on the subject, and when I found out I didn't like his solution (as described by Tyler). See my comment to you on the subject (in reference to Dave's new book) yesterday. If this be splitting, make the most of it! It's the question of how a living creature grows wheels and propellors - and in the latter case, powers them - that make them impossible by natural, as opposed to magical, evolution. What do you want to know about "Mr. Tinker in Oz"? It's a very short little book, probably about the length of one of the "Little Wizard Stories" and more comparable to one of them than to a real Oz book or even one of the shorter ones from BoW. I thought it was the best of the four that Random House brought out in 1985 (possibly with the idea of capitalizing on the - unfortunately nonexistent - popularity of RETURN TO OZ); James Howe, the author, is probably the same one who wrote the enjoyable "Bunnicula" series. It's set between OZMA and DOTWIZ; Mr. Tinker comes to Kansas, takes Dorothy to Oz, where she rescues a group of abandoned babies called the Widdlebits, takes them to the EC and eventually returns home. If you want to know more detail I can reread it and refresh my memory, now that I have it out of the bookcase. Try spelling "Rewolf" backwards... Dennis Amundson: Understandable about not collecting non-Baum Oz texts - most of them are still under copyright. What about non-Oz Baum texts, which are all public domain? (I'm still trying to find a way to read POLICEMAN BLUEJAY...) I'm no authority on the subject, but I'd never heard that Thompson had any role whatever in GLINDA, and I'd be very surprised to find out that she did; there's nothing in it that seems to have the Thompson flavor. It's entirely possible that Frank Joslyn Baum did some editing on it; there are several things in it that don't sound like L.F. Baum to me, although it's hard to say how much of that was due to the fact that he knew he was probably dying. I know Thompson has said repeatedly that ROYAL BOOK was entirely hers; if Baum left anything toward a 15th book, she didn't use it. And I believe that; it has no Baum flavor at all. If someone had said that LOST KING or SPEEDY, say, had used some material from Baum's notes, I'd come nearer believing it. Not ROYAL BOOK. Dave Hardenbrook: Hey, anybody who's read TARZAN AT THE EARTH'S CORE knows that a stegosaurus can flap its armor-plates, and even use them to glide! :-) But yeah, that's an alternative to the modified ribs, though I had the impression that there was skin stretched over the Ork's wings. May not be true, though. I can see how a tail like a pinwheel could have evolved, but I don't see how one that's powered could have evolved without a generous dose of magic. Well, I've never seen "Chariots of Fire" or "Cosmos", which may explain why I'm unfamiliar with Vangelis... (I'm a reader. I watch TV when I'm visiting my mother, and I go to about two movies a year. Not that I'm an intellectual snob - a lot of stuff on TV, including "Cosmos", is considerably more intellectual than the light fiction that makes up most of my reading - but print is more interesting to me than film.) David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Monday 12-Feb-96 21:12:26 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Bill wrote: >>Dick (What about "Hardenbrook for President") Randolph >>(DIXNAN@aol.com) >I second the nomination!!!!! Well, it looks like I'd better announce my candidacy... :) How's this for a campaign slogan: "Tititi-Hoochoo and Tyler too!" :) ( Yes, I would *definitely* want Tyler Jones as my running mate! :) :) ) Eric wrote: >> 10) Out of curiousity, is The Disenchanted Princess of Oz about Ozga? >Dunno. Is this one of those books in the HACC that has yet to be published? No, Buckethead has published it--It is in their catalog. I haven't read it yet, but it seems to me that it could just as easily be about Orin or even Ozma as they are both "disenchanted" in the sense that they have assumed their true forms after having previously been victums of Mombi's witchcraft. Tyler wrote: >Perhaps Ozma has sent him [her hubby] on an extended diplomatic tour of >the rest of Fairyland and he only pops in occasionaly. By some fantastic >coincidence, he never visits during the time of your books. This is a good suggestion, and I think there is a non-Ozzy precident for it... Ever see the movie _Hopscotch_ (one of my favorite movies) with Walter Matthau and Glenda (not Glinda! :) ) Jackson? Maybe Ozma's hubby will be Walter to Ozma's Glenda! I'm not suggesting that Ozma's sweetheart is a CIA agent :) but only that he may be out working on behalf of Fairyland while Ozma stays home and rules Oz, awaiting Dan's return to the palace when she can run to him, embrace him, kiss him tenderly, and say sweetly, "Oh, where have you been you old goat?!" (Well, not those words, exactly, especially he's just a *little* older than Ozma, but you get the idea) :) :) :) Aaron wrote: >I just had an idea on how to preserve consistency between Dave's >unwritten The Fairy Princess of Oz, Laumer's stuff, and my and my >brother's Lurline's Machine without me forcing Dave into my model of Ozite >history or Ozma's psychology. >[Idea omitted] Okay, whatever...Do what you want in your book, you have that right under the First Ozzy Amendment (But you can't refer directly to *MY* original characters--*THAT* I'm very particular about.) >I see it now. It wasn't Thompson that invented >Quiberon, but Mebes. However, a copy of Lurline and the White Ravens of >Oz was taken back in time by Hiergargo's son Jopolopofloofosnorf and >given to Thompson the year before she wrote The Giant Horse of Oz. Looks like you've been reading "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", i.e. the bit about the _Guide_ editor plagerizing a box of breakfast cereal and then sending the _Guide_ back in time in order to sue the cereal company for plagerism of the same materal ( Oh, Lurline, let nothing like this ever start going on in Oz! :) ) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:51:49 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: An Oz Book, and Garden of Meats ERIC: "Actually, no notes were ever found for Baum's version of "The Royal Book of Oz." (A couple of chapters WERE found of a new book, but none of that material was ever used by Thompson.)" The chapters that were found... is this the material that was printed in an old BAUM BUGLE under the title "An Oz Book" (my memory's not great, but I seem to remember some of the 'core' Oz characters and Father Goose together in some kind of cavern)? The fragment in question was plainly pretty far along in whatever story was going on; was more of this tale uncovered? On a related note, has the text ever turned up for the lost Patchwork Girl "Garden of Meats" chapter? David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:04:45 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Ix City and Ork bones > However, it points up that there _is_ one way it can be done by evolution > - if the rotating part does not _require_ nutrients. If the Ork's prop > were bone, for example, if would not need nutrients, and so would have no > problem rotating. I was under the impression that bones _are_ living tissue, and constantly being nourished (at least in us non-magical types), but maybe I misremember. Also, what is so all-fired grating about Ix City, after all, there already is a "Fix City"... --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky, who should have said "Invisible _Country_", not "City". Sorry for any confusion. ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:30:44 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest I think we can safely assume that most creatures in Imagi-Nation are the result of natural evolution that has been strongly influenced by magic. Also, some creatures are more magical than others. Even though Terp is not a true giant, he could still be related to Loxo. May I suggest Ixia as the capital of Ix? Or possibly the city is named after one of the great rulers of the past. I strongly deny that efforts to work together to eliminate major contradictions in Oz books is the equivalent of McCarthyism or Gestapo tactics. I have said this countless times, but apparantly I will have to say it again. The HACC was designed to give us a flow of history, not just of the FF, but of ALL Oz books which are true to the events given in the FF. The FF (or Famous Forty) is the cornerstone or baseline of all Oz history. In the old days, there was only one author at a time, and one publisher. Therefore, it was easy to write Oz books that were consistent with each other. Of course, there were still contradictions even among books by the same author. It was the story that mattered, of course, so these contradictions were ignored, and were minor anyway. Nowadays, there are many authors and publishers, most of whom are not aware of each other. Many have also not read the entire FF. What happens when people write stories and go off on their own directions? Will they contradict each other? Is consistency among ALL Oz books something that can be achieved? It is even desireable? There are those who say that the only important thing is to be consistent with the FF and that there is no need to burden yourself with the other books, because that would stifle your creativity and force you to write your book according to someone elses vision, and the book would no longer be your own. The creators of the HACC (There are two, of which I am one) feel that consistency is an important element of a good story. It bonds the Oz books and creates a unified whole where the Oz books relate to each other in a continuous flow of history instead of a bunch of disjointed writings that go off separately. Total consistency is impossible and not desireable. There is no way that everybody is going to write about the same things the same way. Even if this could be achieved, the sameness would be unbearable. A large part of the strength of Oz is its diversity and the special touch that each author provides. It is not our desire to take this away. Rather, by working together and sharing our idea and knowledge, we can improve our own stories and make Oz a much more real place (of course, I say it's already real :)). Our goal has NEVER been to force people to write Oz books according to "our way". At most, a reasonable amount of consistency would only require authors to share some of their ideas and "alter" a few minor details. These "Minor Adjustments" (I hope UPN doesn't sue me :)) do not affect the story as a whole at all. Mostly, they are just changing numbers, or being intentionally vague about something or about not mentioning something that did not need to be mentioned at all. While it is IMPOSSIBLE for people to be COMPLETELY consistent with EVERY Oz book ever written, I maintain that is very possible and desireable to avoid major contradictions, and then Chris and I can come up with clever explanations to smooth over the minor ones. For the record, I like a few minor contradictions. It spices up the series, it makes it more like "real" history, and it paves the way for other Oz books to explain them! The bottom line is that we want people to write Oz books and we want people to write their own stories their own way. All we are saying is that a little bit of effort by all of us (by myself mostly, by the way) can create a product that is better for all of us to enjoy. I myself have been shown improvements in my own projects by feedback from others. You see, by writing an "Oz book", you are not inventing the wheel. You are adding to a story that has been told for nearly a hundred years. In five more years, I can finally say "more than a century" :):):). You are already limiting yourself by what has been told before, even if you only use the FF or even the Baum 14. The only way to be TRULY unfettered is to start your own series. Everyone is welcome to do this, of course, but then your stuff will not be OZ stuff. I submit that following my rules of thumb given yesterday along with a reasonable amount of work with other authors does not add any more limitations to a persons creativity that does compliance with the FF. There is a very good arguement out there that authors are not aware of each other and cannot communicate. THe answer is this very digest. We have an opportunity here to communicate worldwide instantly. Granted, not all Ozzy authors are subscribed yet, but we have to think positive! Of course, I still need to do some work, such as putting another page on my web site listing all Ozzy publishers and hints on how to get Oz books, as well as text summaries of all non-FF books. I firmly believe that together we can weave a tapestry of creativity tempered by consistency. By followng my "thumbnail guidlines" and complying with the FF, people can write great stories that are reasonably true to each other and yet still are stories written the way they want them to be. Glinda, as a citizen of Oz, ages only when she wants to, so she really IS young, from a physiological standpoint. Another possibility is that she has mirros in her guest rooms and she never enters these herself. If Zixi can't fool a mirror, how could she fool a sophisticated camera? Mr. Tinker of oz has been summed up pretty well. There is some info in it, however, if you are interested. Mr. Tinkers first name is Ezra and his middle initial is P. Tik-Tok claimed that 924 years reamined on his thousand year warranty. For the Record, DISENCHANTED PRINCESS is available, and it indirectly refers to Ozma and... leakage control in effect, nothing more can be said :). The only other book I remember using Lurline is, of course, LURLINE AND THE WHITE RAVENS OF OZ. The bit with the Greek mythology does not impinge on Oz history, so it need not be mentioned. The essence of this story is that Lurline causes the area to be enchanted, and names Ozroar as the first King of Oz. Prior to that, he was the King of Morrow. Instead of Oogaboo underground, I of course meant the Vegetable Kingdom. My Web Page is now fully updated. I still need to put the publisher info and the how-to-get-Oz books stuff in there, but everything else is fine. Actaully, that is not quite true. In the status codes part of the HACC, there may some books that are unavailable that I did not tag as such. I will try to dind out which ones are and which ones aren't. Not meaning to toot my own horn, Aaron, but (TOOT! TOOT!) I really believe that my plan for resolving the differences between your book and Daves is better for two reasons: 1. Flexiblity 2. Neither author has to change anything. These are my two goals when I attempt to explain almost anything. This goes back to what I said earlier that I do not try to "force" people to write Oz books "my way". Using my explanation, Aaron and Dave can still write their stories any way they want to, and there will be no contradiction. How does Quiberon appear? Well, he is a minor character in the Thompson series and a minor character in LURLINE AND THE WHITE RAVENS. Also, it is very likely that Dorothy Curtiss Maryott does not know about the book. Even if she does, it is not worth suing over, and since Marcus has left this world, it would a little hard to subpoena him! The Oz Universe probably has normal planets and stars and also a lot of other unusual stuff. It's too bad that AOL users can;t get sent the tilde. Of course, if you were on CompuServe... :):):) Warren Baldwin, I would be VERY interested in the average word-length stats for the Oz books that are currently on-line. DOROTHY and the five Random Housies are placed after DOTWIZ for the reasons explained in my Web Page. Don't fall into the trap that EVERYBODY has to be mentioned in EVERY book. March Laumer came up with an explanation as to why Polychrome and Shaggy did not seem to know each other in TIKTOK. It seems that Poly fell in love with the Shaggy Man in ROAD and the pain was so great that she asked Ozma to remove it. The only way she could was to remove all her memories of Shaggy, and Polychrome agreed. David, of course, is not required to follow Laumers precedent. It seems that Laumers stuff really needs to be placed in a split Universe. I don't want to ahve to do that, but they are so different from everything else, that they simply MUST be. THey are still among the best ever written, though, except for GREEN DOLPHIN. David also mentioned a long time ago that he was going to explain how Eureka got to Oz when she did not go with Dorothy. Laumer came up with an explanation for that too. After the Barrier of Invisibility was put up, Ozma discovered that Eureka had been left behind. Shaggy volunteers to go to Kansas to look for her and has a host of exciting adventures. David will probably do something else, and this is another reason to put Laumers stuff in its own Universe, unless I can come up with something TRULY creative. As for Tip and Jellia Jamb, Tip was so upset by his escape by Mombi and subsequent encoutner with Jinjur, that he did not recognize Jellia when he saw her in E.C. If I'm Daves V.P., that means I get to preside over the Senate and keep that little egg timer. "I'm sorry, Senator Kennedy, but I'm afraid your time is up!". Unlike Dan Quayle, I would not allow people to share their time slices. In the name of consistency, DISENCHANTED PRINCESS has nothing to do with the Good Witch of the North, whether real or fake. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:15:21 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Who really wrote _Glinda of Oz_? Since everyone else is throwing their two cents on the subject... I definitely think Baum was the one who wrote _Glinda of Oz_. The style is very consistent with the other Baum books and lacks the characteristics of Thompson books (REALLY bad incessant punning, etc.). I also have a hard time believing that there's any Baum material in _The Royal Book of Oz_, again on stylistic grounds. Of course, if you want to be wierd and insist it was really Christopher Marlowe... In contrast to my semilunatic brother, I have no problem with consistency if Dave wants to give Ozma a sweetheart. Part of Aaron's ethnocentric assumption that she and this person (we'll can him for convenience here Eustace) will get married and that will last happily forever. One alternative which would not permanently disrupt the status quo would be for the relationship to be more of a boyfriend-girlfriend type which eventually ends. (Ozma meets handsome prince, Ozma loves handsome prince, prince loves Ozma, prince decides to go dragon-hunting instead of spending time with Ozma, Ozma dumps prince... (just an example of one possibility)) Even if Dave does make the relationship more permanent, there are other ways to avoid mentioning his name later on other than by having him be undercover or away on a diplomatic mission, which is obviously not going to be a credible excuse in a series the size _Lurline's Machine_'s going to be. We're already going to take one of these alternatives to deal with the husband Laumer gave Dorothy. (WHICH one we're going to use, you'll have to wait for the book to find out, and no, it does not involve feeding him to a large carnivore.) So, Dave, write whatever you want. You need not worry too much about upsetting Aaron, since whatever you write, which will hopefully be wonderful, is probably not going to affect what we write anyway much except possibly a brief mention which explains why your character is not there and does not violate copyrights. Now, if I can only take away Aaron's keyboard... Tititi-Hoochoo: I will have to see if I can do something about these outbursts of his... ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:42:45 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: Ozma, etc. Dave Hardenbrook writes: > The only question is: Is the Ork a dinosaur? :) No, the Orks are the result of a group of fairies becoming very bored. :-) > Well, if you really believe that Ozma's finding romantic bliss would > nessesarily mean the end of civil-Oz-ation as we know it, I won't > try to argue... Actually, it's not so much Ozma having a romance that bothers me, it's more a matter of consistency with the past and the future. Baum developed a concept of fairies that are true immortals. They were created at the beginning of time and can never become mortal. These fairies appear in several of his non-Oz works, and none of them have ever showed any sign of romantic interest. Any book that violates this concept would be inconsistent with Baum and I would have trouble feeling that it was part of the Oz series. It might still be interesting and fun to read, but other things being equal I prefer books that are consistent with Baum. There may be a loophole, though. Baum's Oz books suggest that Ozma is one of these special immortals, but one might argue that she isn't. Lurline's band may have included some fairies of a lesser type. If Ozma was such a fairy it would explain some anomalies in _Land_, such as Tip's arm smarting after a poke with a knitting needle. A true immortal could not have been injured like that. On the other hand, Tip must have been some sort of fairy, since he was able to keep up with the sawhorse while it was running as fast as it could. No mortal could have even come close to doing that. In _Lost_Princess_ Ozma is said to be impossible to harm, but this could be due to a sort of lesser immortality given to her by Lurline. This presumably couldn't take full effect until Ozma had done all the aging she was going to do. In _Magic_ Baum says "fairies, they say, were born at the beginning of time and live forever." The "they say" provides wiggle room, and there do seem to be many types of fairies that this doesn't apply to. Baum then says "Ozma, ..., was a real fairy", but this doesn't prove she was the type that was born at the beginning of time. Thus, she might, in fact, be a type that can feel romantic love. This leaves the problem of explaining why her boyfriend is not mentioned in Oz books by other authors. This shouldn't be a problem if she doesn't actually get married, and if the boyfriend has duties of his own and is often away attending to them. Then he wouldn't be part of most adventures simply because he is normally not around. This would also strengthen the romance as the best romance is a prolonged one, and "absence makes the heart grow fonder". So I guess I could accept it after all, assuming it is otherwise a good Ozzy book. > (For all I know there will be those who will read _The Good > Witch of Oz_ and say, "He resurrected the Good Witch of the North, gave > each of the Adepts a distinct personality, brought dinosaurs into Oz, > and rendered Oz invasion-proof and Glinda nearly 'All-Powerful'???? > That's *DISGUSTING*!") :) :) :) In my opinion, making Glinda all-powerful *would* be "disgusting". It immediately causes a conflict with any future Oz book where there is any sort of problem, since the all-powerful Glinda should have been able to detect and solve that problem before the story started. I have a similar problem with some of Thompson's books. In _Wishing_Horse_ some two bit wizard made some wishing emeralds with the power to control the thoughts of half a million Ozites. I wouldn't want to live in such an unstable land, especially considering the tyrannical ruler who pronounced Draconian punishments on two foreign visitors who had helped her recover her throne, without even pretending to have a trial. Come to think of it, this is a far worse violation of Ozma's character than a romance could ever be. Tyler Jones writes: > I think Baum described her as being about fourteen or fifteen somewhere. > Who's to say she hasn't decided to age a few years in the meantime? Ack! That's *MUCH* worse. It not only violates the spirit of Baum, it makes a major change in Oz that will be inconsistent with other Oz books (which will describe Ozma as she is in the FF). It is also totally unnecessary; Ozma's age was never the problem. The idea that a girl should wait until she is 18 is a relatively modern concept. In a certain Shakespeare play, for instance, Juliet's mother is worried that Juliet is about to turn 14 and she *still* isn't married. > I do not remember an "ancient law" of Oz that states when a man marries > the queen, he assumes the throne. I was just teasing Dave by suggesting that the "nice man" might actually be trying to conquer Oz by devious means. That's why I put the smileys at the end. > In answer to John Whites statement about the distance through the hollow > tube, I whipped out my calculator and did some figuring. A skydiver can fall about 200mph when in a vertical position, and will fall much slower in the classic spread-eagle position. Even with the faster speed an 8000 mile journey would take 40 hours, yet the fall through the tube took just over an hour. I am assuming that some magic in the tube prevents an increase in air pressure with depth (air pressure doubles approximately every 17,000 feet). That seems reasonable, since otherwise the air would become toxic around 10 miles down, and would approach liquid densities at 30 miles or so. The magic of the tube would also have to maintain the falling speed as the travelers pass through the center and up the other side, as virtually all the energy from falling towards the center would be lost to air friction. The fall was probably slower than 200mph, making the length of the tube 200 miles or less. Note that Polychrome was falling faster than the shaggy man, even though she was lighter. Thus, the Shaggy man probably had his arms and legs spread out while Polychrome had her arms to her side. That is not surprising. Shaggy would instinctively try to slow his fall, while Polychrome was falling feet first at over 100mph and thus was probably doing a Marilyn Monroe. "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > However, post-Adelmanian Oz is going to be a VERY different place from > the Oz that everyone on this digest is familiar with, ... Then there is no problem with conflicts between your book and any Oz book, as your book isn't part of the history of the real Oz. > 8) I've been wondering for a while what Glinda sees when she looks in a > mirror. She sees what everyone else does. She is a type of fairy, so she doesn't need magic to remain young. Also, in _Land_ she explicitly states that she never deals in transformations as no respectable sorceress would make something appear like something that it wasn't. > If it can be assumed that Glinda and Zixi use basically the same > sort of magic, ... No, Glinda is a sorceress while Zixi is a witch. There is a difference, for instance Glinda would never have summoned demons like Zixi did. > Also: Is there any evidence that Zixi can fool a camera? No, she probably can't. I suspect her magic works by affecting people who look at her rather than altering her actual appearance. > Also: Might one also assume that Mombi kept no mirrors in her cottage at > all, lest Tip look into one and get shocked out of his wits? Tip's transformation must have been real, since he was wearing a dress after he was turned back into a girl, and I'm sure he didn't put on a dress while he was a boy. Also, Zixi's magic seemed to work on the beholder, and Glinda would not have been affected. In addition, Tip was in the Tin Woodman's palace where many walls are like mirrors, yet he didn't notice anything wrong with his reflection. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:24:40 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/13/96 Aaron Adelman: I'm not really surprised that PG is 57,000 words; my initial estimate was that it was probably the longest of Baum's books. But you'd said that WOOZY was 47,000 with "several chapters to go"; that sounded to me as if it might hit 60,000 without much problem. If you're in the 50-55,000 range then you're not longer than any of the FF. (Though you still may have to pay for your publication at that length, however excellent the writing.) Larry Smith: Right, I remember the same Gould article I was talking about saying that there were microorganisms that had body parts that had unlimited rotation. But microorganisms don't have the problem of getting nutrients to their body parts; the body parts can pick up nutrients from the surrounding medium the same way the central body does. I think I said (though maybe after the post you were responding to) that a passive rotating body part could theoretically evolve just as you propose. But that doesn't explain how the Ork could get power to its propellor, other than by magical means. I know that Pellucidar had polar openings, but where did you get the 1000-mile figure? That sounds a bit excessive to me; even in 1920 there was plenty of mapped territory closer than 500 miles to the pole. In any case, although I haven't redone the integration, I suspect that polar openings wouldn't affect the null-G inside the hollow sphere, except when very close to it. And although the central sun would have very little gravity, if it were the only body inside the sphere, it would still gently attract anything loose on the inside to it. Besides, we know that it has a fairly sizable gravity - enough to make the Dead World orbit it in 24 hours. Eric Gjovaag: I consider 42 minutes vs. 38 to be a small difference, too. That's why I wonder if Gardner did the calculation carefully; I think it was more than that. I may just redo the calculation in the next day or so to see... And yes, I at least do have a copy of The Annotated Alice. My own reading of Zixi and mirrors is that it has nothing to do with mirrors per se (we know that calm water accomplishes the same thing), but with Zixi's inability to fool her own eyes. Baum refers to her inability to fool mirrors, but I suspect that if another person saw her in a mirror she'd look the same as when viewed directly. Like the Shadow, she has the ability to cloud men's (and women's) minds, but can't cloud her own. I don't remember Lurline from "Life and Adventures"; Zurline was the queen of the wood nymphs, but I don't think there was a queen of the fairies mentioned by name. And the queen of the fairies in ZIXI was Lulea, not Lurline. According to Clarke's book, she is mentioned (she never appears onstage) in TW 12; Gl 6, 8; LK 9, 19, 20; all through MM; and MGR 4, 6, 21. Tyler Jones: If you want to know what a jemkiph is, you should read QUEEN ANN IN OZ. You should read it anyhow; it's an excellent Oz book, one of the best published by BoW. If you've read it, you should remember what a jemkiph is - sort of an Old Ozzish term for a DayTimer. It doesn't seem to me that there are that many "I'm going to conquer Oz!" books in the FF. Let's see - EC, LP, Magic, LK (sort of), GK, JP, Pirates, WH, HM, Ozo, WC, MM, and Shaggy (sort of). 11-13 out of 44, depending on how you rate Mombi's and Conjo's attempts (I don't think they were really out to -conquer- Oz, just to get a cushy deal for themselves, and for that matter Strut and the chocolate soldiers weren't ever a really serious threat). So less than 1/3, perhaps as few as 1/5 of the books in all. On the other hand, a lot of them -are- concentrated right around CS. I don't know that my story of how Dorothy and Eureka returned to America from Australia will contradict Laumer at all; I don't know what he said about it, but I do have them taking a ship to San Francisco - though it's a steamer, and not a sailing ship, because they're in something of a hurry. (Naturally I provide a different reason for Uncle Henry to choose a more expensive means of transportation, but the real reason is so that they can reach SF while Eureka is still a kitten, with enough room to spare that she'll still be a kitten a couple of months later.) The contradiction - based on what you told me of Laumer's book - is that he leaves Eureka in the Outside World to turn into a grown cat and have a hard life, until Ozma or the Wizard or someone takes pity on her, transports her back to Oz, and restores her to kittenhood. I don't like that line. To me, the most repugnant parts of the FF are the chapters in WC when the Wizard regresses Jenny in age, and later removes certain unpleasant parts of her personality. It may have made her a nicer person, and more fun to be around, but I don't believe in making changes of those kinds in characters - even at their request (which Jenny didn't make - at least Eureka did, which makes Laumer's version more acceptable). I have come up with what I think is a much more acceptable and Ozzy solution to the problem of how Eureka got back while still a kitten (well before I'd heard of Laumer's version), and I don't feel like abandoning it just because someone else came up with another idea earlier. It's not as if this is really a "split" in the Oz universe - more of a sort of "cup-handle", since the question of how Eureka got back doesn't affect anything in either the past or future of Oz; just the lines of that particular story. It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone writing a story set later would have any occasion to refer to how Eureka had returned. Working with another author to attempt to avoid contradictions doesn't stifle creativity as long as neither author has an urge to write something that contradicts something the other one wants to write. This doesn't seem to be the case with Dave and Aaron. The way it sounded to me, Aaron was telling Dave he had to throw out the whole major premise of a book he wanted to write because it would make it more difficult for Aaron to write the book -he- wanted to write. That sounds like stifling somebody's creativity to me. I prefer to leave it to people like you to sort out the differences and reconcile them, rather than trying to stake out territory -ab initio-. Aaron again: The Oz world may well have "normal" stars and planets like ours, but it's pretty clear, if Planetty rode a thunderbolt (which is an atmospheric phenomenon) down to Earth that it's not one of them, but one of the miscellaneous objects floating around in the atmosphere. The Oz-world moon is obviously within the atmosphere as well, if Mr. Tinker could climb to it on a ladder. Warren Baldwin: That's funny, I'm on AOL too, and I got the tilde in Amundson's Web site address. Maybe it's the particular software you're running? (I have AOL 2.6 for the Mac.) Are you maybe using DOS? Interesting about the average word length of Baum and Thompson books. I think there might well be a difference depending on the intended audience, though - wonder if, say, AUNT JANE'S NIECES has a longer word length than Baum's Oz books? I know that I've run reading-level tests on my own writing, and while I normally log in at somewhere between 13th and 16th grade level for most of my writing, GLASS CAT, with no direct effort on my part, came in at 6th grade level, just because I was thinking of an Oz book audience when I was writing it. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:26:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Capital of Ix 1) Eric, OK, so my memory of Terp and Loxo is worse than I thought. 2) Ixna, Ixezia, and Zixiezia may not be the most pleasant-sounding names, but at least they beat Ix City, which sounds like 'Ick City'. (Now that might make an interesting nonhistorical place...) Also, I claim that Old Ozzish was spoken over much of Imagination, or more properly, that Old Ozzish is a dialect of Old Imaginary. It is Antozians and Ozamalanders who have different languages left over from pre-Anglification times, the latter of which--well, I can't leak that information now. 3) References to Lurline in the Baum 14: 1) Chapter 12 of The Tin Woodman of Oz. Lurline is identified as the one who enchanted Oz and left Ozma behind to rule it. 2) Chapter 8 of Glinda of Oz. Ozma identifies herself as a member of Lurline's fairy band and derives her authority from Lurline. Eric, that's all I found when searching for 'Lurline' with my computer. 4) Tyler, according to Eric and his coauthor Karyl Carlson in their book Queen Ann in Oz, Jol Jemkiph did grow jemkiphs, only he got out of the farming business one year when the crops went bad and married Queen Dede Soforth. 'Jemkiph' is an Old Ozzish/Old Imaginary word for a notepad, diary, or journal. 5) The Hollow Tube DOESN'T go through the center of the planet. Better mark that down as another mistake Hiergargo made... Hiergargo: Don't even THINK of leaking the first mistake I made in constructing the Tube! 6) Tyler, uh, isn't Imagination the name of the continent that Oz is on? Come to think of it, how many continents are there on the Oz planet anyway? So far I know from the FF that at least two exist, Imagination and Ozamaland, and in Trot and the Queasy in Oz I'm throwing in a third, Antozia, at the center of which is Tititi-Hoochoo's domain, though for all I know Baum may have intended it to be an island. Considering that the Nonestic Ocean surrounds Imagination completely, and that The Sea Fairies claims the existence of three oceans, we may need a few more continents to separate between all these oceans. Then again, King Anko and his brothers may have divided up the sea differently than the 'earth people'. 7) What is this Gnostic Gnu? I can't recall such a creature in the 56 Oz books I've read so far. 8) I have no intentions of claiming that Ozma has never had a love interest in Lurline's Machine. On the contrary, my coauthor has written Ozma consistently with Laumer's model of her having non-Platonic feelings for, uh, er, let me just leave it as 'someone'. I surrender, David Hulan, and I'll do what is neccessary (or whatever has greatest humor value) to keep this guy out of my books. Tyler's model is basically the same as the one my coauthor and I seem to be adopting at the moment. 9) Could someone please tell me about the disappearance of Ozette? Sooner or later in Lurline's Machine, Mombi's going to tell THE TRUTH about the takeover of Oz by the four wicked witches (or my and my coauthor's interpretation of her perception of it, at any rate), and as I have nothing against Powell (indeed, I wasn't able to ILL his book), I'd like to avoid needlessly contradicting him. Nalrodi the Mind-Reader: I see it now. Mombi was involved in Ozette's disappearance. Come to think of it, has anyone written anything on the deep past of Mombi? n) David Hulan, OK, so I'll concede Tip and Jellia might have known each other before they met at Glinda's camp outside the Emerald City. Though I'm fairly certain they weren't much more than mere acquaintances at most. Also: Thanks for the info on Mr. Tinker in Oz. I should be sufficient for my coauthor's and my purposes. Mr. Tinker: Don't you dare-- Me: I get the point already! n + 1) Suggestion for E-text to put on-line which hasn't come up yet: John Dough and the Cherub. n + 2) Concerning "Tititi-Hoochoo and Tyler too!": (I have a strange reaction to puns.) n + 3) Dave, I think you forgot about my explination of why the Woozy is named Gwomokolotolint, which is definitely going to show up somewhere in Lurline's Machine (probability: > 99%). Time travel is a definite YES in Oz as far as I'm concerned. (I promise not to abuse it.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:49:12 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: I have been following the various conversations that have been addressing the love interests of Ozma (and others), and it has left me a little puzzled. So I need to pose a question or two. But first, let me establish a framework for the question. 1. It has been my belief than the FF were written for children; and in particular for children who (at least in the times the books were written) were not expected to have "romantic love" interests. Therefore, it had never occurred to me that this might be a subject of importance, and was why (I assumed) the characters with whom children would most likely identify had no"romantic love" interests. Question: Is this a reasonable, or unreasonable assumption? 2. Now in today's world, the media (advertising, movies, tv, etc) have heavily propagandized the childrens age group, conditioning people at ever younger ages to become concerned with and motivated by "romantic" interests. Thus, issues which were not relevant in an Oz book of 50-100 years ago have now become relevant. Question: Is this why our Ozzy writers of today are addressing this subject? Or are the target readers for their new Oz stories adults and not children? Or are there other reasons? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 13-Feb-96 23:36:23 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things THE NAME OF THE OZZY CONTINENT AND UNIVERSE: "Imagination" is the name of the continent in the Thompson Oz books. In the Hardenbrook Oz books it's called "Baumgea". As for a name for the Ozzy universe as a whole, how about the C-Oz-mos? (Please feel free to groan now.) :) As far has how many continents there are on planet Ozzy, I've been assuming that Baumgea is surrounded by other authors' continents--for example Carrollgea (containing Wonderland, Looking-Glass Land, and the Dominions of the Snark), Justergea (the Kingdom of Wisdom and other locales from _The Phantom Tollbooth_), Seussgea (Whoville, the Dominions of the Grinch, etc.), and so on. (Comments anyone?) :) MY AWFUL PUN: Aaron wrote: >n + 2) Concerning "Tititi-Hoochoo and Tyler too!": (I have a >strange reaction to puns.) Good, that's what puns are for! :) (I still think though that the Awful Pun Champion of the World is R.P. Thompson, e.g. "Gnome Man's Land". Ouch.) :) STUFF ABOUT BOTH OF MY BOOKS: I think I've made up my mind...Provided Buckethead (who don't mind long titles) publishes my book, it will be called _Locasta and the Three Adepts of Oz_. (I combined two of Aaron's suggestions. :) ) For discussion on the Digest, this can be abbrviated as: L&3A_Oz. :) Tyler wrote: >Not meaning to toot my own horn, Aaron, but (TOOT! TOOT!) I really believe >that my plan for resolving the differences between your book and Daves is >better for two reasons: >1. Flexiblity >2. Neither author has to change anything. I second your TOOT TOOT. :) Although in my own mind I'll just concern myself with what *I'm* writing, I'm glad there is now a consistancy resolution for everyone else. :) >In the name of consistency, DISENCHANTED PRINCESS has nothing to do with >the Good Witch of the North, whether real or fake. *WHEW*!!! :) :) :) John White wrote: >[Ozma's sweetheart] wouldn't be part of most adventures >simply because he is normally not around. This would also strengthen >the romance as the best romance is a prolonged one, and "absence makes >the heart grow fonder". I can go along with this (see my _Hopscotch_ comments in yesterday's Digest)... >So I guess I could accept it after all, assuming it is otherwise a >good Ozzy book. It will be! :) >In my opinion, making Glinda all-powerful *would* be "disgusting". I don't really make her "All-Powerful"...If _L&3A_Oz_ can be said to have a moral, it is that there is NO SUCH THING as "All-Powerful". It's just that Locasta(!) manages to render Glinda much more powerful than she was before. (I must say all this is very hard for me to explain coherently without giving away massive parts of my book, but I assure you it works out in my story, and I really don't change the Ozzy status quo any, except that Glinda erects an invisible barrier to make it harder for future villians to invade.) Bill wrote: >1. It has been my belief than the FF were written for children; and in >particular for children who (at least in the times the books were written) >were not expected to have "romantic love" interests. Therefore, it had >never occurred to me that this might be a subject of importance, and was why >(I assumed) the characters with whom children would most likely identify had >no"romantic love" interests. If this is true, then immediately throw out every fairy tale from Cinderella to Aladdin, not to mention my favorite non-Ozzy children's author, Louisa May Alcott (_The Fairy Princess of Oz_ will have only 1/3 as many weddings as _Little Women_ has!). :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 15, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:31:04 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Consistency Hey Tyler! Who made you the boss of me? It is really nice that you have this little hobby of the HACC but in your own sweet, well-intentioned way you are almost as bad as Aaron. It would be virtually impossible for each and every person who ever thought about writing an Oz story to contact each and every other person who was thinking or working on an Oz story to see if any thing they had planned on writing was going to contradict anyone else's story. Not to mention the sucking-all-joy-out-of-the -worldness that such an effort would entail. Let's face it: As much as each of us loves the Oz series, as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is a really nice movie based on a really old children's book. Notice the use of the singular. Even among ourselves there are those whose only interest is in the FF or the Baumiana. After that, there are a very few who possess the talent and wit to produce worthy additions to the series and no matter how good they may be I doubt that even the entire membership of the Oz clubs will ever run across a copy, let alone read all of them. Although I do have to make serious plans to get Glass Cat, Queen Ann, and the Gardener's Boy ;) If this were a perfect world, every year would see a major publisher putting out a new Oz book with all the bells and whistles we know and love and the FF would be the Famous 96 and make the bestseller lists and be required reading and Rob Roy's movie company would be a Hollywood giant and the home of every great animator and Oz amusement parks, video games, computer programs, you name it, would be the most popular things in the world. But it isn't. So for those of us who are toiling quietly, lurking in the background, don't try to make us conform. The first and only rule should be consistency to the First and Foremost Royal Historian because that is where it all began. Use the rest of the FF or not. Some people don't like every single author's work on the series and that is fine. Each of us has specific treasured memories of Oz and those of us who want to try to keep the series alive should have the freedom to bring our own special gifts into the work, not go through some self-proclaimed governing council to see if it in any way contradicts a book we were never aware of in the first place. This is about Oz, not some kind of fiction factory. Who is to say that my way or your way or anyone's way to work out contradictions is superior to anyone else's? What you are doing is nice and if it makes you happy that is great. But don't tell me or anyone else what we can and cannot write about. That is contrary to what I believe about the spirit of Oz. I'm sure that there will be those who disagree with me and that is fine. There will always be disagreement in any social group. That is simple human nature and that is all I have to say. Bye! ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:44:10 -0500 From: larrys@zk3.dec.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-14-96 > I was under the impression that bones _are_ living tissue, and >constantly being nourished (at least in us non-magical types), but maybe >I misremember. You are correct in general, but I was referring specifically to boney structures in a more general sense, like horns, tusks, and the like, where they are basically extruded. In most animals bones are living tissue partly because the extruding tissue is still present (which is why broken bones knit but teeth do not) and partly because the marrow is where the red blood cells are manufactured - which has nothing to do with the bone itself, it just happened to have evolved with the red blood cell replacing organ _inside_ the bone. Come to think of it, perhaps "antler" would be a better word, it is a good example of an external structure needing no nourishment once it has completed growth and might well serve as a model for a living propellor. If the prop is damaged or wears out, it drops off and another one grows in, possibly as quickly as a bird moulting feathers. Might even happen annually. >Right, I remember the same Gould article I was talking about saying that >there were microorganisms that had body parts that had unlimited rotation. >But microorganisms don't have the problem of getting nutrients to their body >parts; the body parts can pick up nutrients from the surrounding medium the >same way the central body does. Not all of _our_ body parts require nutrients. The teeth do not - in fact, the presence of the pulp _after_ the tooth is grown is a severe liability, and there is no nutrient supply to the enamel at all. Horns, tusks, beaks, and so on are all extruded from living tissue, but not living in and of themselves. The prop could easily be just such material. >I think I said (though maybe after the post you were responding to) that a >passive rotating body part could theoretically evolve just as you propose. >But that doesn't explain how the Ork could get power to its propellor, other >than by magical means. I can think of several ways to power the thing, too. Living things are almost infinitely malleable. One such mechanism would be that the prop connects by a short shaft to a three-lobed "handle" which fits into a pocket of muscles in the back of the ork. These muscles would contract in sequence, pushes the lobes to the next muscle. Add in some natural oil supply at the sphincter that holds the axel, and you have a purely natural means of providing quite a lot of non-magical power to a plausible propellor. The problem is, that's a pretty specialized structure over all, especially if you figure that the prop will fall off every spring and a new one grow in all covered with felt that will eventually fall off and leave the prop ready for use. I can't think of a plausible way for it to have _evolved_ naturally. Unlike eyes, which are also complex structures, it is hard to imagine a prop that would be evolutionarily useful but less sophisticated. In any case, I merely point out the possibility that the ork need not be intrinsically magical. Perhaps they were created by magic to begin with but they don't need it now. Perhaps not. Based on the description, I think Baum's intent was to depict them as magical. But what does magical _mean_ really? I don't know. Oz has no concept of "mana" or "magical fuel", so what does asserting a magical metabolism tell us? >I know that Pellucidar had polar openings, but where did you get the >1000-mile figure? That sounds a bit excessive to me; even in 1920 there was >plenty of mapped territory closer than 500 miles to the pole. Burroughs quoted it in several of the books. Yes, it doesn't jibe with maps of the day. As I said, he didn't invent the idea, the concept of the Hollow Earth goes back hundreds of years or more, maybe thousands. I think the original idea might have been Greek. >In any case, >although I haven't redone the integration, I suspect that polar openings >wouldn't affect the null-G inside the hollow sphere, except when very close >to it. And although the central sun would have very little gravity, if it >were the only body inside the sphere, it would still gently attract anything >loose on the inside to it. Besides, we know that it has a fairly sizable >gravity - enough to make the Dead World orbit it in 24 hours. That may be, but had ERB decided to respect all of that, then we'd not have any stories of Pellucidar, would we? =) Request: Will someone please take the time to spell out FF and some other popular acronyms around here so newbies can figure out some context? regards, Larry Smith ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 16:43:47 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Romance and Stuff To: DaveH47@delphi.com, ADELMANB@adelvx.citadel.edu Message-id: <960214164347.22d9@adelvx.citadel.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Regarding W. R. Wright's comments regarding romance: I think what Dave has been trying to do is find a new angle from which to explore Ozma's character. It isn't exactly a new angle in the series, but I don't recall Ozma getting romantically involved before, so this would likely be a fairly original idea. I don't think it's the media; if its influence were that strong then there would be a whole lot of stories full of unozzy things out there. jnw@vnet.net writes: >Then there is no problem with conflicts between your book [_The Woozy of Oz_] >and any Oz book, as your book isn't part of the history of the real Oz. Yes, I know the thing sounds heretical because it does alter the status quo, but that is the point. Real countries and real people do change over time, so the relative stability found in the FF, even in a magical country, would probably change over time as people accumulate more experience, things happen between people, etc. _The Woozy of Oz_ and the books that will hopefully follow it are supposed to be the start of a period when such changes are becoming evident. This is why the book is set in the indefinite future, after books which stay closer to the (apparent) stability of the FF world. As most people try to keep their stories close to the FF, there isn't usually much risk of contradiction, which is fine since there is no intention of cutting people off from writing more books which predate _Woozy_ anyway. Aaron's concern was over how giving Ozma a romantic interest would change the status quo, as if the relationship was permanent, that would sort of disrupt the continuity between a FF-type Oz where Ozma has no romantic interests and a _Woozy_ where Ozma has no romantic interests. I've already posted stuff about how to get around such difficulties (without resorting to carnivores), I won't bother to repeat it here. But I don't think a comment like "your book isn't part of the history of the real Oz" is warranted, especially as anything outside the FF is arguably not "real Oz," no matter how inline it is with the FF. Dave, I don't think all those imaginary places could be on the same planet. Carrollgea, maybe, but Justergea is stretching it and I think Seussgea, being so warped, would have to have a domain of it's own, such as in the mind of another God. And this obviously does not do much to localize other fanciful places, some of which are supposed to be on Earth (insert your own) or are sort of connected to Earth but don't seem very locatable (I would like to know where that island in Charles Kingsley's _The Water Babies_ which has the same circumference as Earth is). I would be more inclined to think that Baumgea and similar Baum-related lands have a planet of their own (or maybe the Farmerian alternative) and other fanciful lands are somewhere else. My preference for the capital of Ix is for it to be called Pittsburgh. (: ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 16:18:02 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-14-96 Glinda is *not* all-powerful. In LAND, for instance, she has trouble figuring out how to get over the Emerald City walls. I think it's the Scarecrow who figures it out for her. Thompson, according to her own testimony, wrote all of ROYAL BOOK. I believe her. --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 18:41:19 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest To: Dave Message-id: Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT In a blast from the past, I finally found the reference to Glindas celebration of her 100th year of ruling the Quadling country. It is at the end of chapter 16 of PURPLE PRINCE. Again, I maintain that this is a symbolic number, much like an elderly person celebrating his 80th birthday with only one candle on the cake. I arrived at the 38 minute figure using the following assumptions: 1. The earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. 2. The entire gravitational force is concentrated on the center. Therefore, wherever you are in your fall through the tube, gravity is at 9.8 meters per second squared 3. When you are falling toward the center ("DOWN"), you are gaining speed at the constant rate of 9.8. 4. When you are falling away from the center ("UP"), you are losing speed at the constant rate of -9.8. 5. There is no friction in Imagi-Nation. Otherwise, you would not make it all the way to the other side. 6. It will take the exact same time to fall from the surface to the center as it will to fall from the center to the opposite surface. By the way, your top speed, ocurring just as you cross the center, will be just under 25,000 miles per hour. Bones are living tissue that are fed nutrients, but it is easy to assume that a bone could grow and then lose its living status. In most cases, it would probably eventually rot away and fall off, although with magical assistance added to the equation, anything is possible. There are all sorts of ways to explain the absence of Ozmas boyfriend. The simplest way is not to mention him and assume that, during Aarons story, he simply did not have that much to do and was thus not mentioned. Another way of asking my question from yesterday is this: "While everybody may BE there, does everybody have to be MENTIONED in every book?" For if a person who we know lives in the Emerald City is not mentioned at the big party at the end of the story, we can assume that he is there, he just did not have much to say. In the Thompson books, there is an effect that I call the "And they met" chapter. Usually, her books feature people and adventures far from the Emerald City. Therefore, the famous characters from earlier books do not take part in the main story, with a few exceptions. Thompson apparantly feels the need to make some of this up, so after Ozma arrives and saves the day with a wave of her hand, they all troop back to E.C. for the big party. "And they met..." What follows is basically a long list of about a dozen characters who did not take part in the adventure. They arrive, say a few words, then disappear into the woodwork. In effect, the action stops, a bunch of extra characters are reeled out, then they are reeled back in. With all of the famous characters living in E.C. at the end of the FF, there is simply no way to give all of them a significant role in the adventure unless your book approaches WHEEL OF TIME length. Just pick a few and have fun! If a character does not appear, we make the assumption that he is in the background. As for the "other" suggestion, I really feel that killing off a character just because he is inconvenient is not really in the spirit of Oz. Ironically, this is exactly what March Laumer is accused of, although I have yet to see him kill off a major character. We can assume that Ozma is not one of the "highest" fairies and that, combined with her birth as a mortal, enabled her to have romantic feelings. Where does it say that fairies cannot become mortal? Ozga was a fairy, related to Ozma, yet she became mortal. Of course, it can be argued that she is a low-ranking fairy. The all-powerful nature is already there. We have belts, pills, powders and emeralds that grant wishes. A hammer that summons an elf (he is not really an elf, but that's beside the point) that apparantly can do anything, a picture that shows anything, a book that tells everything and so on. The Oz characters, by the end of the FF, have so much magical power that there is nothing that is beyond their reach. This problem is continued outside of the FF where the most popular magic item by far is something that (big suprise) grants wishes. Also, there is apparantly no limit to the number of wishes that each item can provide. Authors get around this by having the characters use the power in stupid ways. If wishing magic were used to its full extent, there would never be any adventures, because, as John White pointed out, they would be able to detect any trouble and cancel it before it began. I agree with John that the power of one wish to affect half a million people is a little much. John, can you refresh my memory? You mentioned a tyrannical ruler who pronounced "Draconian" punishments on two people who helped her to recover her throne. I can't remember this. Also, 14 or 15 is not an unreasonable age to get married, especially in olden times, and of course, Ozma is mature beyond her years. There is a way out even if she ages. I already remarked that it is possible for a person to age and maybe even un-age in Oz. Therefore, ages could go up and down like a yo-yo. Therefore, any reference in person As book describing Ozma as 25 would not be inconsistent with a later book that describes her as 14. Maybe Aarons and Laumers books ought to go in the same split Universe. Despite Glindas disapproval of Transformations in LAND, she seems to be pretty good at it in RINKITINK. Of course, in that case, she was working transformations to REPAIR damage to restore the true form of Bobo. We have already speculated the Lurline, Zurline and Lulea are all actually the same person. Immortal beings from legend always have several different names and they are used interchangeably. Traditionally, this was to prevent someone else from using their name to gain power over them, but in this case, it may be that the Queen of the Fairies is called by a different name in different lands due to cultural traditions. I have read QUEEN ANN, but I forgot what a Jemikiph is. I'll glance at it again. As for the number of "I'm going to conquer Oz!" storyline, I am looking not at just the FF, but rather the entire HACC. This is without a doubt the most popular plot of non-FF authors, complete with all the other plot devices I have mentioned before. I am with David completely on the Wizards act in WONDER CITY. Yes, Eureka did ask to be a kitten again in laumers story. Also, I can assume that they boarded a steamer in the middle of the pacific to gain time. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:14:01 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Authors, copyrights, and characters {for inclusion in digest} Dave: Forgive me for not understanding the ways of writers ("Do not annoy authors my son, for they are subtle, and slow to anger"), but I don't get it: On the one hand, you insist (paraphrastically) "I'm gonna give Ozma a husband, and that's gonna become part of Oz history, and so you better get used to the idea", and on the other, you say "...But you better not actually reference him, because I hold the copyright and will sue you for every penny you got if you do". Huh? How can you hold both ends of this rein? If you want him to be a major part of Oz, you gotta let folks use him, ne c'est pas? And conversely, if you don't want folks to use him, then why change Oz so significantly in the first place? Am I missing something here???? --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:18:23 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/14/96 Michael Turniansky: Right, bones are living tissue. But the Ork's prop and the Wheelers' wheels could be akin to horn or hair (which can get very hard when compacted; that's the basic substance of a rhino's horn) or hoof, all of which are dead tissue, though they were once living. Tyler Jones: Who has said that having authors coordinate their books to avoid contradictions is "the equivalent of McCarthyism or Gestapo tactics?" I don't remember any such phrase. I did feel - and I wasn't the only one - that Aaron was at least giving the impression of trying to strongarm Dave out of writing a story he wanted to write, solely because it was inconsistent with the story Aaron and Barry were writing. Coordinating minor matters to avoid inconsistency, sure. I have no problem with that. (If I'd known that Eric and Karyl were planting a forest in the pass into Oogaboo, I'd have had no problem making that pass forested in my book - but it would have altered enough of the action that I didn't care to try to correct it on the copyedited version, which was the only chance I had to do that after I read QUEEN ANN.) But when a writer wants to tell a story that centers around an event that doesn't contradict the FF (like Dave's romance for Ozma, or my story about Eureka's return ot Oz), then I think the fact that some other writer has written, or is known to be writing, another story inconsistent with that idea shouldn't be a barrier. Let others harmonize them if they can; if it proves impossible, then let those others decide which seems more consistent with the rest of the canon and which is speculative fiction within the Ozzy universe (like stories in our universe where the South wins the Civil War, for instance). Lurline is also a goddess-figure (though she doesn't appear on stage - but then, she doesn't in the FF, either) in WICKED, for what it's worth. Oogaboo, Mangaboo, who notices? :-) As I noted yesterday, the problem with the tilde isn't with AOL, since I'm on AOL and received it fine. It's something else. Laumer's theory about why Polychrome and Shaggy didn't know each other in TIK-TOK doesn't seem very plausible to me. In the first place, there is no indication of any such affection in ROAD. More importantly, Ozma is never shown working any magic other than using magical implements that anyone can use before TIN WOODMAN, and there are in fact several instances in the earlier books where Ozma shows that she doesn't understand magic all that well, including TIK-TOK. Barry Adelman: If Laumer gave Dorothy a husband that that alone is sufficient reason in my mind to consider Laumer an alternate-history track, however excellent his books may be. He has clearly altered Oz so far beyond the limits of the FF that it isn't "our" Oz any more. IMO. (And if Lurline's Machine makes comparable alterations, I'd say the same thing about it.) John N. White: I assume the two foreign visitors Ozma visited Draconian punishment on in WH are Matiah and the eagle? I don't find that at all inconsistent with Ozma's character as depicted in the rest of the series. Ozma was, in many ways, a very arbitrary ruler. She visited equally, if not more, Draconian punishments on Mombi, Mooj, Wutz, and Captain Salt's former crew, probably others, and she was going to put Eureka to death if the latter hadn't proven herself innocent of eating the piglet. If you take air resistance into account, the party in TIK-TOK would never have come out the other end. I think you have to assume that they're all enclosed in a capsule of air that moves through the tube without friction. Somewhat the way Trot and Cap'n Bill were in a capsule of air when they were under the sea in SEA FAIRIES. Bill Wright: There are romances (not, to be sure, pursued to an explicit level - I'm not sure I even remember a kiss) involving principal characters in a number of the FF. KABUMPO, GRAMPA, JACK PUMPKINHEAD, SILVER PRINCESS, and on a somewhat lower level SPEEDY and WONDER CITY. (The principality of Belfaygor and Shirley in JP could be argued, but the others all definitely involve the principal character of the book.) On the other hand, most of the modern writers don't use romance either. None of the better ones I've read have. Dave Hardenbrook: I never thought of Thompson as being that prominent as a punster. She did use a lot of puns for character and place names, but she rarely used them in her dialog or descriptions, whereas both Baum and Neill could get totally carried away with them. (Baum did it mostly in the Utensia section of EC, but sometimes elsewhere. Neill, especially in his first two books, hardly let a page go by without at least a couple of Really Bad Puns.) ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 00:35:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Frogman of Oz Yet another miracle happened today, and I got The Frogman of Oz (HICC 1947) through ILL. I can now say with full confidence that Laumer is evil, sick, anti-Baumian, and brilliant. The major premise: In Oz no one can die. Even if a person or animal is dismembered, the pieces live on. Laumer then supposes that Oz should eventually become littered with pieces of humans and animals who met with severe unfortunate accidents which are unable to be restored in any way. As this is not the case, one must wonder what happens to such undead flesh. His solution is that at some point Gingemma the Witch of the East obtained the Golden Cap from Gayelette and ordered the Winged Monkeys to dump such remains on an uninhabited island, where they are discovered by one of the protagonist of the book to have grown together into some sort of monstrosity called the Abominable No-Man. The major problem: This is in severe contradiction with The Giant Horse of Oz, in which the Wizard restores many giant seahorses to life after having been reduced to bones by Quiberon. Also note that in The Tin Woodman of Oz, Ku Klip reports having created a man from the meat parts of Nick Chopper and Captain Fyter (except for an arm, as they didn't bring him enough of those). It would appear then that the idea of needing a dumping ground for dismembered parts is rather extreme, as it might be simpler just to revive them or make composite people from them, and far less agonizing to them as well. Gingemma did have that meat glue, and as under Baum Gingemma was not totally evil (she did glue back on Ku Klip's finger), it is plausible that she might go around making Chopfyt-like people from scraps. Pros: Interesting explination for the disappearance of Gayelette (Mombi hired by the Winged Monkeys to dispose of her) and Quelala's origin (can't post that here without spoiling it). Good character development for Button-Bright and interesting method of return to Oz. Cool friends that Kabumpo makes, except for the Nude Gnu, whose philosophy is a trifle baffling. Better handling of Lucky Bucky and Davy Jones than Neill, to the point where they became decent characters. Useable historical material. Other cons: The cannibal cook, who proved to me that I had utterly failed to figure out the worst thing that could happen in Oz. (Sorry, can't say what I had previously thought was the worst possible thing that could happen in Oz without leaking a major premise for Lurline's Machine.) For this alone I started getting thoughts of "KILL, KILL, KILL!" Also Laumer forgot that Kabumpo lives in Pumperdink, not Regalia. The idea of Kabumpo and his animal friends getting drunk was not exactly pleasing. I'm not buying Lake Quad being only 150 feet long when Neill had Davy Jones swimming around in it. Legal note: How come Laumer isn't getting sued for having Lucky Bucky and Davy Jones in this book? Someone tell me his trick so I can have horrible things happen to Number Nine's father (unaffectionately called "the Big Zero" for giving his kids the lamest names on any universe). Overall rating: Thumb sideways. If I somehow meet Laumer, I won't be sure whether to shake his hand or punch his lights out. Note: I am hereby introducing a concept in consistency checking, somewhat akin to a legal fiction, that all Oz authors have one or more informants who give them their information on what is going on in Oz. As different informants percieve their world differently and tell the truth to various degrees, stories from different informants must of neccessity contain discrepancies. Baum's informants would appear to be Dorothy and the Wizard, Thompson's Peter, Speedy, and probably someone in Oz other than Ozma, Neill's Jenny Jump ("the Unreliable"), McGraw and McGraw's Robin, and Cosgrove's Percy the Personality Kid. For myself, I claim my informants are the Woozy and his sister the Queasy, and as the first is a square beast, he claims to be very reliable. Adelmanian consistency checking status: Laumer's informant for this book, according to Nalrodi the Mind-Reader, is Lucky Bucky. Like all Neillian characters, Buck is prone to gross exaggeration (that's putting it mildy) and hence is suspected of having fabricated the major premise of this book, though there appears to be much high-quality historical material presented as well. This book therefore gets ranked above Madden and Pendexter and below Abbott, the IWOC books, and the FF in priority for consistency checking. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 15-Feb-96 00:06:16 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ABBREVIATIONS: Larry Smith wrote: >Will someone please take the time to spell out FF and some other popular >acronyms around here so newbies can figure out some context? Here are some common abbreviations seen in the Digest: FF - The "Famous Forty" (i.e. the 40 original "official" Oz books) ILL - Inter-Library Loan (Good way to obtain Ozzy books) BoW - Books of Wonder (Ozzy publisher) ECP - Emerald City Press (Subsiduary of BoW) BEOO - Buckethead Enterprises of Oz (another Ozzy publisher) IWOC - International Wizard of Oz Club (The worldwide Ozzy Fan Club) RCO - Royal Club of Oz (Another Ozzy Club) IMHO - "In My Humble Opinion" (Common Internet-ese) ( This list will be periodically posted and probably be much added to. :) ) GLINDA'S "SEMI-PHENOMINAL NEARLY COSMIC POWERS": :) Robin Olderman wrote: >Glinda is *not* all-powerful. Once again, I *DON'T* make Glinda truly "All-Powerful" (See my comments on this subject in yesterday's Digest). She just goes from, say (for the sake of comparison), the powers of Merlyn to the powers of the Genie *after* Aladdin liberated him. :) So Glinda can now do neat things like what she does in _Masquarade in Oz_ when she makes herself an extra head so she can masquarade as Langwidere, which I doubt she could have done before (So have I established where _Masquarade_ should go in the HACC then?). To quote what Glinda actually says in my book, "There's no such thing as absolutely 'all-powerful'...I can do *almost* anything now, but...I will still need to execute elaborate spells and incantations to get the job done..." So although Glinda is more powerful, there is no danger of "spoilt adventures" in future stories ( Look at all the troubles/adventures Aladdin gets into, even with Genie there! :) ) YOUR UNIVERSE OR MINE?: :) Tyler wrote: >Maybe Aarons and Laumers books ought to go in the same split Universe. I'd go along with that. I feel *SO* much better just assuming that the Hardenbrookian universe is separate and totally within my power! :) :) COPYRIGHT ON OZMA'S HUBBY: Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky wrote: >On the one hand, you insist (paraphrastically) "I'm gonna >give Ozma a husband, and that's gonna become part of Oz history, and so >you better get used to the idea", and on the other, you say "...But you >better not actually reference him, because I hold the copyright and will >sue you for every penny you got if you do". Huh? How can you hold both >ends of this rein? If you want him to be a major part of Oz, you gotta let >folks use him, ne c'est pas? I can see the situation is getting sticky because Ozma's husband ( whose name, by the way is Dan Maryk, so you all don't have to call him "George or "Eustice" anymore :) ) isn't like, say, Percy the Rat, whose creator can hold a monopoly on him, and his absence in other people's books is not a big deal (Dan IS Ozma's hubby, after all). I actually think I'd could be more flexible about allowing others use or at least refer to Dan, *** PROVIDED THEY GET MY EXPRESS PERMISSION FIRST! *** My big concern is that I don't want to "loan" Dan to another author just so they can change his character or break off the relationship or kill him off or whatever!...But maybe this is unavoidable...Can anyone offer me any advice on this? INFORMED (AND OZZY) SOURCES: Aaron wrote: >Note: I am hereby introducing a concept in consistency checking, somewhat >akin to a legal fiction, that all Oz authors have one or more informants >who give them their information on what is going on in Oz. My informants are the Three Adepts at Sorcery. They have given me the entire inside scoop about Locasta's return to Oz and Ruggedo's latest failed attempt to conquer Oz (which have become _Locasta and the Three Adepts of Oz_), as well as Ozma's marriage to Dan (_The Fairy Princess of Oz_). A-----ah: And Dave, don't even *THINK* of leaking my sisters' and mine newly-found personalities or even our new, more distinct names! Me: I won't. :) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 07:58:30 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-14-96 Hey, Dave, what happened to the note I sent you on Tuesday's Digest? I know you got it, since you sent me a personal reply. (If you need me to resend it, I can.) [Sorry Eric, I didn't realize you wanted it public...Here it is: -- Dave] -------------- (Forwarded message from Eric; Sent 02-13-96) ------------------ > How's this for a campaign slogan: "Tititi-Hoochoo and Tyler too!" :) > ( Yes, I would *definitely* want Tyler Jones as my running mate! :) :) ) And what about me? Who got this whole on-line Oz mailing thing started in the first place? Who provided the list of names that got this thingy going? (And Nate Barlow had a hand in all this as well!) If you MUST make Tyler your VP, I want to be Secretary of Education, so I can actually get money and forward-thinking ideas into schools... ------------------------- End fowarded message --------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 07:58:30 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-14-96 > From: David A Gerstein > Subject: An Oz Book, and Garden of Meats > > ERIC: > "Actually, no notes were ever found for Baum's version of "The > Royal Book of Oz." (A couple of chapters WERE found of a new book, > but none of that material was ever used by Thompson.)" > The chapters that were found... is this the material that was > printed in an old BAUM BUGLE under the title "An Oz Book" (my memory's > not great, but I seem to remember some of the 'core' Oz characters and > Father Goose together in some kind of cavern)? WHAAAAAHHH?????? I don't recall ever reading anything like THIS! But yes, that fragment was published in the "Bugle" (currently available in "The Best of the Baum Bugle 1965-1966" on page 57, and yes, under the title "An Oz Book"). This was also used as part of Laumer's "The Green Dolphin of Oz." > The fragment in > question was plainly pretty far along in whatever story was going on; > was more of this tale uncovered? Perhaps, as ISTR Laumer using more of the story than appeared in the "Bugle." > On a related note, has the text ever turned up for the lost > Patchwork Girl "Garden of Meats" chapter? Nope. Maud Baum destroyed most of her husbands manuscripts (they'd already been published, she saw no need to keep them), so if any of it does exist it would probably be at Reilly and Lee -- except their records have been pretty exhaustively searched by now as well. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Even though Terp is not a true giant, he could still be related to Loxo. Yes, and he could be related to Ozma. What's your point? > May I suggest Ixia as the capital of Ix? Or possibly the city is named > after one of the great rulers of the past. Can we agree NOT to name this city at all until someone actually has a burning need to, such as it being referred to in a book? > I strongly deny that efforts to work together to eliminate major > contradictions in Oz books is the equivalent of McCarthyism or Gestapo > tactics. I have said this countless times, but apparantly I will have to > say it again. With all due respect, Tyler, OZ OFF! I am NOT trying to say anything of the sort about it in general. What I AM objecting to is one author saying to another, "I am writing an Oz book, you are writing an Oz book, here is what you can and cannot write so that it will be consistent with my book." See the difference? That is not working together, that is dictating from on high. But while I'm at it, can I ask that you PLEASE not post EVERYTHING you have to say on this subject every time it comes up? Some people -- you, Chris, Aaron, to give some examples -- want everything to be consistent and explained (or at least explainable). Fine, that is your wish, I am not trying to stop you. But others of us -- I know I fall into this camp -- don't care! It doesn't matter to us, we're perfectly capable of holding more than one idea in our heads, even if they're contradictory. Plus, I don't see myself as so important that anyone has to conform to my book. If someone has an idea for a good story that happens to contradict what I wrote on page 17 of "Queen Ann," fine! If someone else wants to come along later and write a story that explains why there's a difference, fine! If someone comes along and wants to be consistent with my book, and changes his or her story slightly to conform to "Queen Ann," fine! It's not a big deal to me! It's only a nice story that Karyl and I wrote, for Pete's sake, not Holy Writ from on high! > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: Ozma, etc. > > Dave Hardenbrook writes: > > > Well, if you really believe that Ozma's finding romantic bliss would > > nessesarily mean the end of civil-Oz-ation as we know it, I won't > > try to argue... > > Actually, it's not so much Ozma having a romance that bothers me, it's > more a matter of consistency with the past and the future. Great, now not only are some people trying to pigeonhole authors with what's already been written, but with what hasn't even been written yet! Perhaps I need to point out here that the number of people who are going to be able to acquire and read EVERY SINGLE Oz book is ridiculously small, and the number who are even going to CARE if one story isn't consistent with the others outside of the FF is so small as to be ridiculous. If people write their stories with a view to being consistent with everything that's been written before, and sacrifice what might be an otherwise excellent story in the process, THAT is stifling and hinders creativity -- but that is SELF-IMPOSED stifling and hindering. And foolish as well, as so few people are going to notice or care that it's not worth the effort. > Baum developed a concept of fairies that are true immortals. They were > created at the beginning of time and can never become mortal. When was this stated? > These fairies > appear in several of his non-Oz works, and none of them have ever showed > any sign of romantic interest. Doesn't mean it couldn't ahppen, though! > Any book that violates this concept would > be inconsistent with Baum and I would have trouble feeling that it was part > of the Oz series. It might still be interesting and fun to read, but other > things being equal I prefer books that are consistent with Baum. You are giving Baum a lot more credit than he deserves. Just because he doesn't state something is possible or impossible doesn't mean that someone else's interpretation is any more or less valid. Don't get me wrong, I'm not overly enthused with Ozma falling in love myself, as it could seriously upset the status quo, but I'm looking forward to seeing how Dave handles this, because a good writer could make it seem not only possible, but believable. > "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > > However, post-Adelmanian Oz is going to be a VERY different place from > > the Oz that everyone on this digest is familiar with, ... > > Then there is no problem with conflicts between your book and any Oz book, > as your book isn't part of the history of the real Oz. Heh! Good one! > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:24:40 -0500 > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/13/96 > > Eric Gjovaag: > And yes, I at least do have a copy of The Annotated Alice. Now, if we could only get a reprint, preferably with updated notes, of "The Annotated Wizard of Oz." > I don't remember Lurline from "Life and Adventures"; Zurline was the queen of > the wood nymphs, but I don't think there was a queen of the fairies mentioned > by name. And the queen of the fairies in ZIXI was Lulea, not Lurline. Of course Laumer (Sheesh, now *I'M* doing it???) came up with a way to reconcile the differences in name, and still make Lulea and Lurline the same being. > According to Clarke's book, she is mentioned (she never appears onstage) in > TW 12; Gl 6, 8; LK 9, 19, 20; all through MM; and MGR 4, 6, 21. D'OH! Why didn't *I* think of looking in Clarke? > Interesting about the average word length of Baum and Thompson books. I think > there might well be a difference depending on the intended audience, though - > wonder if, say, AUNT JANE'S NIECES has a longer word length than Baum's Oz > books? If anything, I'd guess that the word count would be shorter in the AJN books. > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Capital of Ix > > 5) The Hollow Tube DOESN'T go through the center of the planet. Better > mark that down as another mistake Hiergargo made... Or poetic license... > From: "W. R. Wright" > Subject: > > I have been following the various conversations that have been addressing > the love interests of Ozma (and others), and it has left me a little > puzzled. So I need to pose a question or two. But first, let me establish > a framework for the question. > > 1. It has been my belief than the FF were written for children; and in > particular for children who (at least in the times the books were written) > were not expected to have "romantic love" interests. Incorrect assumption. Reread Baum's introduction to "The Tin Woodman of Oz." > Therefore, it had > never occurred to me that this might be a subject of importance, and was why > (I assumed) the characters with whom children would most likely identify had > no"romantic love" interests. With the exceptions, of course, of "Scarecrow," some aspects of "Patchwork Girl," "Tin Woodman," "Kabumpo," "Grampa," "Yellow Knight," bits of "Speedy," and "Silver Princess," of course, all of which contain elements of romance. > Question: Is this a reasonable, or unreasonable assumption? See above. > 2. Now in today's world, the media (advertising, movies, tv, etc) have > heavily propagandized the childrens age group, conditioning people at ever > younger ages to become concerned with and motivated by "romantic" interests. > Thus, issues which were not relevant in an Oz book of 50-100 years ago have > now become relevant. > Question: Is this why our Ozzy writers of today are addressing this > subject? Or are the target readers for their new Oz stories adults and not > children? Or are there other reasons? Well, Karyl and I didn't feel the need to include romance in "Queen Ann," of course. I think it's a case of SOME writers, reading the Oz books from an adult perspective instead of a child's, want to explore the characters a little more, and see how characters might grow and change under certain circumstances. If Dave can pull off a romance for Ozma, terrific, I'd like to see it, although I certainly have my doubts. The problem is, if he makes it an ongoing, continuing romance, that is going to shake up the status quo in Oz, and other authors are either going to feel constrained by this, or completely ignore it, making Dave's book heretical. --Eric "I'm NOT saying that heretical can't be good, I might add, Dave" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:24:59 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-15-96 > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: Consistency > > Hey Tyler! Who made you the boss of me? It is really nice that you have > this little hobby of the HACC but in your own sweet, well-intentioned way > you are almost as bad as Aaron. I was trying to be a bit more diplomatic, but this is basically what I've been trying to say all along... > If this were a perfect world, every year would see a major publisher > putting out a new Oz book with all the bells and whistles we know and > love and the FF would be the Famous 96 and make the bestseller lists and > be required reading and Rob Roy's movie company would be a Hollywood > giant ...and Rob would still be alive, making plans for the film adaptation of "The Emerald City of Oz"... > and the home of every great animator and Oz amusement parks, video > games, computer programs, you name it, would be the most popular things > in the world. But it isn't. More's the pity. > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Romance and Stuff > > Regarding W. R. Wright's comments regarding romance: I think what Dave has > been trying to do is find a new angle from which to explore Ozma's character. > It isn't exactly a new angle in the series, but I don't recall Ozma getting > romantically involved before, so this would likely be a fairly original idea. > I don't think it's the media; if its influence were that strong then there > would be a whole lot of stories full of unozzy things out there. And don't forget, love and stuff have been the basis of much popular fiction, going as far back as the ancient epics, and has alwyas been a staple of children's stories. TV has little to do with romance creeping into Oz, if anything at all. > My preference for the capital of Ix is for it to be called Pittsburgh. (: How 'bout Ixopolis? > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Another way of asking my question from yesterday is this: "While everybody > may BE there, does everybody have to be MENTIONED in every book?" For > if a person who we know lives in the Emerald City is not mentioned at the > big party at the end of the story, we can assume that he is there, he > just did not have much to say. > > In the Thompson books, there is an effect that I call the "And they met" > chapter. Usually, her books feature people and adventures far from the > Emerald City. Therefore, the famous characters from earlier books do not > take part in the main story, with a few exceptions. Thompson apparantly > feels the need to make some of this up, so after Ozma arrives and saves > the day with a wave of her hand, they all troop back to E.C. for the big > party. > > "And they met..." What follows is basically a long list of about a dozen > characters who did not take part in the adventure. They arrive, say a few > words, then disappear into the woodwork. In effect, the action stops, a > bunch of extra characters are reeled out, then they are reeled back in. Thompson often says something along the lines of ",,,and there were so many other celebrities there that our heroes had no chance of ever remembering who they all were. But I'm sure you will know who they all are, since you've read so many of their adventures already." > Where does it say that fairies cannot become mortal? Ozga was a fairy, > related to Ozma, yet she became mortal. Of course, it can be argued that > she is a low-ranking fairy. In a similar vein, Ruggedo in "Tik-Tok" brings up mortals who used to be fairies in a general sense, so maybe there are others besides Ozga. > We have already speculated the Lurline, Zurline and Lulea are all actually > the same person. Two out of three of them, at least. Zurline is quite clearly the queen of the Wood Nymphs in "Life and Adventures," she appears to have no connection with the queen of the fairies/Lulea/Lurline. > From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY > Subject: Authors, copyrights, and characters > > Dave: > > Forgive me for not understanding the ways of writers ("Do not > annoy authors my son, for they are subtle, and slow to anger"), but I > don't get it: On the one hand, you insist (paraphrastically) "I'm gonna > give Ozma a husband, and that's gonna become part of Oz history, and so > you better get used to the idea", and on the other, you say "...But you > better not actually reference him, because I hold the copyright and will > sue you for every penny you got if you do". Huh? How can you hold both > ends of this rein? If you want him to be a major part of Oz, you gotta let > folks use him, ne c'est pas? And conversely, if you don't want folks to > use him, then why change Oz so significantly in the first place? Am I > missing something here???? To make this even more puzzling, Oz authors don't make very much money any more, and fan publications (Laumer, Buckethead, etc.) even less! So suing for every penny is a little ridiculous. I suspect if something like this were to get to court, there would be a small fine and a slap on the wrist, and that would be that. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/14/96 > > Tyler Jones: > Who has said that having authors coordinate their books to avoid > contradictions is "the equivalent of McCarthyism or Gestapo tactics?" I did! Admittedly, I used such extreme language to provoke a reaction... (And while the phrasing was mine, it's getting taken out of context.) > I don't > remember any such phrase. I did feel - and I wasn't the only one - that Aaron > was at least giving the impression of trying to strongarm Dave out of writing > a story he wanted to write, solely because it was inconsistent with the story > Aaron and Barry were writing. Coordinating minor matters to avoid > inconsistency, sure. I have no problem with that. (If I'd known that Eric and > Karyl were planting a forest in the pass into Oogaboo, I'd have had no > problem making that pass forested in my book - but it would have altered > enough of the action that I didn't care to try to correct it on the > copyedited version, which was the only chance I had to do that after I read > QUEEN ANN.) Well, in the published version, the forest wasn't actually planted at the end of "Queen Ann," so if we ever get around to that follow-up where it does get planted, we may do a little jiggery-pokery and set it after "Glass Cat." > But when a writer wants to tell a story that centers around an > event that doesn't contradict the FF (like Dave's romance for Ozma, or my > story about Eureka's return ot Oz), then I think the fact that some other > writer has written, or is known to be writing, another story inconsistent > with that idea shouldn't be a barrier. Let others harmonize them if they can; > if it proves impossible, then let those others decide which seems more > consistent with the rest of the canon and which is speculative fiction within > the Ozzy universe (like stories in our universe where the South wins the > Civil War, for instance). Hear, hear! > Oogaboo, Mangaboo, who notices? :-) > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Frogman of Oz > > Legal note: How come Laumer isn't getting sued for having Lucky Bucky > and Davy Jones in this book? Someone tell me his trick so I can have > horrible things happen to Number Nine's father (unaffectionately called > "the Big Zero" for giving his kids the lamest names on any universe). Laumer's trick is called breaking the law. If the Thompson and Neill estates ever got word that this was going on, they could legally sue. However, I suspect Laumer is keeping a low enough profile that he's NOT being noticed by the estates, and he's keeping the numbers of books down so that if they do sue, they won't be able to get much. The Laumerian model of writing Oz books -- using copyrighted characters -- is STRONGLY not recommended by ethical Oz authors, and it won't get you published by either Buckethead or ECP without at least major rewrites. > Note: I am hereby introducing a concept in consistency checking, somewhat > akin to a legal fiction, that all Oz authors have one or more informants > who give them their information on what is going on in Oz. As different > informants percieve their world differently and tell the truth to various > degrees, stories from different informants must of neccessity contain > discrepancies. Baum's informants would appear to be Dorothy and the > Wizard, Thompson's Peter, Speedy, and probably someone in Oz other than > Ozma, Neill's Jenny Jump ("the Unreliable"), McGraw and McGraw's Robin, > and Cosgrove's Percy the Personality Kid. Cosgrove's is a brown bird. (See her introductions in "Hidden Valley" and "Wicked Witch.") > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ABBREVIATIONS: > Larry Smith wrote: > >Will someone please take the time to spell out FF and some other popular > >acronyms around here so newbies can figure out some context? > > Here are some common abbreviations seen in the Digest: > > FF - The "Famous Forty" (i.e. the 40 original "official" Oz books) > ILL - Inter-Library Loan (Good way to obtain Ozzy books) But only to borrow them! > BoW - Books of Wonder (Ozzy publisher) > ECP - Emerald City Press (Subsiduary of BoW) > BEOO - Buckethead Enterprises of Oz (another Ozzy publisher) > IWOC - International Wizard of Oz Club (The worldwide Ozzy Fan Club) > RCO - Royal Club of Oz (Another Ozzy Club) Also part of BoW. > IMHO - "In My Humble Opinion" (Common Internet-ese) I'd like to add: IIRC - If I recall correctly And one of my own personal creation: MOPPeT - My own personal pet theory --Eric "That last one's fun to use!" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 13:44:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Laumer vs. Adelman & Adelman 1) I think I need to make it clear at this point that I conceive of Lurline's Machine at the moment as a continutation of mainstream Oz (albeit an unusual one) with some Laumerisms thrown in rather than a continuation of Laumer's books. It is becoming more and more apparent that, if Laumer's work is taken on a simple level, his work is in severe contradiction with almost everyone else. For example, according to Laumer, Button-Bright returns to Oz as an adult in 1947. I know of no other author who accepts this as a 'fact'. (David Hulan, in whose first book Button-Bright appears, so far as I can tell from this digest, please correct me if you wrote him in as adult.) The concept of Button-Bright growing up, including him falling into a molasses pit and eventually marrying Glinda is in itself rather intriguing and quite compatible with my coauthor's and my ideas about what happens towards the end of the series. Therefore we are keeping a grown-up Button-Bright (which I insist on calling Saladin, as a tradeoff with Barry, who wanted to keep Trot being called Trot instead of Mayre) who married Glinda, but I am repudiating the idea that it happened in 1947, and am assuming that his informants (Neill's characters, no doubt) chose not to tell Laumer that the events happened something like a century before The Woozy of Oz. (That cannibal is DEFINTELY a fabrication on Lucky Bucky's part!) 2) Tyler, the problem is not avoiding mentioning characters, but avoiding mentioning characters which all logic says should be there. For example, The Forbidden Fountain of Oz changes the status quo by giving Ozma a bodyguard (Toby) and a pet lamb (Lambert). These characters by all logic should be in the Emerald City much of the time, but as they are under copyright, having them make a direct appearance is a no-no. Lambert I got into The Woozy of Oz by having a flock of green sheep moving the palace lawn, of which it quite plausible that one of them is Lambert, yet none of the sheep is named. Toby doesn't show up at all, as Ozma mentions that her bodyguard (again unnamed) is on vacation, where I intend to create circumstances that prevent his coming back. (I know it's not nice to McGraw and McGraw, but I had to do something.) Ozma falling in love with Dan creates a different sort of problem. It would be highly unlikely that such a character is going to stay away from Ozma for five or six books; when trouble strikes the Emerald City, he'll be back as soon as possible to try to save Ozma. So I have to come up with some reason why he's not there, and I don't think I can realistically gather all the characters I can't have directly appear and have one big tragic accident happen to them all. 3) Dave, if you feel reluctant about 'loaning' out Dan (and I don't care to kill off characters pointlessly), would you care for a 'character swap' instead? In The Woozy of Oz I give indications that Ozma has previously encountered Quentin the Kiwi of Quok, an evil magic worker I invented, before, but so far I haven't decided what happend between them. So if you're interested, I'd be willing to swap Quentin for Dan in order to avoid allow Ozma and Dan to literally live happily ever after. (Why am I now getting an image of Dan and Ozma having kids and Jack Pumpkinhead fawning over a newborn sibling?) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:29:54 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest OK, so Imagination (or Baumgea) is the continent of which Oz is a part. The other continent is actually called Tarara, which contains (as far as we know) two nations, Ozamaland and Amaland. The Gnostic Gnu is from Laumer, although we never actually meet him. Same for the Great Grey Goose. I'll do a quick scan of MR. FLINT and see if he mentions anything about Ozette. Also, as far as I know, nobody has written anything about Mombis early history, except for what we know from GIANT HORSE. Aaron, if you don't abuse time travel in your Oz story, you'll be the first who could pull it off, but I'm rooting for you. For those of you interested in time travel, see if you can ILL a book called THRICE UPON A TIME by James P. Hogan, Del Rey Publishing. It's a little technical, but it's very good (almost as good as OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES and MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES put together!) Just kidding, Aaron. :) Love interests have permeated the FF, although Baum only had one (Pon and Gloria in SCARECROW). The phenomenom of childresn stories having love interests (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, etc.) may or not be a modern convention. However, adults are now a larger part of the audience for Oz books, so naturally people are writing stuff at their level. It began as a childrens series, and they still form the majority of the readership. Oz, as have so many things in this world, has grown and expanded along with its audience. In many cases, the generic adventure with Dorothy and the Scarecrow is no longer enough, and people want some depth. C-OZ-mos? Somebodys been watching Carl Sagan reruns... I doubt severely that other authors continents are also in the same world. They may be on a different planet, but are more likely in a different Universe, since each series is so different. It's nice to see that somebody else out there has read PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH. I would like to see the Humbug get into a discussion with the Wogglebug. The best thing to resolve *inconsistencies* is when somebody comes up with a clever explanation such that neither author has to change anything. I really like Aarons idea. Oz authors have their sources, who have their own sources, etc. Also, people remember events differently and they put their own interpretation on them. By the time the story gets into print, we are seeing something that may have passed through nearly a dozen people. It is no wonder that small contradictions creep in now and again. This way, there is almost no need to check with each other, although I still maintain that we should do so anyway to avoid major problems. And, now, for the Michael Burns response: No, I am not the "boss" of anybody or anything. I do not want to tell people what they can and cannot write about. The purpose of the HACC is to provide a picture of Ozian history within the context of people writing stories that are told the way they want to tell them. I absolutely deny that I am trying to make people conform to some artificial standard that they never knew about. However, the fact is that the Oz series already exists. It has been written and the question of "What is Oz?" has largely been answered. Therefore, when people write Oz books, they do so in the context of a framework that has already been created and defined by others. You CAN'T be totally free to write whatever you want, whether you are accurate to every Oz book that has ever been written, the FF or just the Baum 14. You question is "Why shoud I strive to agree with books that I've never heard of when the FF represents the core of Oz and that is all I should be lookign at?". Well, I submit that there are people who have written Oz books who have not read all the FF or even all the Baum 14. I submit that a little bit of effort is possible, desireable and even permissible. THE PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY This digest contains members of the Oz club who know and love the Oz books. We can share information all over the world. As you said, it will never be the case that every Oz author is going to be a member of this list and the Oz books as a whoel are not all that well-known. That does not mean that we should give up. By constantly striving to increase awareness of the Oz books and by adding people to this list, we can get very close to the ideal. Also, once I get my textual summaries going, people all over the world can get at least a general idea of the plot of all Oz books, even if they have never seen them. THE DESIREABILITY People working together and sharing their ideas and knowledge is not the same as forcing one person to conform to someone else. If person A wants to write a book that will contradict what person B wrote 30 years ago, but person A goes ahead and writes his stuff anyway, will I deny him entrance into the HACC? No. I would NEVER do that for ANY reason except for contra- diction with the FF. I do not think that this effort would take away the fun of writing Oz books, but let's ask the experts. Dave and Aaron, do you feel that the discussion on this digest about the writing of your Oz books has made the writing less fun? Has it stifled your creativity. I would hope that the discussion has actually made your efforts more stimulating and provided you with more ideas than before. Please share your thoughts. PERMISSIBILITY Who died and made me God? Nobody, to be honest. I am not the Lord High Inqisitor of Ozian Accuracy, nor do I have any desire to be. I would hope that all of us, working together, can generate knowledge and information about Oz that all of us can use as a background when writing Oz books. I still say that the purpose is not to force people to conform, but rather to bring all Oz books together and provide us with a relatively smooth flowing picture of Ozian history. Of course, "we" are not in charge of Ozian accuracy, either. That role belonged to L. Frank Baum and nobody has the right to claim it anymore. However, Oz itself has grown into an awesome presence that is bigger that Baum (or anybody else) ever was. I truly believe that all those who love the spirit of Oz have the responsibility and the privilege of discovering Ozian history and sharing it with others. I maintain that doing this, even in the context of ALL Oz books, does not force people to conform to anything. People can still write Oz books any way they want to. It's just that by looking at what has gone before, they can make their contribution to Oz fit a little bit better into the structure that has been there for nearly 100 years. To be honest, this will require a "suggestion" or two that some small element of a persons story be changed, but in my opinion, such changes are minor at best and will not affect the authors main story in any way. This goes on all the time when books are being written, re-written and edited by publishers. To have us doing this a little bit will hardly change matters at all. I myself do not tell people what they can and cannot write about. The Ozian saga itself tells us this by the very nature of its existence. The only question is do we use the Baum 14, the FF, or EVERYTHING? I myself say that we should use the FF for just about everything and the rest of the stuff only in a small way to avoid major contradictions. Again, doing this will not restrict authors story-writing, except MAYBE in a very small way. All I am doing here is analyzing the textual evidence to uncover the truth. Also, most non-FF books do not impinge on Ozian history at all. Most of them are generic adventures that do not change the situation in Oz whatsoever. For the record, I would never say to someone "If you don't do this" or "If you do that" "then I won't put you in the HACC" unless the author deliberately contradicts the FF to such a large degree that I can't resolve it. To sum up, I believe that authors can write their stories any way they want to and that with a little group effort, they can be woven together to form a continuous chain that will not hamper the authors freedom at all. Also, despite the fact that we will never achieve PERFECT unity, we should never stop trying. It is true that "real" countries change over time, but does this happen in Oz? Part of its charm is that it remains the same sweet, innocent loving country that it always has been. I still believe that giving Ozma a boy- friend is not changing the nature of Oz, it's just giving Ozmas character some more depth. Maybe Orks (and other creatures) were created by magic, but as Larry said, now that they are here, they do not need magic to sustain them, so the live etc. according to nature. This is a little off the official subject, but I don't remember Burroughs mentioning a south polar opening. Pittsburgh!? Don't you mean P-IX-Burgh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :):):):) The reference to McCarthy and the Gestapo, for the record, was in the Ozzy Digest of Feb 13, although it may not have been referring to me. Just because there was no hard evidence that Poly felt an attraction to the Shaggy Man in ROAD does not mean that it COULDN't have happened... Aaron, maybe I will have to send you some "boots" of Laumers other books, so you can get a full understanding of him. There is no contradiction between FROGMAN and GIANT HORSE. Can we be sure that the Winged Monkeys are 100% efficient in collecting the body parts? Also, maybe Quiberon ate the seahorses and left the bones. There would then be no flesh left, and the Wizard could reconstruct them from the DNA in their bone tissue. I believe that Laumer got permission from Contemporary Books to use those two. Even if he didn't, these things are private publications and it is probably not worth it to sue him. MASQUERADE has been placed in 1913 for two reasons: 1. Nobody from after SCARECROW is in the book. 2. Betsy Bobbin arrived "some years before". I picked three to equal "some". If Dave writes his story and gives us more information, I will move the book accordingly. This is more evidence that I am not the first and last word on things Ozian, and furthermore I never pretended to be. Dave, it's a little difficult to give permission for someone else to use your character and then expect the other guy to use him the way you would. I have no advice in the classic sense, just hope that the spirit of Oz pervades and that nobody tries to turn your character into a real jerk. Remember, though, even if someone kills him off, you can always bring him back! --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 21:50:43 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/14/96 I hope everyone had an enjoyable Valentine's Day. Since it was the first full day my wife was back in town in almost a week, I certainly did! Larry Smith: True that body parts can remain body parts after they cease to need nutrients (I said this yesterday; we keep cross-posting), but they still need nutrients while they're forming. Basically, though, we have no disagreement on the subject. I like your solution to driving the propellor, though I suspect that a careful analysis would show that a drive of that type couldn't possibly generate enough power for a propellor to do what the Ork's does. (Remember that it was able to go straight up a well-shaft carrying Trot and Cap'n Bill; the wings weren't being used, so that means the propellor alone had to generate something on the order of 200 pounds of thrust.) Hey, if ERB - or Baum, or any of a number of my other favorite authors - had decided to respect the laws of physics, I'd have been very much deprived in my youth, and even now I'd be deprived of my best nostalgia. I only bring in the laws of physics when someone else misuses them. Barry Adelman: Certainly real countries change over time. Oz, however, isn't a real country; it's a fairyland, and one of its salient characteristics (in the post-Dorothean age) is its essential immutability. Which doesn't say that you can't write a story in which something important changes - and I may love it. But I don't think, no matter how far in the future you set it, that it should be something that other Oz authors should feel the need for consistency with. And that, to me, is the only reason why anyone should care whether something is part of the main-line Oz universe or an offshoot. (In GLASS CAT I even give myself an out - the genie who sends Barry and Becky to Oz tells Barry that not every word of every book is true, just the great majority of them. So any inconsistencies between the Oz of GC and the rest of the series is handily explained by that.) Tyler Jones: Glinda's 100-year rule of the Quadling Country might be just symbolic, but it might be true as well - Glinda has clearly been around much longer than that, but she may have been doing other things than ruling the QC for most of that time. Ozma saving the day with a wave of her wand may be a commonplace in post-FF books (I haven't read most of the Buckethead books, for instance), but Thompson didn't do it that often. In fact, she didn't really do it at all, though it's arguable that she did something like that it COWARDLY LION and OJO. It was more common for the youthful protagonist to come in and save Ozma (GNOME KING, JACK PUMPKINHEAD, PIRATES, WISHING HORSE, HANDY MANDY), but in most of them if Ozma appears at the end at all, it's just to observe the people who'd been working on the problem finishing up their work. And many of them don't have Ozma appearing at all. In the FF, Ozma as a -dea ex machina- was far from a common theme. (There was, after the early books at least, always the need to explain why Ozma -didn't- just take care of things, but she generally didn't.) Unless you reject Neill's books out of hand, it's definitely possible for someone to un-age in Oz, at least with Wizardly help. (Although in the case of Jenny Jump, it was Wizardly coercion.) Lurline and Lulea may well be the same person. I don't think it can plausibly be argued that Zurline was also that same person, since she was queen of the wood-nymphs and there's a separate queen of the fairies mentioned in SANTA CLAUS. If you say so, about the "I'm going to conquer Oz!" being the most popular plot for non-FF books. As I've said, the only non-FF books I've read have been the IWOC and ECP books, along with two Bucketheads and the Random Housies. (Well, WICKED and BARNSTORMER, but I don't really count them.) Oh, and MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES. Not counting the Random Housies, that's 22 books, and of them I think four (DOROTHY, WICKED WITCH, CORY, and MAGIC DISHPAN) deal with attempted conquests of Oz. But maybe most of the Buckethead and other non-FF books that I haven't read deal with attempted conquests. Well, in EUREKA Dorothy, Uncle Henry, and Eureka explicitly board the steamer in Sydney. Sorry about that. (But did Laumer make it explicit that they were on a sailing ship?) Aaron Adelman: Interesting comments on THE FROGMAN OF OZ. I can see that I really must read some of Laumer's books, even though I have a strong feeling that I'll assign them to the "heretical" stack. I like your idea of assuming Oz authors have informants for the information in their books. (Though I think the Shaggy Man is likelier to be Baum's second source than the Wizard.) Thompson is the hardest to isolate; I think that mostly they were a succession of young boys (are we getting weird and perverty here? Of course not!), but that still leaves out a few books, like ROYAL BOOK and WISHING HORSE. Maybe Dorothy occasionally deigned to communicate with her. My informant, incidentally, is Barry Klein; if EUREKA is published and the publisher allows, this will be made explicit in the foreword. Dave Hardenbrook: So Ozma's future hubby's name is Dan Maryk? Sounds like a Czech name to me - does this mean he's made of rubber? David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:18:41 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Orks To: DaveH47@delphi.com, ADELMANB@adelvx.citadel.edu Message-id: <960215231841.201a@adelvx.citadel.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT If I remember correctly from _The Scarecrow of Oz_, the propeller of the orks is made of skin, bone, and muscle. I suspect that the propeller blades are supposed to have a structure something like a bird's wing. While this would have some obvious advantages (the shape of the blades could be changed to better match the air conditions, it does have the problem that all the soft tissues would be pinched and torn by the propeller's twisting. Even if the propeller could be made to work by nonmagical means, I don't think the wings (which are shaped like inverted bowls) would produce enough lift, not to mention be very aerodynamic. In order to work as a flying being, it would have to be magical. This would also explain how the orks got around mass limitations. On Earth no flying being can mass more than a certain figure (I think about 20 kg). This is why flying birds have lost a lot of unnecessary mass (like teeth, claws, hollow bones, even much less junk DNA in their genes), as did pterodactyls (who often had bones which were paper-thin). If orks flew by natural means, then even someone as small as Trot or Button-Bright would weigh down Flipper way too much to fly. I don't see a problem with Eureka asking to be made a kitten again. Percy, who was totally strange to the Emerald City crowd, asked to be made permanently oversized got his wish granted, even if it was a ridiculous one, so why would they refuse Eureka, who was Dorothy's pet? Michael F. Burns, cheer up. As the 100th anniversary of _The Wizard of Oz_ is approaching, maybe some more major publishers will be more interested in publishing Oz books to captalize on it. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:12:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Pre-Dorothean History of Laumer's Version of Oz 1) In trying to digest The Frogman of Oz, I'm getting confused about Laumer's views of pre-Dorothean history, particularly the overthrow of Pastoria. So far I have gleaned that 1) he holds that Glinda, Bastinda, and Gingemma are all daughters of Lurline (definitely NOT something I expected) and 2) he seems to repudiate the idea of that Pastoria was removed from power by four wicked witches and has Mombi cede the Emerald County to the Wizard in a power deal and in return be proclaimed Witch of the North by him and get her hands on Ozma as a hostage. Is this actually what he holds, and can anyone else tell me anything about what he holds to have happened in pre-Dorothean times? 2) While on the subject of pre-Dorothean history, I just came up with a theory on who the Wicked Witch of the South who was one of the four who overthrew Pastoria really was, but I need to double-check to see if this is a viable theory. It has been mentioned before that there was more than one Wicked Witch of the South (at least two or three, to be more specific). Is it at all certain that Singra happens to have been one of the Conspiring Four, or was she just one of Glinda's enemies who happened to be related to Bastinda and Gingemma? 3) Back to Laumer. One thing I realised about him today is that he holds by the simultaneous of multiple alternate-universe Ozes, as he has Glinda remembering the destruction of the People Eater by the Tin Woodman in Volokovian alter-Oz. Does he acknowledge the existence of any other alter-Ozes than the Laumerian and the Volokovian, and does he have characters travelling between different alter-Ozes? (Something to the tune of Oz Jacobus the Pumpkinhead from Universe XVII visits Laumerian Oz.) Perhaps this is why Eric considers the Laumer books a seperate series--they take place in a seperate universe from 'classical' Oz! 4) How many Laumer books are there anyway? The ILL people here at YU found a reference to one that was never mentioned on this digest, and the footnotes in The Frogman of Oz refer to a few more. So far I am aware of the existence (and probable HACC dates) of: The Good Witch of Oz (How Tattypoo overthrew Mombi?) An Orphan in Oz (Something about Tip?) The Magic Mirror of Oz (Oz gets turned into its own mirror image?) 1920 The Green Dolphin of Oz (KILL KILL KILL!) Aunt Em and Uncle Henry in Oz Other Lands than Oz (Ozma changes herself back into a boy and scares the heebeejeebees out of Dorothy?) 1947 The Frogman of Oz (Makes the lyrics for "I'm in Love with a Big Blue Frog" run through my head; not to be read while eating) The Ten Woodmen of Oz (No idea what this is about) The Careless Kangaroo of Oz (About Mar Supial, perhaps?) The Charmed Gardens of Oz A Fairy Queen in Oz The Umbrellas of Oz (Probably the inspiration for a nonhistorical town my brother invented) The Crown of Oz (Something with bicycle messengers?) The Underground Kings of Oz (Sounds like a Laumerized Volokov book) A Farewell to Oz n) Is there any evidence that non-biological characters (e.g, the Scarecrow, Scraps, Jack Pumpkinhead) gain the self-repair capabilities that non-magical life has? While I do realise that the Scarecrow needs to be restuffed periodically and that Jack regularly replaces his head, one would expect them to eventually wear out, as cloth and dead wood cannot repair themselves. But while the Scarecrow does get his face repainted from time to time, I cannot ever recall him, say, replacing his pants in any of the 58 Oz books I've read; the only book I know of in which the Scarecrow replaces anything but his insides is the heretical A Barnstormer in Oz by Phillip Jose Farmer. Related problem: How did Ku Klip get Nick Chopper and Captain Fyter's tin prosthetics to work? (Farmer does have a point about this, like it or not.) I'm starting to wonder if Ku Klip got some magic from Gingemma other than getting her to reattach his severed finger. On the other hand, if there exits some sort of spontaneous magic that allows lifeless prosthetics to merge with the 'host' and gain functionality, wouldn't Cap'n Bill's wooden leg have grown onto his stump long ago. (Come to think of it, how would we tell?) n + 1) Can Jack Pumpkinhead bend his fingers? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:16:26 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: Stuff Tyler Jones writes: > March Laumer came up with an explanation as to why Polychrome and Shaggy did > not seem to know each other in TIKTOK. It seems that Poly fell in love with > the Shaggy Man in ROAD and the pain was so great that she asked Ozma to > remove it. The only way she could was to remove all her memories of Shaggy, > and Polychrome agreed. David, of course, is not required to follow Laumers > precedent. That sounds like nonsense to me. For one thing any effect due to the love magnet would have ceased after Shaggy gave it up, just as the guys in Butterfield lost interest in the girl after Shaggy stole the magnet from her. For another, Polychrome wouldn't have missed anyone until after she had returned home. In addition, there is no hint of this "love" in _Road_, and the whole thing is totally out of character for Polychrome. I think the real reason is that when Shaggy met Poly in _Tiktok_ they were in the "stranger lands". This area has the curious property that people who meet there won't remember each other. They will always be strangers. Note that a group of people entering the stranger lands will still recognize each other, but if they meet someone else, that person will always be a stranger. Of course, Poly and Shaggy remembered each other after they left the stranger lands, but by then they had already become reacquainted anyway. "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > n + 1) Suggestion for E-text to put on-line which hasn't come up yet: > John Dough and the Cherub. I'm working on scanning it. If someone else has already done this, let me know so I don't waste time doing something that has already been done. > Time travel is a definite YES > in Oz as far as I'm concerned. (I promise not to abuse it.) Travel backwards in time, or seeing into the future (not just guessing based on the present) is impossible in a world where people have free will. That is, for such things to happen the events in the world would have to have been laid out like a book and carefully arranged so that the time travel doesn't cause a paradox. I like to think of Oz as a real place with events unfolding as a result of the decisions and actions of the people living there. That is, if they want a favorable outcome, they better try to make it happen because it is not predetermined. Note that there is no problem with seeing the past or hopping forward in time. It is having information flow backwards in time that is impossible in a real place. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 15-Feb-96 23:17:27 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ( as if you didn't know! :) ) MORE ABBREVIATIONS: Eric wrote: >Perhaps, as ISTR Laumer using more of the story than appeared in the "Bugle." What does ISTR stand for? "CLARK'S BOOK": Eric wrote: >>According to Clarke's book, she is mentioned (she never appears onstage) in >>TW 12; Gl 6, 8; LK 9, 19, 20; all through MM; and MGR 4, 6, 21. >D'OH! Why didn't *I* think of looking in Clarke? What is Clark's book? LAUMER'S BOOKS: Aaron listed the following Laumer titles: >The Good Witch of Oz >The Magic Mirror of Oz >The Frogman of Oz >The Ten Woodmen of Oz (No idea what this is about) >The Careless Kangaroo of Oz Laumer lists these as Out-of-Print. >Other Lands than Oz >The Crown of Oz He lists himself as only a "contributor" to these. >An Orphan in Oz His list doesn't include this one! >The Underground Kings of Oz This *IS* a Volkov book that he translated. >The Green Dolphin of Oz >Aunt Em and Uncle Henry in Oz >The Charmed Gardens of Oz >A Fairy Queen in Oz >The Umbrellas of Oz >A Farewell to Oz These last six are the ones he lists as still in print and available from him. DAN AND OZMA'S ROMANCE: Eric wrote: >The problem is, if [Dave] makes it an ongoing, >continuing romance, that is going to shake up the >status quo in Oz, and other authors are either going to feel constrained >by this, or completely ignore it, making Dave's book heretical. Well, of course I won't throw myself from the highest turret of the Emerald City if _Fairy Princess_ is branded "heretical", though I _WOULD_ like it to be considered part of the main series. I don't have a "quick fix" that I can think of at the spur of the moment, but I do truly think I can make this work... Aaron wrote: >So if you're interested, I'd be willing to swap Quentin for Dan in order to >avoid allow Ozma and Dan to literally live happily ever after. Sorry, any pact that would cause me to forfeit my right to let Ozma and Dan live literally happily ever after I can't agree to. David wrote: >So Ozma's future hubby's name is Dan Maryk? Sounds like a Czech name to me - >does this mean he's made of rubber? Dan is a "joint reincarnation" (if such a thing exists) of Dan Kean, co-hero of Louisa May Alcott's _Little Men_/_Jo's Boys_, and Steve Maryk, hero of Herman Wouk's _The Caine Mutiny_. I admire both of these unsung literary protagonists, but in each case their gallantry and goodness is rewarded with death or disgrace. So I've symbolically brought them "back to life" in the persona of Dan Maryk, who is sweet, kind, trustworthy, and brave. And *HIS* heroism is rewarded by an eternal and blissful existance in Oz, happily married to the sweetest and most beautiful of Fairy Princesses!!! TYLER'S REMARKS: Tyler wrote: >C-OZ-mos? Somebodys been watching Carl Sagan reruns... I have the tapes! :) >It's nice to see that somebody else out there has read PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH. >I would like to see the Humbug get into a discussion with the Wogglebug. This would undoubtedly be a very *interesting* "meeting of minds"! :) :) :) >If Dave writes his story and gives us more information, I will move the >book [_Masquarade_] accordingly. I've already sent the book in, so the text is "set in stone" unless Chris rejects the manuscript or else allows me to submit "addenda" to the book (perhaps an expansion of Glinda's "speech" in which she is more specific about what she is now capable of as opposed to before). BTW, have you spoken to Chris lately? Did he receive my manuscript all right? I just want to be sure it wasn't consumed by the "postal monster" as he calls it... :) >Dave and Aaron, do you feel that the discussion on this digest about the >writing of your Oz books has made the writing less fun? Has it stifled >your creativity[?] No, I think it's been very helpful! I'm infinitely grateful to you, Tyler, for your willingness to help me so much with the writing of _Locasta + 3 A's_! And now I'm glad to be getting all this feedback from everyone about _Fairy Princess_, and I'm hopeful that my final product will not only be satisfactory but a sheer delight for (almost) everyone! I do want to work with everyone, but as in the case of _Locasta_, I *will* end _Fairy Princess_ the way *I* want to in any case! :) >I have no advice in the classic sense, just hope that the spirit of Oz >pervades and that nobody tries to turn your character into a real jerk. >Remember, though, even if someone kills him off, you can always bring him >back! :) ( P.S. Please don't ever "Oz off", Tyler! I can't speak for everyone, but I for one want to hear *everthing* you has to say, as long as there's no profanity. :) ) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 17, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 08:43:38 -0500 From: larrys@zk3.dec.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-16-96 >On Earth no flying being can mass more than a certain figure (I >think about 20 kg). Estimates of the mass of Quetzelcoatlus Northropi run from 50 kg up to over a hundred. >This is why flying birds have lost a lot of unnecessary >mass (like teeth, claws, News to bats, I'm sure. =) The ork as described is a somewhat improbable creature, but I still have yet to see an explanation for why the argument over magical or non-magical is important. Exactly what does it mean in people's minds when they say the ork is a natural creature versus a magical one? What does it change? If we presume a Niven-style world where magic goes away, this is an important question, magical beings cannot live without mana, and their mere existence will eventually use it up, since it is a part of their normal metabolism. But this is very far from Oz, which has no such concept. What is the point of the discussion? If it's natural, then what? If it isn't, then what? regards, Larry Smith ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:10:59 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Tyler wrote: >Love interests have permeated the FF, although Baum only had one (Pon and >Gloria in SCARECROW). The phenomenom of childresn stories having love >interests (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, etc.) may or not be a modern >convention. However, adults are now a larger part of the audience for Oz >books, so naturally people are writing stuff at their level. It began as >a childrens series, and they still form the majority of the readership. >Oz, as have so many things in this world, has grown and expanded along >with its audience. In many cases, the generic adventure with Dorothy and >the Scarecrow is no longer enough, and people want some depth. Tyler, Eric, and others have rightly pointed out that "romantic" interests do exist in childrens books from days gone by. Perhaps I was not explicit enough if my earlier post. What I was trying to address was the shift to the sexual aspects of romantic love, and was questioning why this has been occuring of late. When Tyler wrote "...and people want some depth", the implication is that writers are putting sex into their children's stories because that is what the reader wants. Is this what the children readers want? Or are the stories really being written for adults and that is what they want? Or are the stories being written to satisfy the writer's creative urges, and that is what the writers want? What do you think?? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:59:58 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Digest stuff How many smiley faces should I have to use to convince people that I really am a nice guy who only wants the best for each and every one of you? (Except Aaron, of course :) ) See, I'm kidding about that last thing! I have to side with Eric who experience has shown me I have the most in common with. (Pretty scary, Eric!) I generally speaking will read anything Oz-related and I really don't mind contradictions one jot or tittle. If I did I would be insisting that the various publishers "rewrite" all the Oz books to fix that little direction problem and that is something I would never do. (What do you think, Eric, smiley or not?) What you should try to understand is that everything I say is mine own opinion and like most people I treasure my opinion more than anyone elses. Does it upset the HACC any that in the latest OZ comic (not the Oz Squad) it clearly states that the witch Glinda kicked out of the South was our dear friend Mombi who has had definite plans to become Empress of Oz for quite some time? She's just had an incredibly long string of bad luck. Does it bother me that Oz Squad says Smith & Tinker faked their own demise and are working on some secret project? Nowhere in Baum or the FF is the southern witch named so it could have been Mombi. And "I" know what really happened to Smith & Tinker so it doesn't matter what anyone else says. And when it comes to discussions of the evolution of Orks I take the Zen stand. They just are. Tyler, I appreciate greatly the work you are doing but not for the same reasons you have for doing it. I would include everything written about Oz. That would include Salman Rushdie's The Ruby Slippers, and this fun little story in an issue of Analog or Asimov's or some such magazine by an author I can't recall about what happens when a politically correct person from 1990's goes to Oz and leads a popular revolt against Ozma's authoritarian dictatorship. The story is called "Up the Rainbow", and was lots of fun. I'm not really bad. I just e-mail that way. ;) :) Bye! Oh and as far as I can tell ISTR means I Seem To Recall (possibly Remember). ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 13:52:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Green Dolphin of Oz 1) Just what part of The Green Dolphin of Oz was written by Baum? 2) Concerning Laumer breaking the Law: There goes the idea of having, say, Kabumpo step on the Big Zero. Maybe I can pull it off in an outright parody... 3) Tyler, wait a minute! I thought that Ozamaland was the name of the continent! Also: I beg your pardon, but the Gnu and the Goose show up in The Frogman of Oz. Also: Don't worry about my use of time travel. The most perverse thing I intend to use it for is having members of Hiergargo's family go back in time, irritate earlier versions of their parents, and end up getting dreadful names as punishment. (See my explination for why the Woozy is named Gwomokolotolint.) This type of silliness is not going to make any difference as far as the plot of any book in Lurline's Machine (so far as I can see into the future). The less perverse, plot-affecting time travel I can't say anything about at the moment, lest I leak some material from Trot and the Queasy in Oz I want to keep secret for the moment. Also: I've had plenty of fun writing since I signed onto this digest. Even though some of my ideas have gotten totalled in the process (e.g., the Mombi = Mrs. Pastoria theory), I have received infusions of valuable information that have enabled me to direct my creativity in other directions that will 'step on the feet of' other people's work less often. Also: I still have to hold by claim that there is a contradiction between Baum and Thompson vs. Laumer on resurrectability. Since humans do not usually eat bones, presumably the Compleat Cook did not eat those of his victims. Hence those bones probably have not been destroyed, but probably hidden somewhere (maybe buried in the back yard). If the Wizard could resurrect giant seahorses from their bones, then presumably he could do the same for the Compleat Cook's victims. I would also like to reiterate my claim that Gingemma could have very well glued together such undead flesh into viable people in animals, much as Ku Klip did with pieces of the original bodies of Nick Chopper and Captain Fyter. I reject the claim by Laumer that Gingemma was totally insensitive psychologically and socially, because if it was true she wouldn't have bothered reattaching Ku Klip's finger in the first place. Gluing together said fragments would have provided her with a class of citizens who felt they were in her debt and another whch felt that she wasn't a wicked witch, and when one is ruling a country, one can always use a few supporters. n) John, I must beg to disagree with you on the idea that free will and time travel into the past is impossible. There is a catch, however. While one is in the past, there is no guarrantee that the people there will make their decisions the same way as remembered by visitors from the future. Looking into the future I do hold to be somewhat tricker; I hold that for any present there is not one predetermined future but many possible futures. Unless one had a guarrantee from G-d Him/Herself, who has the power to make the future be however He/She wants it to be, one would be unable to tell which possible future one was seeing. x) >>So if you're interested, I'd be willing to swap Quentin for Dan in order = to >>avoid allow Ozma and Dan to literally live happily ever after. Dave, I seem to have accidentally left an extra word in there. Sorry about that. I'm not interested in having Dan and Ozma break up or dropping Dan into a volcano. (Though the former would provide Glinda with some extra ammo against Ozma...) I'm sorry if I gave that impression. That passage should have been: So if you're interested, I'd be willing to swap Quentin for Dan in order to allow Ozma and Dan to literally live happily ever after. Note: If Dan does appear in The Woozy of Oz he is going to have to go through a very unpleasant experience which I can't explain here without leakage tantamount to giving away my entire main plot, though there would be no permanent damage to him in the end. Contact me via E-mail if you're interested at this point so that I can leak the relevant information just to you. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:47:56 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Deep underneath the Emerald City... A hush descends on the sacred chamber as the Lord High Inquisitor of Ozian Accuracy enters with his cronies. The high and mighty Tyler Jones will dispense his own brand of "justice" to those who dare to think for themselves. "Let the supplicants approach the throne of justice. There are three peasants who wish to write Oz books." Dave Hardenbrook, Aaron Adleman and Eric Gjovaag enter by crawling on their bellies. "Dave, on page 178 of your book, you stated the length of Ozmas throne room as being 175 feet long. Don't you know that in TINY MITES OF OZ, published in 1942, Ozmas throne room is only 174 feet long? You are evil and inaccurate! I deny you permission to write this or any other Oz book as you have offended my personal vision of the Land of Oz!" "But Ozmas boyfriend was doing some construction..." whimpered Dave, trembling in fear at the power and greatness of the Inquisitor. "SILENCE, dog of an infidel! You shall not speak until spoken to. The other authors have errors just as terrible. Aaron speaks of the Woozys hairs on his tail being 0.5 centimeters longer than in a book published 35 years ago. Eric gave the wrong shade of blue for a river in the Munchkin country. How dare you sons of goats write books without making sure that I personally approve of every word? You are banished into the netherworld. Now BEGONE!" The three authors and their manuscripts are burned at the stake. Let this be a warning to all: Tyler Jones is the God of Oz. He, and he alone, decides what is correct Ozian history and all authors must bow to his wishes when writing anything. No, people, this is NOT how it is! THe reason that I keep posting a huge spiel nearly every day is that I am being misrepresented. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I have a BIG problem with people twisting my words around and accusing me doing things that I am not doing. I want the HACC and its associated stuff to be a research tool. People can see all Oz books that have come before and learn about them. Hopefully, this will lead to an increased knowledge of Oz and enable people to write more and better Oz books. However, if someone really wants to write an Oz book that contradicts some other non-FF book, GO FOR IT! I will put both in the HACC and come up with something clever to make them fit. Charlie Brown : You can't divide like that, Sally. 50 won't go into 25. Sally : It can if you push it! I want the HACC to be a list of all Oz books. It is not a manifesto of my own narrow, personal vision of Oz. There are many books in there already that I do not like, but they are still there because this is not about what I, Tyler Jones, personally approve or disapprove of. It is about everybody writing and reading Oz books because they are enjoyable stories where, for a while, we can visit a land of happiness and love. I will not "OZ OFF", but keep doing this until the truth is fully out. Namely, that I do not seek to force people to conform to each other. All I want to do is get the information out and let people do with it what they please. It is my hope that future authors will avoid major contradictions with other authors and use this information in a positive way. It's really just a difference of degree. Even if you recognize only the Baum 14, that itself still puts limits and constraints on you. If you recognize the entire FF, you are limited a little bit more. If you recognize ALL Oz books, the limits increase a little bit more, but will give Oz a veneer of verisimilitude. Besides, if a group effort does not change your story and still allows you the freedom to write your own story your own way, why not make a little effort to be consistent? It won't hurt anything and will make the whole series stronger in the long run. If an effort at consistency will hurt your story, then ignore it and write what you want! I will be more than happy to put all books in the HACC. My main goal is to be a conduit of information, as I believe that the greatest weapon anybody can have is knowledge. I do not seek to be a hammer, pounding everybody into the same shape as I am. The profanity issue that Dave brought up is a personal one to me, though a non-Ozzy issue. I have two groups of friends. One group are church-going Christian boys who NEVER swear and the other are a bunch of beer-drinking jocks who ALWAYS swear. I am a very different person depending on who I am with and sometimes, when I forget which group I am with, the results are a little embarassing :). On Terps possible relation with Loxo: Somebody said that they COULD NOT POSSIBLY be related. My point was that the possibility exists. It is similar to what Eric G. said: Just because Baum (or anybody else) does not specifically say that something is possible does not mean that it is impossible. Eric, we are not naming the city yet, we're just throwing around some suggestions. Aaron (or anybody else) can use whichever one they want, or make up new ones. For the record, I am capable of holding MANY ideas in my head. I have many, many more interests than Oz and I juggle them constantly. Yes, I am trying to resolve differences with books that have not been written yet. For example, my theory about the little kingdoms floating around out there in hyper-dimensional bubbles with a temporary inter- dimensional links to the Land of Oz. I came up with this theory so that we can have as many kingdoms as we want wherever we want and there will be no contradiction with anybody and no author will have to limit his or her creativity. The part I like best about this theory is that it requires no extra work on the part of authors. They can write any story they want and there will be no problem, no matter how many there are. The Hollow Tube may not have been meant to go through the center. If the two places Hiergargo wanted to go were not at opposite points on the globe (such as Losa Angeles and London) then the Tube would not need to go through the center. Whether other authors are constrained by Daves romantic interest for Ozma or choose to ignore it has no bearing on the status of Daves book. The only requirement is compliance with the FF, and, if he so chooses, any non-FF books that relate. If there is anyone on this digest who knows about getting taken out of context, it's me! Wasn't this theme explored in PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH? Aaron could have someone called "The Big Zero" who gave his kids the lamest names in the Universe and has a penchant for numbers, and we would all know who he is talking about, and there would be no lawsuit. (probably) Toby and Lambert do not HAVE to be there. What if Toby realized that his position as bodyguard was not necessary and went to live in the Winkie country and took Lambert with him? If two people write Oz books and create characters that by all logic "should" be there and don't mention each others characters, there is still no contradiction, there is no need to split the series, and all books still go in the HACC. Also, it is NOT necessary to kill off the other guys characters just so you won't feel constrained. Dan could be coordinating efforts in some other part of the country, and thus would not need to be a continuous presence in E.C. Yes, ERB broke the laws of physics (or at least twisted them into a pretzel now and again) but if he didn't, as David said, a lot of his story would have been lost. Glinda may only have been ruler of the ENTIRE Quadling country for 100 years. Ozma (or the Wizard) arrived and saved the day in KABUMPO, GIANT HORSE, YELLOW KNIGHT and OJO. I am not sure if Laumer specified a sailing ship. It does not matter, because Laumer really ought to be given a separate Universe of his own. Well, Aaron, (leakage control...) Oh, who cares! Laumer had Lurline visit King Gil of Gilkenny before Tattypoo/Orin was born. The Kings wife was unable to bear children, so... There's another daughter of Lurline! Laumer also claims that the reason E.C. is green is that it is the lowest point in Oz and all the water/nutrients have flowed there over the centuries. Also, the different quadrants expand and contract slowly, as each color seeks dominance over the others. Laumers book had the Gilikin country grow to almost the whole country of Oz before things were put aright. I'll have to re-read Laumer again to see what his views (if any) are on pre-Dorothean history. As far as we know, there were at least three Wicked Witches of the South. Blinkie, the one from THE ENCHANTED APPLES OF OZ and Sringa. It is doubtful that Blinkie is the one who was defeated by Glinda (according to DOTWIZ), since it is unlikely that Glinda would then have turned her loose on the people of Jinxland. The leading candidate for the conspiring one is Sringa. Laumer did not mention any other Ozzes, but he had one person (I believe it was Oorfene Deuce) transfer between themfor a short time. I know nothing about the repair capabilities or wearing out of people like the Scarecrow. Even though Laumer is not "Classical Oz", the love could have lasted if it had turned into real love before Shaggy gave up the magnet. Peter B. Clarke wrote WHO'S WHO, WHAT'S WHAT AND WHERE'S WHERE IN OZ, listing just about every person, place and thing in the Land of Oz. I'll get his address for you Monday. Aaron, would you be amenable to having the Lurlines machine put into your own Universe? This has been a VERY long post, but when I am no longer misrepresented, they will (hopefully) get shorter. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 16:40:40 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-16-96 David H.: That was the worst and bounciest pun I've heard in years. Shame on you...and when's the next one coming? (= Poly/Shaggy Meeting: Maybe someone's said this before. If so, I hope Dave edits it out. The inconsistency is because Baum essentially slapped THE TIK-TOK MAN OF OZ, a play, into book format for his 1914 Oz book. The play had to be essentially free-standing, relying on little if any previous knowledge of Hoztory, so Baum had Shaggy meet Polychrome for the first time in it, rather than having to make a reference to ROAD. The odd thing about this whole deal is that the play is just a rewriting of OZMA OF OZ, so that makes TIK TOK a rewrite of a rewrite of OZMA. Look at it more closely next time, if you didn't know that. You'll see the parallels between the two books. Bettsy replaces Dorothy and Hank, a much easier to stage character than Billina in the pre-audioanimatronic age, replaces the hen. (Hank was a deliberate attempt to recreate the success of Woodward's lion in Baum's only real stage success...at least I think it was Woodward). NEW TOPIC: Fellas, please stop bickering. The discussion feels like just that, bickering. Let's just get on with it. You've reached consensus, essentially, so drop it already! (I think 'most everybody agreed to live and let live. Most will aim at consistency with the FF. If they don't, that's their problem and does NOT warrant this much on-line discussion.) --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:14:39 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest Dave, It looks like I stirred up can of worms when I suggested "Hardenbrook for President"! Eric and Nate Barlow are equally qualified, of course!! But let's not get into politics. I'm probably one of the oldest, if not THE oldest subscriber to the digest, at age 67, and by age 14 or 15 had collected and read all of LFB's Oz books and all but three or four of RPT's. Five years ago I retired and rekindled my interest in Oz. I joined the IWOC and have attended the last two Munchkin conventions, where I have been able to fill the gaps in my RPT books, save one, (Does anyone have a Purple Prince of Oz they would like to sell, condition not important, a reading copy would be O.K..) and have begun to add some of the "newer" authors books to my shelves. I 've just recently acquired and read The Glass Cat of Oz, and offer high praise to Dave Hulan for his excellent book. (I'm awaiting delivery of Eric and Karyl's book.) But, who is March Laumer? And where can his books be found? I haven't seen them in BOW's newsletter/catalogues. Dick Randolph (DIXNAM@aol.com) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:35:58 -0500 (EST) From: swarkala@cris.com (Sharon Warkala) Subject: The fun of Oz I wanted to reply about all the little in-fighting that has been going on in the digest about consistencies in the Oz books many of the members are writing. All I can say is lighten up fellas. Have you forgotten what Oz is all about? Baum wrote his books for children to enjoy and lately I think some of the petty arguments going on here are quite childish. I was drawn to Oz because it took me to other places,introduced me to different people, and let me use my imagination. Sorry to say Oz is not a real place although we may want it to be so why can't an author write an Oz story that he or she wants. The planets will not shift or the earth will not stop spinning on it's axis if there are some inconsistencies in future Oz books. So please guys let's not forget that Oz is supposed to be FUN. Chris Warkala> Chris and Sharon Warkala 5 Columbia Way Middletown, New Jersey 07748-5321 E-Mail (Internet): swarkala@concentric.net ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 22:32:56 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> Subject: Musings on the Massive Mound of Oziana I have read all of the Baum Oz books several times. I finally made myself read The Royal Book of Oz and found it to be "silly." I wondered if Baum was ill at the time he was writing it or was it damaged after his death. Now thanks to Eric G. I learn that he didn't write it at all. Thank you, thank you! I have yet to read an RPT Oz book as I have suspected they would suffer badly by comparison with the master. Will someone encourage me to think otherwise? I admit I have purchased all of them but there are just so many books to read and so little time. Especially at my age. Sigh. Some of the discussions in the Digest make me think of a bunch of monks trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. An example is this tube through the earth issue and similar popular science discussions. Sigh. While I am grumping, let me say, as an outsider, that some of you really have a case of egographia. Particularly unappealing is the practice of cutting out hunks of others email and reproducing them with ">" marks. I admire the way David Hulan handles responses to other's mail. He is worth emulating for many reasons. Brevity and conciseness are much to be admired. Aaron Adelman mentioned "Four Wicked Witches." Would you amplify. I didn't think Glinda was considered wicked. I would like to add my vote against Ozma having a "romance." Can't Oz be saved for the young and the young at heart? I don't like to think of Baum spinning in his grave. I know grade school children are now having sex, getting pregnant, doing drugs and murdering each other. Does Ozian literature have to mirror this trend? It was pointed out that many fairy tales have romance, eg. Snow White, Cinderella, etc. However, in the ones I can think of we don't follow them into the bedroom and find out if they really did live happily ever after. Can't there be one place where socialist realism and extreme political correctness can be banned? I really liked David Hardenbrook's literary cosmology. It made me think of "Haroun and the Sea of Stories," by Rushdie. David, if you are open to advice I would suggest you apply "Occam's Razor" and make your title "Locasta of Oz." It is short, has a nice ring to it and is suggestive of other Oz books. Another plug for brevity. One of the definitions left out of your Digest FAQ is HACC. I thought this might mean Hopefully Apt Consistent Chronology? I would like to express great admiration for Michael Burns essay, "Consistency." A. Adelman's comments on Laumer's "Frogman of Oz." Was this written in 1947? So this is where Anne Rice got one of her inspirations for "The Mummy." All the above obviously IMO. R. Baum(an) alias The Grouchy Old Bear (:<) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 20:23:01 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: 99% of the postings on this Ozzy Digest address the stories, characters, plotlines for new books, etc. There are a lot of members now, and I'm wonder if any are interested in topics more of a literary analysis vein? Maybe we could get a thread going on these kinds of topics? Anyone interested? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 23:39:06 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc stuff BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN writes: > But I don't think a comment like "your book isn't part of the history of > the real Oz" is warranted, especially as anything outside the FF is arguably > not "real Oz," no matter how inline it is with the FF. There is a unique point in the history of Oz--the point where Oz changes in a fundamental way so that all FF compatible books have to occur before it. There are various incompatible claimants for this point. No consensus could ever be reached on what happens at this point because most people don't accept that this point ever happens. So the only fair thing to do is to automatically disqualify all such books from being part of the history of the main Oz universe. By checking the HACC and following a few simple rules Oz historians can be remarkably consistent with each other without having to read all the books or to coordinate their efforts. This allows an extended history of Oz to be developed that has good consistency with itself. Authors who don't want to work within these rules can write books that are outside the extended history. These books don't need to be consistent with any others, and no other book needs to be constant with them. An author cannot expect to have it both ways, however. A book can either follow the guidelines and be part of the extended history, or it can do whatever it wants and make major changes in Oz. But any authors who thinks that they can make Oz into a different sort of place and have that accepted as part of the history of Oz is going to be sorely disappointed. Tyler Jones writes: > Where does it say that fairies cannot become mortal? I get this from _Yew_. The fairy first asks the mortal maids to change her into a mortal, but then it is made clear that she is still a fairy. She merely has the form of a mortal and could never actually *be* a mortal. In addition, the immortals as developed in _Santa_Claus_ seem to have no control over immortality, other than their possessing one mantle of immortality. > Ozga was a fairy, > related to Ozma, yet she became mortal. Of course, it can be argued that > she is a low-ranking fairy. That is a good point. I think Ozga was, indeed, a low-ranking fairy. I suspect that Ozga's fairyness is linked to the rose kingdom, and that if she returned there she would be a fairy again. Note that words like "sister" and "cousin" seem to mean different things when applied to fairies. Ozga grew on a bush, and was clearly a completely different type of fairy from Ozma. Also, Baum has said that Nomes are immortals who become mortals if they touch an egg. But Nomes don't seem to be a all that immortal as they can be sliced thin or knocked to pieces. The Ozites, on the other hand, were once mortals, but seem to be a sort of low-level fairy now. So it seems to be possible to switch between mortals and low-level fairies, but not between high-level immortals and some lesser level. > The all-powerful nature is already there. We have belts, pills, powders and > emeralds that grant wishes. A hammer that summons an elf (he is not really > an elf, but that's beside the point) that apparantly can do anything, a > picture that shows anything, a book that tells everything and so on. Yes, and this always bothered me. Thompson was the worst, with wish ways and such popping up all over. Baum wasn't so bad. The picture generally didn't show something unless asked, and the book had cryptic comments buried in a mass of fine print. In _Land_ they only used the pills to repair the Gump, and they wanted to use another to correct their course. Perhaps they knew that wishing magic was very limited and that these were the most powerful wishes they could make. Certainly Tip's wish that he had never swallowed a pill didn't alter his memory of having done so. (I suspect that his pains were due to an interaction between the pill and Mombi's enchantment.) The magic belt is the worst, but maybe it has limitations that we are not told about. For instance, it has never been used to transport the wearer in any of Baum's books. In _Lost_Princess_ it has one wish per day, and even that could be rather limited. Perhaps most of its power is unusable if other interfering magic is present. Note that it was present in _Glinda_, yet it didn't seem useful for anything but protecting Dorothy from a spider. > Authors get around this by having the characters use the power in stupid > ways. Which is one of the reasons I don't like it. How can one admire characters who are stupid? For instance, in D&W a piglet is missing. A few feet away is a magic picture that would show where the piglet is. Does anyone look in the picture? No, they are all too stupid to think of it. > John, can you refresh my memory? You mentioned a tyrannical ruler who > pronounced "Draconian" punishments on two people who helped her to recover > her throne. I can't remember this. In _Wishing_Horse_ there was a merchant who was so incredibly honest that when he traded all of his worldly possessions for some emerald necklaces he actually paid the oppressive tax of one third of them, even though he could easily have evaded the tax. Only when the king stole everything that he owned did the merchant resort to trying to recover his property. Then, when the king went to conquer Oz. The merchant offered an eagle wishes in exchange for carrying him to the Emerald City so that he could save Oz from the evil king. The eagle may have had a pressing need for a wish, for instance its wife could have been very ill. The merchant succeeded in recovering his property, but was not able to discover how to use the necklaces to free Oz from the king's evil enchantment. Nevertheless, depriving the king of the necklaces at the crucial moment allowed Dorothy and her companions to gain control of the situation. Alas, the honest merchant again had his rightful property stolen from him, and he was sent back to Skampavia completely destitute. The eagle, who had also helped to free Oz from the evil king, was cruelly deprived of its rightful form and turned into a sparrow. And if indeed the eagle wanted a wish to heal its wife, then the wife would have been left to die from her illness. Ozma meted out these harsh punishments without any sort of trial and without letting the victims give their side of the story. She certainly came across as a heartless and unjust tyrant in this book. > Despite Glindas disapproval of Transformations in LAND, she seems to be > pretty good at it in RINKITINK. Of course, in that case, she was working > transformations to REPAIR damage to restore the true form of Bobo. Well, restoring Ozma would have been a "repair". She was able to restore Jellia, though. Perhaps she gave "disapproval of transformations" as an excuse to downplay her embarrassing lack of knowledge in this area. She then studied up and became proficient by _Rinkitink_. :-) DavidXOE@aol.com writes: > More importantly, Ozma is never > shown working any magic other than using magical implements that anyone can > use before TIN WOODMAN, I suspect her traumatic experience in _Lost_Princess_ really motivated her to learn magic so that she would never again be so helpless. In _Tin_Woodman_ she had to rely on sorcerer-type spells, but by _Glinda_ she had improved to the point where she needed only her wand. > Ozma was, in many ways, a > very arbitrary ruler. She visited equally, if not more, Draconian punishments > on Mombi, Mooj, Wutz, and Captain Salt's former crew, probably others, and > she was going to put Eureka to death if the latter hadn't proven herself > innocent of eating the piglet. Most of that is Thompson's Ozma. With the piglet, Eureka had a trial, and a chance to speak up for herself. She was convicted and sentenced by a jury, with Ozma merely going along with it. I have my own pet theory that Dorothy told Baum about the events in _D&W_. When Baum found that this made a book that was too short, he fabricated the piglet episode an tacked it on. Thus, Eureka never had a trial, and never left Oz. (And was never pink.) My main reasons for thinking this is that it really is not credible that nobody would think of looking for the piglet in the Magic Picture. Also, if I discovered that my pet piglet had just been eaten by my best friend's cat, I would be annoyed, but I would never insist that the cat be killed. And hopefully Ozma is a nicer person than I am. > If you take air resistance into account, the party in TIK-TOK would never > have come out the other end. I think you have to assume that they're all > enclosed in a capsule of air that moves through the tube without friction. The book talks about the rush of air making it hard to talk for the whole journey, so they couldn't have been encapsulated. My solution to the problem is that the magic in the tube keeps them from slowing down. Note that Quox decided to slow himself down after entering the tube. He would never have made it to the other side if he depended only on inertia. DavidXOE@aol.com writes: > I like your idea of assuming Oz authors have informants for the information > in their books. Me too. It definitely adds to the realism. > (Though I think the Shaggy Man is likelier to be Baum's > second source than the Wizard.) Yes, in the introduction to _Patchwork_ Baum said that it was Shaggy who helped set up the connection. "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > n) Is there any evidence that non-biological characters (e.g, the > Scarecrow, Scraps, Jack Pumpkinhead) gain the self-repair capabilities > that non-magical life has? My impression is that they can't heal, and worn or damaged parts have to be repaired or replaced. Normally there would be no need to mention that this is being done, and replacement parts would be chosen to look like the original. In _Land_ the Tin Woodman mentioned getting nickel-plated partly to cover scratches, so apparently he couldn't "heal" scratches. On the other hand, the buildings in the land of the Mangaboos (in _D&W_) were said to heal damage, and in _E_CITY_ a tin hollyhock goes to seed. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:40:06 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/16/96 Eric Gjovaag: So you're the one who furnished Dave with the mailing list he started OD off with - and left me off of it! Grumblegrumble... The obvious name for the capital of Ix that occurs to me is "Ixnay", but I'll leave it to the first writer who uses it in a book to make something Official. (If nobody has already.) I imagine the word -count- would be shorter in the AJN books - they certainly bulk smaller than Oz - but I was talking about word -length-, the average number of characters per word, and since the AJN books seem to be written for teens whereas Baum's Oz books seem to be written for elementary-school kids, I'd expect Baum to use somewhat longer words in the former. I could easily be wrong, which is why I was speculating and wondering if anyone had any idea of putting the AJN books in digital form. I guess I introduced a touch of romance in GLASS CAT, between Salye and Lando, though it's pretty mild - less than there was between Files and Ozga in TIK-TOK, I think. I think that the penalties for copyright violation can be considerably more severe than taking the money the violator received for it. As is reasonable; if it were otherwise, people would violate copyright all the time, on the theory that if they don't get caught they've made a profit, and if they do they're no worse off than they would have been doing nothing. (This isn't true of professional writers, of course, who need to make their writing time count. But Oz authors these days are all doing it for love, not money, and so losing the profits from their writing is no big threat.) Oh. I hadn't remembered your using the phrase about McCarthy and Gestapo. Shame on you. (And shame on me for forgetting.) Postponing the planting of the forest until after GLASS CAT would have poor Jodie waiting a long time to start her occupation, since QA specifies it happens 40 years after Ozma's coronation (meaning somewhere in the early Forties, probably) and GC specifies it happens 75 years after Betsy Bobbin comes to Oz (meaning somewhere in the late Eighties). Of course, Oz people are probably very patient, but still... However, it could be done. Maybe the knook in charge of the main forest had second thoughts and had to be persuaded again, or something. Or Jodie had to go on a quest for something to make the ground of the pass fertile enough to support a forest, and it took her a long time. (Incidentally, why did you have a knook in charge of the forest? In LaAoSC, knooks are the caretakers of animals, not trees.) Cosgrove's direct informant is a brown bird, but it's possible that the bird got its information from Percy. It seems more than likely, since Percy seems to be the most important character in both of her books, and I can't imagine anyone but Percy giving that impression. (I don't like Percy, which is why I don't like her books much.) Aaron Adelman: Button-Bright is still a child in GLASS CAT. Furthermore, though it's not explicitly stated, it's clear from context that he's always been a child up to that point (which, as I said to Eric, can clearly be dated to the Eighties). There's no evidence in the FF that he ever even left Oz after SCARECROW, much less came back as an adult. In fact, if Laumer has him come back to Oz as an adult in 1947, he's flatly contradicting the FF, since Snow mentions him as being present in the EC in MAGICAL MIMICS - and that book has to be set in the mid-Forties because of the reference to Charlie McCarthy (not to be confused with Joe or Gene...). Oh, I suppose he could do the sudden growing-up that Dorothy did in LOST KING, but then he'd be not only adult but almost middle-aged - was he described thus? I don't see any more reason why Lambert should be mentioned in your books than, say, Eureka was in WONDER CITY. And since nobody else writing Oz books since FORBIDDEN FOUNTAIN has mentioned Toby or Lambert (for obvious copyright reasons), we could easily postulate that, as rather flighty types, they might have drifted away from the EC, at least as far as their regular abode was concerned. Ozma certainly doesn't -need- Toby for a bodyguard under ordinary circumstances - she has the Cowardly Lion and Hungry Tiger for that purpose - and she doesn't have any need for a pet lamb, either. She of course has a great affection for both of them, but has no reason to expect their constant attendance on her. Tyler Jones: I have no objection to sharing as much information about the world of Oz as we can, so that there aren't any inconsistencies that are unimportant to the plot. Most of what you say I find entirely unexceptionable. But when the basic idea of a story happens to contradict what another, non-FF author, had to say, then I say the writer should go ahead and write that story anyhow, and let it be sorted out later. Burroughs didn't -use- a south polar opening, but he mentioned it - TARZAN AT THE EARTH'S CORE, page 8. Admittedly, just as a theory, unless there's a reference I don't know of. Barry Adelman: I think of the Ork's wings as being very much like Frisbees, which are quite aerodynamic; he's suspended within four of them. (Admittedly, Frisbees gain a part of their lift from their spin, but (a) they don't spin that fast, and (b) maybe the Ork's wings spin inside a fixed outer ring, as his propellor spins around a fixed hub. Makes equally good sense. But he'd still need magic to lift Trot and Cap'n Bill straight up a well shaft. I don't have a problem with the Wizard being able or willing to turn Eureka into a kitten again; I have a problem with Eureka wanting to be turned. It's very much out of character. And I certainly hope you're right about major publishers being more interested in new Oz books as the centennial approaches. (Though I suspect Peter Glassman hopes you're wrong...)(Well, maybe not. His business would probably be improved by a rash of new Oz publicity, even if the best two or three books around the event were published by others.) John White: I like your explanation of why Shaggy and Polychrome didn't know each other better than Laumer's. Except that this doesn't explain why Shaggy recognizes Tik-Tok immediately, but Polly doesn't, even though she spent more than 24 hours in his company in ROAD. At least Laumer's explanation would cover that, if Ozma removed all of Polychrome's memories of that trip. Dave Hardenbrook: I'm reasonably sure that Eric's abbreviation ISTR means "I seem to recall [or remember]". Certainly it's always fit into the context. One that I've used a couple of times is YMMV, for "Your mileage may vary", which is something like "IMHO" in import. "Clarke's Book" is WHO'S WHO, WHAT'S WHAT, AND WHERE'S WHERE IN OZ, compiled by Peter B. Clarke, published by Arcus Company - a listing of essentially every proper name in the FF, including notes of which chapters of which book they appear in. An invaluable resource for looking up references to characters and places. It's probably still available (it only came out about a year and a half ago): Arcus Company, 1665 Greenleaf Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018-3822. ISTR it was about $12.50 or so, but inquire first. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Saturday 17-Feb-96 02:38:51 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Two comments ( One serious, one ironic :) ) MORE COMMENTS ABOUT OZMA'S ROMANCE FROM "COMRADE HARDENBROOK" (A.K.A. "DAVE THE DIRTY"): Bill W. wrote: >When Tyler wrote "...and people want some depth", the >implication is that writers are putting sex into their children's stories >because that is what the reader wants. Talk about a quantum leap in interpretation!!! Invoke your text editor or mail reader's Word Search, and you'll find that NOWHERE does Tyler use the word "sex"! :) I *think* what Tyler means by "depth" is that people what to see the natures and personae of the Oz characters grow and develop, making them more interesting and (hopefully) more likeable; and creating a love interest (without bringing up sex) can be an excellent means of doing this. _The Mary Tyler Moore Show_ is a good example. Ted Baxter was a pretty one-dimensional character until he was given Georgette as a love interest. Georgette is largely responsible for the "humanizing" of Ted in the latter 2/3 or so of the series, which made him a much more complex character, and turned the cookie-cutter pea-brained narcissist into a realistic human being whom we can often relate to and even like! Now I'm *certainly* not saying that Ozma is anything like Ted ( mightly Lurline, I'm NOT! :) ), but Ozma's character, IMHO could be developed somewhat. Mind you, this DOES NOT mean changing the sweetness and goodness that already constitutes Ozma's nature, but merely bringing out certain aspects of her personality that we have not seen before, and hopefully make her more human, more real, and more dear to us (and to her new sweetheart) than ever! Richard Bauman wrote: >I would like to add my vote against Ozma having a "romance." ... >I know grade school children are now having sex, getting pregnant, >doing drugs and murdering each other. Does Ozian literature have to mirror >this trend? ... Can't there be one place where socialist realism and extreme >political correctness can be banned? Okay, you found me out! I'd better fess up! I'm really a KGB spy who is running this Digest and writing Oz books for the sole purpose of selling the ideas of pornography, drug abuse, free love, and commie pinkoism to American children. And what better way is there to do that than writing a love story for Ozma, since everyone knows that any such love story would necessarily be dirty. But I cannot comment further because the bomb the CIA planed in my computer is about to detonate. The Ozzy Digest will be back tomorrow with a new moderator who is an American citizen with a valid passport. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 18, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:31:02 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Olive branches I think we all need to step back and remember that, for the most part, the only way any of us knows anything about each other is through our writing. We are not able to use any of the usual methods humans use to judge interpersonal communications (facial expressions, tone of voice, large guns aimed at parts of our anatomy). So there is going to be plenty of opportunity for misinterpretation. For example, Tyler and his pet HACC came across to "me" in a different light than he may have intended. Personally, I've seen the HACC and though I like it, I also think it is too limited in scope. "I" would prefer a compendium of all known Oz material down to the least little scrap. But that is just me. I also think that just because a few people are actively talking about their works in progress doesn't mean that they are the only ones actually writing new material. The universe is just too big for just one planet to have life. Likewise this group is too big for just 2 or 3 people to be writing new material. I'm working on a book (how anyone can find the time is beyond me. I've got it all plotted and outlined but whoa Nelly! Actually making the time to write it all down, I just don't know.), but you don't see me talking about it :) Will it contradict some people's work? Probably. More because I'm trying to avoid reading other Oz books to avoid inadvertent idea theft and because "I" think some of the other works I've seen were misinformed about events. There is not a single Ozian informant who has complete and infallible information about every single moment in Oz history. And I say: GOODY!!!! I also think that there is more than one way to correct inconsistencies. Probably as many different ways as there are people in the world. One of the impressions I got from Tyler and His Pet Hacc in Oz was that inclusion in the HACC gave the work more legitimacy and automatically installed canonical status. My question all along was "Why?" Anyway. I am now going to toss out a few ideas that are beyond my abilities but I think would be neat to read. #1: An Oz book where all the Chapters were named after Baum's Oz books and told a completely new and wonderful story. That's a tough one. But wouldn't it be neat? #2: An Oz book told from the point of view of a single character. Okay. Everybody has their assignments. Let's get cracking. Bye! ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:38:22 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Ref the posting by Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> in the 17 Feb Digest, Subject: Musings on the Massive Mound of Oziana. Well said Richard!!! There are some very good thoughts in your posting that are worthy of careful consideration. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:04:45 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Dave said: >MORE COMMENTS ABOUT OZMA'S ROMANCE FROM "COMRADE HARDENBROOK" (A.K.A. >"DAVE THE DIRTY"): >Bill W. wrote: >>When Tyler wrote "...and people want some depth", the >>implication is that writers are putting sex into their children's stories >>because that is what the reader wants. > >Talk about a quantum leap in interpretation!!! Invoke your text editor or >mail reader's Word Search, and you'll find that NOWHERE does Tyler use the >word "sex"! :) I wasn't trying to put words in Tyler's mouth. This was my interpretation of his interpretion of what the drift of some folks character development discussion have been. > I *think* what Tyler means by "depth" is that >people what to see the natures and personae of the Oz characters grow >and develop, making them more interesting and (hopefully) more likeable; I like your interpretation much better. Who are the readers for whom they would be more interesting: children, teens 15-19, young adults, etc, etc.?? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 17:20:46 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc stuff larrys@zk3.dec.com writes: > Exactly what does it mean in people's minds > when they say the ork is a natural creature versus a magical one? To me, a magical creature is one which has capabilities beyond what can be explained by the ordinary laws of nature. For instance, the Orks wings and propeller could not provide the support and propulsion if only the laws of aerodynamics applied. But with a little magical enhancement there is no problem at all. It seems that the magic of Oz often works as an enhancer. The Gump in _Land_ was another example. Flopping palm leaves wouldn't give much lift in this world, but in Oz the Gump could lift its body of two heavy sofas, even when filled with people. If the Gump hadn't been given wings, however, it would not have been able to fly. Thus, the wings were sort of a hint to the Magic so that it would know what it was supposed to do. Another curious example is John Dough, the gingerbread man. If something acts on him, it affects him as if he were made of soft gingerbread. But his strength is seemingly unlimited when he exerts himself. At one point he is tied up, but he easily breaks the ropes when he tries. Yet a taut rope would normally slice right through gingerbread. "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > There goes the idea of having, say, Kabumpo step on the Big Zero. I believe _Kabumpo_ becomes public domain in 1998 (anyone know for sure?). So you can use Kabumpo as long as you save this juicy event until then. (A book started in 1996 might not be published until 1998 anyway.) > Looking into the future I do hold to be somewhat tricker; Looking into the future and traveling to the past have exactly the same problems. > I hold that for any present there is not one predetermined future but > many possible futures. The same could be applied to someone traveling to the past. They would find that the future they were affecting was not the one they came from. There would be no paradox if the traveler kept his parents from ever meeting each other, since in the travelers past they *did* meet and that is not the past that is being altered. Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> writes: > While I am grumping, let me say, as an outsider, that some of you really > have a case of egographia. Particularly unappealing is the practice of > cutting out hunks of others email and reproducing them with ">" marks. Well ... uh ... er ... This is a common and widely understood method of quoting text on the internet. It shows what comment is being replied to and helps others follow the conversation. The quotes shouldn't be too big, of course. I couldn't find "egographia" in my dictionary, so I'll assume it's a compliment. :-) > I finally made myself read The Royal Book of Oz and found it to be "silly." > I have yet to read an RPT Oz book as I have suspected they would suffer badly > by comparison with the master. Will someone encourage me to think otherwise? _Royal_Book_ is vintage Thompson. I find them good, but "silly" as you say. I think _Merry_go_Round_ is one of the best and least "silly" of the non-Baum books. If you want more from the Master, consider some of his non-Oz books. I like _Yew_, for instance. Cap'n Bill and Trot appear in _Sea_Fairies_ (the sea fairies being mermaids), and with Button Bright in _Sky_Island_. DavidXOE@aol.com writes: > Except that this doesn't explain why Shaggy recognizes > Tik-Tok immediately, but Polly doesn't, They had left the Stranger Lands by the time they found Tik-Tok, and Polly *did* recognize him, even if she didn't wallop him on the back as Shaggy did. Polly was looking for a path when Shaggy pulled Tik-Tok out of the well, and when she returned she asked "What have you found, Shaggy One?", but that was only because Tik-Tok was just a jumbled heap of metal at Shaggy's feet and Polly hadn't gotten a good look at him yet. After that, Betsy and the Rose Princess both expressed amazement over the sign on Tic-Tok's back, but neither Shaggy nor Polly did (as they already knew about that). Polly also instructed Betsy on what part to wind first, having remembered this from _Road_. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 00:23:17 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/17/96 Larry Smith: What difference does it make whether the Ork is natural or magical? The same difference it makes whether Shakespeare wrote HAMLET, or there really was a King Arthur, or birds are descended from dinosaurs. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, but it's scholarship, and people can get quite worked up over it. (Hopefully not to the point of losing civility, though...) Bill Wright: So far I haven't seen any sex as such in any Oz books except those - like BARNSTORMER and WICKED - that are explicitly marketed for adults, not children. I think Laumer's books - which I haven't read - are also marketed for adults. Could you give an example of sex in an Oz book aimed at children? Aaron Adelman: No, it says in CAPTAIN SALT that Ozamaland and Amaland share the continent of Tarara. (As I'm sure you'll be told by a large number of people today.) Tyler Jones: I disagree that Ozma arrived and saved the day in KABUMPO or YELLOW KNIGHT. In KABUMPO she swapped Trot for Glegg and then dealt with the latter, but never "arrived" at Sun Top Mountain; in YELLOW KNIGHT she did arrive and interfere with the Sultan's last-minute charge against Corabia, but I don't consider that "saving the day", since I have no reason to believe that the combined chivalry of Corumbia and Corabia couldn't have defeated him easily, if with more effort and probably suffering than Ozma's intervention allowed. And even if you allow them all, that's four out of 19 books, or about 20% of Thompson's output. Dick Randolph: Thanks for the kind words about my book. PURPLE PRINCE is one of the more difficult RPTs to find; it -was- published in PB by Del Rey about 8-10 years ago, so you might be able to find that version somewhere, but it's not among the ones being offered by the IWOC or BoW; those end with, I think, YELLOW KNIGHT. I've heard rumors for a couple of years that the IWOC has the rights to reprint it and that it will be their next project, but so far it hasn't turned up. Maybe Robin Olderman or Jim VanderNoot or one of the other Directors can tell us more about that. I'd like to get another copy myself; mine is trying to lose the spine binding, and it lacks the color plates. And PP is a good book; I wouldn't have the same desire if it were, say, COWARDLY LION or GRAMPA. Chris Warkala: Don't take the bickering over consistency too seriously - I don't think any of us who seem to be bickering are. It's just another form of the fun of Oz; some of us have fun in different ways. (There are people who think playing football is fun, for heaven's sake!) Richard Bauman: I personally like most of the later RPT books quite a bit, but with a couple of exceptions (LOST KING and YELLOW KNIGHT) she was pretty weak until she got to PURPLE PRINCE, and even more to OJO. OJO through SILVER PRINCESS are her best books, and to my mind as good as, if different from, any comparable number of Baum's books. WISHING HORSE is still my favorite Oz book of all. For what my opinion is worth. Oh, exactly. Many of our discussions have a great deal in common with the medieval scholastic discussions of the number of angels who could dance on the point of a pin. The scholastics enjoyed it, and so do we; those who don't are free to skip... Dave Hardenbrook can speak for himself, but I doubt that he has any intention of following Ozma and Dan into the bedroom. I understand his plan to be to add a romance, not sex, to what we see of Ozma's life. (As in, say, Jane Austen, a wedding implies sex in the near future, but there need be no description of the wedding night...) Bill Wright again: So start a topic on literary analysis; if I have anything to say about it I'll be sure to chime in. I'm not sure how that differs from addressing "the stories" and "plotlines", but you could enlighten me. John White: It's true that the Magic Belt was never used to transport the wearer in a Baum book, but Glinda told Dorothy in OZMA that if she told it to, it would take her back to Kansas, but would be lost in the process as were the silver shoes. So presumably it -can- transport the wearer, whether it's ever done that or not. That single wish a day from it doesn't really seem consistent with its use in other books. In LP Dorothy says that it can do transformations without limit, but otherwise the wearer can only have one wish a day. It must, however, also be true that it can transport people without any serious limit, because Ozma transports Dorothy, Aunt Em, and Uncle Henry to Oz in the same day on one occasion, and Dorothy, the Wizard, Zeb, and Jim on another. Also, in OZMA Dorothy uses it both to create eggs to hold back the Nome army and to open doors. (And it's a bit surprising that although she seems to use it quite effectively in OZMA, it takes her quite a while to figure out some uses for it in LP, and she doesn't seem to be able to use it actively at all in GLINDA.) One of the most puzzling questions about the Magic Belt, though, is why Ugu didn't steal it along with all the other magic treasures of Oz. Baum's explanation - that his information about magic treasures stopped before Dorothy had captured the belt from Roquat - doesn't hold water, because the Wizard's black bag of magic tools postdated the acquisition of the belt, and Ugu knew to steal them. Anybody have a theory? In D&W Ozma stated that if Eureka were found guilty, she must be put to death. This was her sentence, not the jury's; the jury was only to decide innocence or guilt. Your idea that the trial sequence in D&W was interpolated by Baum to lengthen the book (which still ended up one of the shortest, if not the shortest, of his Oz books) is intriguing. On the other hand, even without that I'm afraid that I don't find even the Baumian Ozma all that perfect. Her interference in the internal affairs of the Nome Kingdom; her insistence, over Dorothy's protests, on bringing Uncle Henry and Aunt Em to Oz in front of a lot of richly-dressed courtiers without warning; her overriding their desire to live in a cottage in the country because she wanted Dorothy near her; her treatment of Ojo when he picked the six-leaved clover - none of these are actions that I consider admirable. I don't think Thompson altered Ozma's character nearly as much as she did the Wizard's, for instance. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 23:46:33 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-17-96 Richard B.: Try again with Thompson, please. Her style is livelier and lighter than Baum's, but she can tell as good a yarn as he. Try SPEEDY or GIANT HORSE. I would not suggest COWARDLY LION; with the exception of Fiddlestick Forest and perhaps Un, the book is merely episodic and seems a poor attempt at being Carrollian. WISHING HORSE is good. So are quite a few others. I suspect that others will add their $ .02 here, so I'll stop. Ruth herself was a pixie of a gal and her books reflect her character (gee, what a surprise, eh!?!) I never met Baum, but I'll bet his books reflect his character, too. No one who's a "real" writer uses the same voice as another, but many of us love R.P.T.'s voice, too. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 02:03:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Northern Wicked Witch of Oz 1) Mike Burns, Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz names the Wicked Witch of the North as Mombi, and as there were four wicke witches, two others who were definitely destroyed, it seems extremely unlikely that Mombi was also the Wicke Witch of the South. It could be explained that she was if you involve time travel and maybe some amnesia and transformation so that she was unrecognizable to herself and others, but so far we have no evidence of anything like that. And in any case I've got my own theory of who the= Wicked Witch of the South was... And as for Smith and Tinker, in reality they migrated to Anuther Planet and started a hot dog stand. (: 2) I was wrong in saying that the title The Frogman of Oz is a double entendre. It is a triple entendre. 3) Tyler, how long are the hairs on the Woozy's tail anyway? All he told me is that they were square in cross-section. (: 4) Why is profanity here an issue? Thank G-d the people here don't seem inclined at all to use it, and I hope they never do. That would not only be inappropriate and dishonorable, but extremely unozzy as well. 5) By the way, I found out that Laumer did give a name to the capital city of Ix and it is the overly prosaic Ix City. Somehow I feel that this name should not be honored. Also: Is the Amethyst City Laumer refers to as capital of the Gillikin Country identical with Up Town? 6) I might be able to use the Big Zero after all? Hmm... Kabumpo: Shall I step on him now? 7) Tyler, the green sheep are staying. I need an obstacle for the Woozy to jump over. Also: I'm trying to write Lurline's Machine so that it can be considered an extension of 'classic' Oz, rather than a sidebranch like Laumer's Oz. 8) Mr. Randolph, March Laumer is an author who writes (frankly) the strangest Oz books around. He is probably the first person to write a not-for-kids Oz book, and at the time he started writing he apparently wasn't aware of any Oz books past those of Neill, so he ended up having some otherwise reasonable things (such as many of the juvenile characters growing up) happen at times that are in contradiction to everyone else's Oz books (such as 1947 rather than, say, indefinitely far in the future). He also is noted for reozzifying material from the Russian Oz books and for having unreasonable things happen in his books (the cannibalistic Compleat Cook, for example), which makes it no wonder that Chris Dubalone has been quoted as calling him "sick, evil, and anti-Baum", though I think to some degree that "brilliant" is also appropriate. So far as I've heard, his books are only available through him in this country. Also: He tends to come up in discussions around here because I, 'Mr. Consistency' am getting into the habit of reclassicizing (pardon the coinage) material he writes, so I end up asking things like "What degree does Laumer have Dorothy get anyway?" 9) What DOES Dorothy (according to Laumer) get her doctorate in anyway? And who is this Minute Maid character who accompanies Glinda in The Frogman of Oz? Nalrodi the Mind-Reader: Magic, and someone involved with temporal magic. 10) Chris Warkala, I AM having fun with this digest! Can't one seriously have fun? Also: Tyler, I enjoyed you putting me on trial. 11) Richard Bauman, Thompson's Oz books are of very variable quality, moreso than Baum's. I can't say that they are as good (or in some respects worse) than Baum's, but most certainly Oz becomes a stranger place under Thompson. Expect a lot more punning and weird kingdoms of the type termed in my brother's and my unfinished The Woozy of Oz nonhistoricals, that is, places (or people or objects, for that matter) whose existence cannot be explained by resorting to normal historical methods--for all one knows, they just pop into existence. (Examples of historicals under Baum: Utensia, Thi, the Flatheads.) But many of the Thompson books are still enjoyable and worth reading, especially if you're interested in the past history of Oz. Note: If you find out you don't like Thompson, don't bother with Neill, as his books are the most anti-Baum in the FF. Snow, Cosgrove, and McGraw and McGraw are OK. Also: The Four Wicked Witches are mentioned in Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz as having deposed Pastoria, then ruler of Oz. The Wicked Witch of the North, Mombi, was deposed by the Good Witch of the North, who was named by Thompson Tattypoo. Glinda is said to have deposed the Wicked Witch of the South, though who she was is not certain. Also: I am only aware of sex being directly mentioned once in the Oz books (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, of all places; just search for the word 'mate') and that is a questionable reference, though I presume that they do do it there, for otherwise there wouldn't be any children in Oz. No Oz book I know of has anyone getting pregnant out of wedlock (except Billina, though one may suppose she married an Ozite rooster) or doing drugs, and murder is virtually impossible in Oz. The only exception to these is in the March Laumer books, and his Oz books are definitely not for children anyway. So I would say that Oz has, thank G-d, remained for the most part 'innocent'. Also: HACC = Historically Accurate Chronological Chain, though come to think of it FFACC (Famous Forty-Accurate Chronological Chain) might be more technically correct. Also: The Frogman of Oz was published in 1986. I got the date 1947 because it is subtitled The Oz Book for 1947. n) John, who are the "various" claimants to the "unique point in the history of Oz--the point where Oz changes in a fundamental way so that all FF compatible books have to occur before it"? As far as I know there are two: a) March Laumer, who made the mistake of putting this point so close to the end of the FF (indeed, he was, so I've heard, unaware of anything past Neill), effectively making true consistency with him (as if he didn't have consistency problems with even the parts of the FF he accepts) impossible without deligitamizing all non-FF books. b) My brother and myself, with out in-progress semi-series Lurline's Machine, which puts the turning point indefinitely in the future so that other people can keep on writing Oz books for as long as they want. Furthermore, we are trying to be reasonably consistent with the largest reasonable possible subset of Oz books possible. The only works that I (at any rate) have rejected for consitency checking purposes are Marcus Mebes's Lurline and the White Ravens of Oz, Onyx Madden's The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz, Hugh Pendexter III's Oz and the Three Witches, and the evil document numbered 1993E in the HACC. March Laumer's books are considered to be semi-rejected, their chronology being discarded by some of their historical material and much of the names given for characters and places being accepted. So the vast majority of Oz authors should have no problem at all with my brother's and my claim to Lurline's Machine being a part (albeit an unusual one) of the main Oz series. Also: My sources claim that the Nine Tiny Piglets fabricated the story of Eureka's trial, as they wanted to make her look bad. More recently they have taken to bleaching Lambert back to his original color. n + 1) David Hulan, WHAT? You made Salye fall in love already?! Rats! I was going to have Ann and the Shaggy Man set her up with Wiggy. Oh well. I still can set precedents for a few other characters... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Saturday 17-Feb-96 22:35:46 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Locasta, Unusual words and "My Oz books are G-rated!!!" THE GOOD WITCH OF THE NORTH: Aaron wrote: >The Wicked Witch of the North, Mombi, was deposed by the Good Witch of >the North, who was named by Thompson Tattypoo. My (as yet unpublished) book, _Locasta and the Three Adepts of Oz_, reveals that the *real* Good Witch of the North is named Locasta and that Tattypoo was just a "carbon copy" that Mombi inserted after she banished Locasta (in revenge for Locasta having conquered *HER*). ODD WORDS: >I couldn't find "egographia" in my dictionary, so I'll assume it's >a compliment. :-) I couldn't either--both the Unabridged and Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary drew a blank. ( If you don't have Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary of rare and unusual words, GET IT! It's a great source for odd and often very LONG words to impress your friends with ! :) ) "...AND THE ORKS WILL SING; AND WEDDING BELLS WILL RING..." :) >Dave Hardenbrook can speak for himself, but I doubt that he has any intention >of following Ozma and Dan into the bedroom. I understand his plan to be to >add a romance, not sex, to what we see of Ozma's life. I was trying to speak for myself with that joke "I'm a KGB agent" response to his message, but just so there's no doubt in anyone's mind: I WANT TO WRITE OZ BOOKS, NOT DIME NOVELS!!! My book WILL NOT, REPEAT, ***WILL NOT*** follow Ozma and Dan into the bedroom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will be as suitable for children as Snow White!!! ( Or do some think that *THAT* is pornographic...? All those cohabitating dwarfs...*VERY* suspicious! :) :) ) -- Dave "Very fond of hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian (very, very long) words" Hardenbrook :) :) :) ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 19, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 10:57:33 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Stuff Actually Dave, I would stick to the Disney interpretations of Snow White and the like when aiming for non-offensiveness in your own work: The wicked queen was invited to Snow White's wedding and was forced into a pair of iron shoes that had been heated red-hot in a fire and made to dance until she died. And there is some question on how all these Sleeping enchanted princesses were awoken. One version of Sleeping Beauty has her awoken by the infant the charming prince had impregnated her with when it began to nurse. Also the Little Mermaid opted for suicide over murder. I can't wait to see how Disney handles The Hunchback of Notre Dame! Anyway, Aaron, just because Mombi is named as the northern witch doesn't mean she could not possibly have been trying to expand her influence in the South under another name and in another form. It might have been this splitting of her resources that allowed her to be so roundly defeated in both areas. And we have already seen in other writers' works that there have been more witches in Oz than you can shake a pail of water at. And as I pointed out before, there is no single, completely infallible source of information on Oz history. The Great Book is way too cryptic and even though Glinda says it has taught her a great deal, she also runs quite frequently into situations and people she knows nothing about. Back to Dave: Any character development for Ozma would be welcome. She is portrayed far too frequently as a well-meaning simpleton. How many times does someone have to turn you into new and exciting forms and try to overthrow your government before you accept the fact that there are some not so nice people in the world who couldn't care less that you are a sweet, loving fairy-type person that nobody could ever be mean to? I wish you well. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 13:57:49 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/18/96 Mike Burns: If EUREKA IN OZ is published, you'll see your second idea accomplished; it's done completely from Eureka's POV. John White: KABUMPO should become public domain in 1998, although one would have to be careful still, as the references to the character Kabumpo would still need to be limited to things that happened in that book. But wasn't the Big Zero from PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH? It won't go into PD for a good many years yet. (I'll admit to not having read TPT but once, and that about 25 years ago, so my memory of it isn't that clear.) I doubt you'll find "egographia" in any dictionary, since I suspect Bear made that one up. It mixes Latin and Greek roots (like "television"), and presumably means "writing about oneself", or possibly "self-centered writing". I don't think he intended it as a compliment, though... I agree that MERRY-GO-ROUND is one of the best of the non-Baum Oz books - in fact, it's probably the best-crafted book of the entire FF. On the other hand, it doesn't on the whole seem to feel very "Ozzy" to me. Roundabout, Sign Here, and the Land of the Good Children are Ozzy enough, but Troth and Halidom, the Oracle, View Halloo, Howzatagin, and the Easter Bunny could all be from any children's fantasy. The Oracle, in particular, doesn't seem to fit the Oz universe all that well. All this, of course, IMO. Aaron Adelman: Don't you mean "nonhistoricals" in Baum when you refer to Utensia, Thi, and the Flatheads? (I'd add the Dainty China Country, Bunbury, Fuddlecumjig, and Loonville to the list of Baumian nonhistoricals. Maybe the Hammerheads. But Thompson could come up with that many in a single book.) You should add L. Sprague de Camp to your list of those who changed Oz in a fundamental way while accepting the FF; see "Sir Harold and the Nome King". It's generally considered heretical, but only because of that change. I can't say that I "made Salye fall in love" - but I had her develop an affection for another character that could easily blossom into love over time. On the other hand, it could dissipate as well. (Read my book and see what you think...although you'd probably have to buy a copy, since I doubt it's available on ILL yet. Only $11.95 in PB at Books of Wonder, and since your E-mail address seems to indicate you're located in NYC, you wouldn't have to worry about S&H.) David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 11:30:31 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: David Hulan asked: >So far I haven't seen any sex as such in any Oz books except those - like >BARNSTORMER and WICKED - that are explicitly marketed for adults, not >children. I think Laumer's books - which I haven't read - are also marketed >for adults. Could you give an example of sex in an Oz book aimed at children? No I cannot, thankfully. I have the impression from some posts that they are out there, and perhaps some currently in the writing process would also deal with this subject matter. I realize that "different strokes for different folks" is the reality of the world, but I guess I'd rather see Oz stories continue to be a delightful land of imagination for children in the original spirit of Baum. For the average Jane and Dick Consumer, when they see a book with an Oz title they can be expected to connect it mentally with the original story, and expect it to be a children's book. Unless the cover is clearly labeled as containing "adult themes", how are they to know that it might not be appropriate to buy for their children. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 11:52:20 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Dave Hulan said: >Bill Wright again: >So start a topic on literary analysis; if I have anything to say about it >I'll be sure to chime in. I'm not sure how that differs from addressing "the >stories" and "plotlines", but you could enlighten me. Well, for example: 1. Baum's original books were best sellers. Did the rest just ride these coat tails? What was it about the first books he wrote that struck such a chord in the reading public, and what was missing from the later books, or did the interests of the reading public change? 2. What is the enduring cultural impact on our society of the Oz stories? Or has this been only superficial? 3. How has Baum influenced works written for children this century? 4. Would the Oz phenonoma in our culture be as omnipresent today if the 1939 movie had not been made/been successful? Does this help?? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 15:04:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Mark K. DeJohn" <103330.323@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-18-96 Dave, These are some comments for the Digest. Richard Bauman, I also encourage you to read RPT's OZ books. The Royal Book is one of my least favorite of her writings but she has some that I like alot better than LFB. I particularly liked Kabumpo and Purple Prince and I think the Red Jinn is a really great character. Dave Hulan, My theory as to why Ugu didn't take the magic belt is that Dorothy had it in her possession at the time. Perhaps Ugu Knew of the belt but assumed he had all of Ozma's magic because that was all that was in her suite. Since she surprised him by appearing he didn't have time to realize that the belt was missing. The magic belt belonged to Dorothy since she was the one who took it from the Gnome King. Since she couldn't use it in Kansas She left it with Ozma for safe keeping. Who knows why she might have had it with her that night. I always thought she didn't use it very wisely. I guess that goes back to the stupid use of magic comment. I enjoyed the Glass Cat and am looking forward to your future books. At first I didn't like the Idea of a love interest for Ozma but If Dan is truly a great guy then I won't mind. I would not like anyone to kill him off later that seems too sad to be Ozzy. General Digest, I am sending away for the Buckethead listings. Could someone recommend the best of the available books to me as I can't afford all at once? Barbara DeJohn 103330.323@compuserve.com ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:42:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Another HACC problem I just finished rereading The Giant Horse of Oz and it seems to be in contradiction with the HACC. The Giant Horse of Oz puts the transformation of Orin into Tattypoo as 25 years before the story. As the HACC puts The Giant Horse of Oz in 1928, this would put the transformation in 1903, four years after Tattypoo met Dorothy soon after Gingemma's destruction. Please correct me Dave if that was actually Locasta. Also: Tyler, nu, nu? What about moving How the Wizard Came to Oz as well? Comments about of/in errors, dropping apostrophes, and adding in Oz-interelated books are still valid. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 23:37:09 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: Ozma and other fine things DavidXOE@aol.com writes: > but Glinda told Dorothy in OZMA that if she told it to, it would take her > back to Kansas, but would be lost in the process as were the silver shoes. I was thinking that in Baum's Oz this might apply to transport of the wearer within Oz. That would explain why it was never used for that, even when Dorothy became tired of walking in _Glinda_. > It must, however, also be true that it can transport people without > any serious limit, But the examples you give involve transport between our world and Oz. Perhaps that is easier for some reason. I can't recall the belt being used to transport anyone within Oz, even though there were several places where that would have been very useful and the belt was at hand. Note that in _Tik-Tok_ Ozma called on the Wizard to bring Shaggy and friends to Oz, so for some reason his smoky powders and incantations must have been a better choice than the belt. In _Road_ some of the guests from other fairylands presumably get to Oz with the help of the belt, but we don't see this and the guests arrive in a manner different from the way the belt beams people in from our world. This may have involved elaborate preparation and Glinda's assistance. The most impressive use of the belt was in _E_City_, where thousands of invaders were wished home, and the tunnel was filled in. But this may have been Baum doing a quick cleanup. If the belt could really do this, why didn't Ozma just fill in the tunnel before they started? (In later non-Baum books the tunnel is still there.) > Dorothy uses it both to create eggs to hold back the Nome army and > to open doors. Well, the text of _Ozma_ says that she turned the foremost nomes into eggs. Personally I don't like the idea of Dorothy committing such an atrocity, so I prefer to believe that she created the eggs. Opening doors is relatively easy, and doesn't indicate any great power on the part of the belt. > and she doesn't seem to be able to use it actively at all in GLINDA.) It's interesting to speculate on why. It couldn't be that she forgot how to use it, as Ozma was with her. It may be that the same interfering magic that prevented Glinda from finding out much about the Skeezers also prevented the belt from doing much. Or perhaps the belt has some sort of "mana" that is replenished very very slowly, and the events in _E_City_ depleted it. I don't recall it doing much between then and _Lost_Princess_. That may have drained it back down as that seems to have been its last major use in Baum's books. (Perhaps Dorothy could use it so easily in _Ozma_ because it had a high mana level then.) > One of the most puzzling questions about the Magic Belt, though, is why > Ugu didn't steal it along with all the other magic treasures of Oz. He didn't know about it. He learned about Glinda, Ozma, and the Wizard, but his magic didn't tell him about all magical artifacts so he missed Dorothy's belt and the Pink Bear. > Baum's explanation - that his information about magic treasures stopped > before Dorothy had captured the belt from Roquat - doesn't hold water, Actually, Baum said Ugu's "books had told him nothing of the Nome King's Magic Belt, the country of the Nomes being outside the Land of Oz". (The books did tell about Ozma, Glinda, and the Wizard, even though the books must have predated Ozma's reign. Perhaps one of them was a toy version of the Great Book of Records.) > [Ozma's] interference in the internal affairs of the Nome Kingdom; She wasn't very diplomatic, (or very smart,) but she meant well. > her insistence, over Dorothy's protests, on bringing Uncle Henry and Aunt Em > to Oz in front of a lot of richly-dressed courtiers without warning; That *was* rather inconsiderate. Suppose they had been attending to certain ... er ... business. Now *that* would have been embarrassing. 8-O > her overriding their desire to live in a cottage in the country because > she wanted Dorothy near her; I believe the cottage was Dorothy's suggestion (which Ozma did overrule). > her treatment of Ojo when he picked the six-leaved clover I have a pet theory that there was some sort of exciting story in the unusually big gap between _E_City_ and _Patchwork_. This story involved a wicked magic worker causing a lot of trouble. This prodded Ozma to crack down on illegal magic working. Perhaps detecting magic working was not so easy, but Glinda and the Wizard came up with a way of detecting the harvesting of some key ingredients, so Ozma passed a law against such harvesting and resolved to rigorously enforce it. Then Ojo came along and picked a six-leaf clover at absolutely the worst possible time. > I don't think Thompson altered Ozma's character nearly as much > as she did the Wizard's, for instance. Maybe not, but the change in Ozma bothered me more. "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > n) John, who are the "various" claimants to the "unique point in the > history of Oz ... There are the two you mention, plus all the other ones that grab Oz and run in their own direction, such as _Barnstormer_. There are also those that will be written in the future. The major claimant, though, is the widely held belief by people like me that Oz continues forever without any really fundamental changes. I get the impression that you plan on including or eliminating nearly all characters from nearly all Oz books. What about the thousands of characters from all the Oz books that will be written after you write yours? Your book supposedly takes place after all of these, yet none of the characters from them will be mentioned in your book. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:26:36 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-18-96 Hi! Anyone read Neill's A RUNAWAY IN OZ, which Books of Wonder published for the first time not long ago? Is it up to the quality (or perhaps better than) Neill's other Oz books, and was some of it rewritten for the new printing? Is it considered an honorary member of the FF, given that it was intended to be such and would have been, had Neill been able to draw it? I only saw it briefly in a bookstore, and seem to recall it being a new adventure for Scraps, one of my favorite characters. David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> ============================================================================= Date: Monday 19-Feb-96 02:22:17 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Various Michael F Burns wrote: >Actually Dave, I would stick to the Disney interpretations of Snow White >and the like when aiming for non-offensiveness in your own work ... Actually, it *WAS* Disney's Snow White I was referring too...( I keep forgetting that there was another version written by a couple of blokes named Grimm :) :) ) >I wish you well. Thank you. :) David Hulan wrote: >But wasn't the Big Zero from PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH? Having read _Phantom_ at least 20 times :) , I'm 99% certain that there is no character in it by that name. There is the Mathemagician and the Dodecahedron, but no "Big Zero". >I agree that MERRY-GO-ROUND is one of the best of the non-Baum Oz books ... I'll add my agreement to that. In eighth grade ( during the period when I was carrying an Oz book around with me almost constantly, an idiosyncracy I have relapsed into in the last year or so :) ), I completely stymied my familiar-only-with-the-MGM-movie English teacher by doing a book report on _Merry-Go-Round_. Aaron wrote: >As the HACC puts The Giant Horse of Oz in 1928, this would put the >transformation in 1903, four years after Tattypoo met Dorothy soon after >Gingemma's destruction. Please correct me Dave if that was actually Locasta. It was indeed Locasta whom Dorothy meets after Gingemma gets "a house on the head", so this apparent contradiction is resolved. The chain of events is: 1) Dorothy meets Locasta; 2) Dorothy liquidates Bastinda and returns home; 3) Mombi discovers that Locasta was an "accessory" to Dorothy's destruction of her cousins and so reaks revenge on Locasta by exiling her to Australia; 4) Mombi transforms Orin into a "carbon copy" of Locasta (named "Tattypoo") so that no one will notice her abscence. -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 20, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:16:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Various 1) When do all the FF books become public domain? David Hulan mentioned Kabumpo in Oz becoming public domain in 1998, but does that apply to the rest of the Thompsons? Someone also mentioned at some point the Neill books becoming public domain in 2015. 2) David Hulan, I thought I did refer to Utensia, Thi, and the Flatheads as nonhistoricals. Also: The Glass Cat of Oz is definitely not ILLable. When I tried ILLing it, they weren't even aware the book existed. 3) John, probably the vast majority of Oz characters will not appear in Lurline's Machine, though with a planned series of five or six books, which take place in various sundry places over Oz's world, possibly other places in Oz's universe, and probably the Outside World as well, it's difficult not to bring in a lot of them. As for eliminating characters, I don't know where you got THAT idea (not that I confirm or deny it). Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:27:37 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest David Hulan: Thanks for the info on Purple Prince. I have several Del Rey books, but not that one, unfortunately. I surmised it was a difficult find, as I spoke to several folks at the last two Munchkin conventions, and they were having the same problem. Maybe the Club will come to the rescue. I'll keep searching. David Gerstein: Yes, I have Neill's RUNAWAY IN OZ, and have read it. Personally, I liked it better than his other books. Eric Shanower edited as well as illustrated it, but I don't I think he did any rewriting. I think Eric is a fine illustrator, and I greatly admire his work. I consider Neill the premier Oz illustrator, but I feel his books are not as well written as some other authors, such as Rachel Payes, the McGraws and David Hulan. Aaron ("Mr. Consistency") Adelman: I appreciate your comments re: March Laumer. However, I find it difficult to understand why you seem to put so much faith in him as an Oz historian when you say he "writes the strangest Oz books around", writes "not-for-kids Oz books", and writes things "that are in contradiction to everyone else's Oz books". Will "The Woozy in Oz" fall into this same category? Dick Randolph (DIXNAM@aol.com) ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:32:02 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest When sending e-mail, emotions are not conveyed, so messages appear to be harsher than they actually are. Do smiley faces helpm? :):):):) On appeal, Dave, Aaron and Eric have been found NOT GUILTY of of violating Ozian consistency. Also Newt Gingrich has cut off funding for the office of Lord High Inquisitor of Ozian Accuracy. Dave has already said this, but I will weigh in anyway. I doubt that he intends to give us the sexual details of Ozma and Dan. I believe he will concentrate on the romantic feelings of love and the joy of having someone to share your life with. Dave hit the mark on my meaning of the word "depth". It's character development, not Ozma and Dan... (ahem). Bill brought a good point about childrens books. In most cases, adults (parents, etc.) buy books for their children. In other words, the people who are spending money are NOT the end user, so marketing efforts for childrens books are mostly targeted toward adults. Therefore, what adults approve of for reading material may not be what the children want. Even Laumer does not mention sex directly. The closest I can recall is when Lurline and King Gil of GIlkenny were... (ahem) "That night, they were not parted". The result of this union was Queen Orin, the later and "fake" Good Witch of the North, Tattypoo. I don't know if what we're doing is bickering or not. I consider it to be scholarly debate, although it can get a little heated at times. For my part, the problem was that I did a very bad job communicating my beliefs and the purpose of the HACC. If I gave the impression that I sat on high and demanded that every author agree with every other author even at the expense of story creativity, I appologize. Richard Baumans definition of the HACC is fairly close. It means historically Accurate Chronological Chain. It is a list of all Oz books that are textually accurate to the FF and, to a lesser degree, each other. It can be found on my Web Page. David Hulan: Believe it or not, this has been EXACTLY my position all along. I believe that authors should work to avoid contradictions as long as the required changes are minor and do not affect the story. Once the line is crossed, that is, a change would violate someones basic storyline or something else that the author really wants to have in there, then consistency checking should cease and the authors should write their stories their way. Consistecy checking should NEVER interfere with an authors freedom to write his story. However, if the effort does not interfere with this, then doing so will make the Oz series stronger and more real. All stories go into the HACC, assuming they are accurate to the FF, and then I, Chris or somebody else can explain away the difference with our many tools. If authors do not make an effort to be accurate to each other, it's no big deal, and I will not pass judgement on them, espcially since I do not have the authority to do so. I, too, believe that Oz itself remains fundamentally the same, although minor changes can occur, such as Ozma getting a boyfriend. This will give us a better look into her character, but Oz itself will go on as it has gone on before. I am convinced that people can avoid major contradictions with each other and still write the story THEY want the way they want, and also leave the series open-ended to avoid contradictions with future writers. Note that the other half of the HACC does not really believe this. Chris prefers that people write in the style of Baum, but I do not agree with this since each person is different and should be able to tell their story in their own unique way. When first building the HACC, Chris and I decided that only actual stories would be included on the list. Eric Shanowers stuff, as "graphic novels", passed the litmus-test. Oz Squad, Oz-Wonderland War, etc. are not on there, mostly because they contradict the FF. We decided not to include OZIANA stuff, even though most of it is accurate to the FF. Other types of books, such as non-fiction writings are not there because they are not stories. We wanted the HACC to represent the ongoing history of the Land of Oz, and "documentary books", as we call them, do not fit in this vein. Michael Burns: A compendium of *ALL* known Oz material would be awesome beyond belief! The HACC is my small contribution to this. Nates BUGLE project is another. Obviously, this would be too big for one person to do alone, so if there are any volunteers, stand up! Inclusion in the HACC does not give a book any official status. It only means that it is accurate to the FF and is also either accurate to other books that were already in the HACC or that someone has been able to explain away any differences. I believe that Kabumpo, since he was a major character in SILVER PRINCESS, is already in the public domain. The last I heard, books are copyrighted until 50 years after the authors death. In the case of Thompson, this is 2026. It has already been said that the nations Ozamaland and Amaland make up the "long continent of Tarara", although there may be other lands that we do not know about. Aaron, there IS a Laumerian example of body parts wearing out! The Tin Woodmans body is rusting and/or crubmling. It is decided to repalce one part at a time. Each new part (arm, leg, etc.) is given one week for the Tin Woodmans "soul" to infuse the part and then another is added. Eventually, he is completely new and the "old" Tin Woodman, whose parts lost consciousness when separated from the main body, are in a museum. This brings up a host of other questions, such as how much can be removed at one time and how long does it take to "absorb" a new part. Laumer said that the absorption is instantaneous, as is the "loss" when a part is removed. If a method is devised where we can see the future, we may be seeing the "most probable" future, or expected value, for you statisticians. This can be changed. For example, Aaron invents a machine to look into the future and sees that at 3pm, we will be hit by a bus on 7th Avenue and be killed. Aaron, in a fit of rationality, completely avoids 7th Avenue and changes the future. He is still alive, praise G-d. Laumer has already been mentioned. His books are available through him directly. I (or someone else) can give you his address. Overall, I like Thompson better than Baum. Her books are faster-paced, and there is more action and humor in them, although the puns get a little silly at times. Her only weakness is her overuse of the strange little kingdoms. She does indeed make the Wizard out to be a little jealous of others. When I say that Ozma arrives and saves the day, she does not have to appear on the scene physically. She also did this in OJO and tried to do it in PURPLE PRINCE, although the Wizard was beaten to the punch; same for SPEEDY. Some new topics can be: analysis of the various films, club activities and other Ozzy events around the world. John White: Beautiful man! You said it all! Also, thanks for the update on WISHING HORSE, although I doubt that Mattiah went to all that effort just to save the Land of Oz! (Of course, you never can tell...) The Managboo buldings and the Tin Hollyhock may be of a different magical nature and thus can "grow" even though they are not organic. I believe Button-Bright was described as very early 30s when he returned, which would still contradict the latter part of the FF. Another example of magical creatures doing extra stuff is the Scarecrow helping to carry Dorothy (who outweighed him by a great deal) out of the Poppy Field. Laumer speculates that the Tin Woodman did most of the carrying. Of course, Laumer also had the Scarecrow get a plastic skeleton to make it easier to walk and stand up. John White: Brilliant observation of Polychrome getting her memory back by instructing Betsy how to wind up Tik-Tok! David Hulan: In the greater sense, it makes no difference whether the Ork is magical or natural. It's fun to speculate, though. Also, Ugu knew about the Wizards bag because the Wizard himself has been around long enough to get into the ancient history books. Even though he did not have a black bag back then, Ugu simply assumed that the Wizard had a "stash" of magic somewhere. It is VERY doubtful that Mombi was also the Wicked Witch of the South. Of course, there are dozens of witches all over, many of whom may have claimed to be "THE Wicked Witch of the Compass Point". However, Ozma clearly stated in DOTWIZ that Mombi was the WW of the North and that Glinda defeated the WW of the South. Perhaps Joe King renamed Up Town to more accurately reflect its new status as the Gilikin capital. I have some input for one of Bills "NEW" topics. Just before the MGM movie was to be released, Thompson (the current historian) received a ton of mail from angry children because the movie was not a truly accurate reflection of the first book. Maybe if the movie had never come out, the books would have been more well-known than they are today. One thing I always suggest in the annual survey question "what would you do to chagne things" is to use the MGM movie to reel people in, since most know of the movie, and then "graduate" them to the books. It is my feeling that many of the people who love the movie but are not aware of the books will love the books even more. DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN! Dave, I did the same thing to my MGM-movie-is-all second grade teacher with a book report on PATCHWORK GIRL. :):):):):):):) Barbara DeJohn: When Chris sends you the catalog, post the available titles and I will give you my non-so-humble opinions on them. There are some real bombs in there that you will want to avoid. Aaron: Dave has alrady explained the events relating to GIANT HORSE. I'll go through the list someday and correct all grammer. As for Oz-interrelated books, that's probably a good idea, especially since many character from there arrive in Oz eventually. I like the idea of the belt being "low on mana". We can theorize that by the time of the Thompson books, the Wizard was able to recharge the thing at a faster rate than normal. I like the exciting story between E.C. and PATCHWORK. Hopefully, someone will write it someday. Neills RUNAWAY is very good, and some people suspect that it has been edited. It is not an honorary member of the FF, though. Those forty books are the original series and there they sit. Some people like to consider the 5 books published by the club as honorary members of the original series, but IMHO, the FF is the FF is the FF! :) --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 19:39:12 -0500 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-13-96 Here are my random comments after reading digests till my eyes have blurred (and I have the most recent weeks still to go): Writers: consider entering manuscripts in the Centennial Manuscript Contest sponsored by the Oz Club. The winner gets $5,000 out of the deal - we'd have opted for royalties, but as erratic as our funding/publishing can be, this was the surest bet to reward the author. For details (rules that state things like minimum length, entry dates and conformity to Baum's Oz -- if you know Oz that's a piece of cake, but anyone can enter and we want to spare everyone Wicked-/ Tedlow-type manuscripts) write to Oz Book Contest, PO Box 2359, New York, NY 10108. Or check out the Club's Website. Best of Ozianas would be terrific! If footing the bills for a publication makes it impossible for the Club, how about parking it on a website somewhere? Any of you willing too maintain it if the Club site-in-development can't, for some reason, provide the space? If someone with a character-recognition scanner really will help Robin, I can help provide Ozianas. The centennial committee has a full set that Jim Nitch contributed when he gave us the late Fred Otto's Baum Bugles (earning my eternal gratitude). An ideal scanning system for them would be like Adobe Acrobat Capture that allows the artwork and layout to remain unchanged. Jerry Tobias recommended it for a similar project so thank him - I'm not the one who's up on scanners. Oz party!! Add to your schedules that the South Winkie Convention will meet Oct. 19, 1996 in Dana Point, CA. For more information, contact Robyn Knutson (714)494-2749. She and Louis Rhodes are working on the program, so let them know if you have any suggestions or projects they could include. You can write Louis them at P.O. Box 9447, South Laguna, CA 92677 Oz will happen in Kansas. $400 million is not just built in a day. I promise to fill you in here the instant information is available to the public. Sorry to hide behind confidentiality agreements, but with the set backs they've had as a direct result of controversy fueled by previous publicity, I have no choice. I'll save some dirt from the first ground-breaking shovel that we can all get together and feed to skeptics. As for the park itself, rather than follow the geography we know and love which left no space for Kansas, they incorporated a Kansas area, Munchkinland, Yellow Brick Road Country, Northern Kingdom and Western Wicked Witch area into their layout all circling a fantastic Emerald City. It is designed to operate (at least partially) year round and so they have areas tied to seasons - Kansas/ Munchkinland/summer, YBC/spring, Northern Kingdom/winter, and WWW/fall. There also is lots of generational targeting, but it's too complex to really get into. Suffice it to say that the more thrilling rides with adolescent appeal are to the West. By the way those of you already determined to never visit the Northern Kingdom as a sign of protest, the Glinda-snow thing started with the 1902 stage production, so before blaming MGM too heavily for combining witches into one northern pink bubble woman, keep in mind that Baum himself approved heavy-duty tampering with his text (he also agreed to allow Toto to become Imogene the Cow, and calmly eliminated the Wicked Witch of the West . . . ). Though the Wizard - and MGM's "look" at that - is dominant, they didn't blow off the rest of Baum. Specific attractions do incorporate later characters and events. The CEO and the creative team read all the Baum Oz books. They brought John Fricke in as a consultant. I worked with Tod Machin to provide them with 28 illustrated pages of specific Ozzy suggestions. Tod, me and John Fricke are among those they've approached for help when final design details need to come together. Like it or not Baum lovers (like me), the MGM film will attract millions to the park. We struggle to keep a couple thousand interested in our little $20 Club! To make something like this a profitalble business and not a non-profit labor of love, they have to appeal to the general public. That means MGM. They also are committed to a comprehensive Oz museum that will give "us" our heart's desire as far as communicating the whole story with the public. It probably will be able to do more in one year than our Club has in 40. Scholastic printed an expensive little paperback, The Kitchen Wizard Cookbook, in 1977. Author, Deborah Jarvis. Several kids' books are represented including Brunch with the Munchkins recipes. The writing is a bit Ozzy (The magic hat and silver shoes are mentioned) though artist Arthur Robins' Munchkins look more like Keebler elves. Herm Beiber gets the dealer vote from everyone who knows him. And Prince and the Pauper IS a terrific stop in San Diego, though looking is the limit unless your checkbook is without limits. Nate, Someone asked about completing the Best of the Baum Bugles. Can you fill them in on what you're doing? John White, Are you Jared and Shayne's Dad? If so, you've got great kids!!! The Oz Gazette in which they are featured is in the mail now. I tracked down Clarkson Potter and wrote them begging for The Annotated Wizard of Oz to be reprinted for the centennial. They responded (unlike other Oz reference book publishers I wrote with similar requests who simply ignored me) to say that the rights have reverted to Michael Hearn. If any of you have any influence with MPH, he is our only hope to get that volume back in print. I know from past experience that letters to him from me get nowhere. This woman has Oz books for sale but didn't give me any prices. Most are valuable copies and she knows it; she apparently found Bib. Oz at the local library to help her out. She's not a Club member; got them from a couple of older friends who've scaled back their lives a bit. Titles are: Royal Book, Kabumpo, Cowardly Lion, Lost King, Hungry Tiger, Gnome King, Giant Horse, Jack Pumpkinhead, Speedy, Wishing Horse, Captain Salt, Handy Mandy and Silver Princess. Also Rand McNally reprints of Wizard and Tin Woodman. She's Carol Hoffman, 700 Fetlock Drive, Fenton, MO 63026. Home (314)343-2111, Work (314)579-9789, Fax (314)579-0133 TOC: how about just breaking out a Digest of comments specific to book-writing and questions about obscure characters/history/etc., and another "Digest" about everything else? That way, people who haven't read an Oz book in years and don't intend to start, won't have to wade through so much to find what interests them. If your single objective with the Digest is to connect people specifically interested in ancient Oz history and pastiche writing, spell it out and let those of us who don't benefit from and can't contribute to those discussions bow out gracefully without worrying that we're going to miss something. Anybody got an idea who can take over temporarily till Fred's on his feet the Oz Clubs Oz story circle? Or manage getting the submitted stories displayed at the Club conventions? Fred is worried about both. The circle can be quite a bit of work. I think he usually gets hand-written manuscripts that he pays someone to have typed. Then a stack of copies need to go out to the 30 or so people on the list. Surely, that's more than enough for my first contribution to the Digest. I'll do my best to say less in the future. Jane Albright ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 21:41:47 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-19-96 Bill Wright: I'll be happy to add my $0.02 worth on the topics you mention, though in some cases I don't have enough information to do more than echo your question. 1) I haven't seen the sales figures for Baum's various books, so I don't know how much they dropped off after the first few. My guess is that after LAND he was writing Oz books more for the money than because those were the stories he wanted to tell, so that after using up most of his good ideas in the first one (OZMA) he finished up that contract by writing three of his four worst books and then trying to kill Oz off. I'd be surprised if his sales didn't go steadily down over that period. When he returned to Oz, after the Trot books didn't sell even as well as his last few Oz books, he recognized that he really should make the effort if he wanted to continue making a living from writing, and the quality picked up for the most part, though TIK-TOK was a recycled play, RINKITINK was a recycled non-Oz book (though a very good one), and TIN WOODMAN was pretty mediocre. I think his quality level was erratic enough that a lot of people wanted to wait until somebody else read a book before they bought it. But I could be completely wrong; sales figures may show that early sales of his books had nothing to do with what I perceive as their quality level, or the quality level of the immediately preceding book or two. 2) I'm afraid that I don't think there has been any significant impact on our culture by the Oz books, with the exception of WIZARD, and that was mostly through the 1939 movie. (As is evidenced by that fact that virtually all of the Oz-related quotations you hear - and I hear a lot of them - are from the movie and aren't to be found in the book.) 3) It's hard to say how much Baum influenced children's literature this century. He was one of the first, if not the first, American writers of children's fantasy, but I can't think of many if any later writers (outside of those continuing the Oz story) whose work resembles his very much. Aside from a segment in Edward Eager's SEVEN DAY MAGIC, I can't remember any direct references to Oz in other children's books (though they're all over adult fantasy and SF). And Eager's books in general owe far more to Nesbit than to Baum. As, I think, do most children's fantasy books of this century, if they're not more directly rooted in classic fairy tales. 4) If there had never been the 1939 movie, there would still be a small but devoted coterie of Oz fans, but there might never have been an IWOC and almost certainly there would have been virtually no awareness of Oz in popular culture as a whole. Although the movie is about as heretical in its own way as WICKED, it's still the engine that keeps Oz in the public mind. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the best movies ever made, and it's not really Oz at all. Barbara de John: You could be right that Dorothy had the Magic Belt with her the night Ozma was kidnapped. I tend to think of the belt as residing in Ozma's safe, but I think that was Thompson's usual place for it; if Baum ever said so, I don't recall it. Glad you liked my book; the next one probably won't appear for another couple of years, though, if that, since I haven't finished writing it and the turnaround at BoW - if they even decide to publish it - isn't exactly quick. (Much will depend on whether Marcia takes the job in Chicago and I retire - which is still up in the air. If I retire then I'm going to have a bash at the IWOC centennial contest. If I don't then I go back to EUREKA and finish it, probably by the summer.) I've only read three Buckethead books, and don't know how the others stack up. Of the three I've read, CORY IN OZ was pretty good, TOTO IN OZ was unreadable, and INVISIBLE INZI IN OZ was well-illustrated by Eric Shanower but written by children and read like it. Fortunately, however, it was short. I don't know which of these are still in print. John Wright: Your theories about the Magic Belt could be right, and certainly I cannot go so far as to say that you are wrong, but, still, at the same time... If the Magic Belt has the power to transport people from the outside world to Oz, and vice versa, but not within Oz, then I would certainly have expected the point to be made somewhere along the line. I suppose the dust that Ozma filled the tunnel with could have come from outside Oz as well. (Off the tops of my books would be a good start...) But that's a peculiar limitation on its power, and seems unlikely; usually magic acting within a magical country is easier than magic acting across the boundary with the nonmagical world. By the time the Wizard was in Oz and working real magic, the Magic Belt was in Oz as well, so I still consider it hard to explain why Ugu's books spoke of the one and not the other; the Magic Belt was one of the most powerful magical treasures in Oz. (As exemplified by the ease with which Dorothy used it to defeat Ugu, who had just about all the other magic in Oz at his command.) The Little Pink Bear, on the other hand, while a very nice piece of magic, would probably seem of little significance to Ugu even if his books mentioned it. He didn't get the piece of board with "pyrzqxgl" on it from Bini Aru's house, either. Or any of Mrs. Yoop's magic tools, or Coo-ee-oh's machines and supply of Gaulau. Dorothy suggested the cottage for Uncle Henry and Aunt Em, but it's clear a bit later that they were uncomfortable in the palace and would have preferred it, whether they said so explicitly or not. Dorothy, after all, knew them very well. Perhaps the story behind the prohibition on picking six-leaved clovers was the original appearance of Trickolas Om - if one could get permission from the Neill estate to use him. I don't think books like BARNSTORMER really qualify as examples of picking the "unique point in the history of Oz ..."; that book, for instance, essentially dismisses the truth of -all- the Oz books, even WIZARD, though it accepts a few bits from that one book. I think you have to accept at least one book, if not the entire FF, before you can define a turning point; otherwise you're just using the general idea of Oz but ignoring all that has gone before. David Gerstein: I've read RUNAWAY, and it's not half bad. I don't know how much editing Shanower did; certainly its prose is a couple of notches above anything Neill ever achieved by himself, so I imagine he had a pretty heavy hand on that. Whether he did much with the plot, or whether he used Neill's largely intact, I couldn't tell you, though I'd like to know. Among the Oz books I'd put it far above Neill's first two books, and above ROAD, COWARDLY LION, OZOPLANING, and HIDDEN VALLEY of the rest of the FF. It's better written than LUCKY BUCKY, but I like the latter's story line better, not to mention its characters. Dave Hardenbrook: As I said, I'm not that familiar with TOLLBOOTH; the context in which Aaron (I think it was) first mentioned having Kabumpo step on the Big Zero made me think the latter was from TPT. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Monday 19-Feb-96 23:09:50 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Various SHANOWER'S GRAPHIC NOVELS: I finally got the five Eric Shanower "graphic novels" that I ordered, and I finished reading the last one last night. Everyone, if you don't have them, GET THEM (they're available from Books of Wonder and the Oz Club)! THEY ARE SUPERB!!!" If I may respecfully differ with Dick Randolph, I think Shanower is the greatest Ozian illustrator of all time! I love those pictures of Ozma and Glinda's palaces ( not to mention the pictures of Ozma and Glinda! :) ), and his work is all very detailed, expressive and action filled! "THE TIN WOODMAN TALKS TO HIMSELF"(???) Tyler wrote: >Each new part (arm, leg, etc======= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 21, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:39:16 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Digest stuff Actually, my question about whether or not Mombi being the Southern witch as well as the Northern witch would contradict the HACC was intended as a rhetorical question. Which button do you push on the keyboard to indicate that? My point was that whether it did or not should have no effect on how much or how little a story can be enjoyed if you run across something that contradicts a story that came before. It certainly isn't impossible for Mombi to have been both. People have no problem saying that Dr. Pipt and Dr. Nikidik were the same person even though there is no definite statement one way or the other in the FF. They could just as easily have been two separate people who developed sufficiently similar magics, or bitter rivals who "appropriated" each other's work. Buy the one you like. Don't buy the one you don't like. Aaron and others have said that in such and such a book it clearly states that Mombi was this person and therefore could not possibly be this other person. Fine. But someone else, (me for example ;) ) could just as easily say that there is no specific timeline given for the defeat of the Northern and Southern witches, therefore it is possible that Mombi could have been both and it might have been this splitting of her resources that allowed her to be defeated by Glinda and later by Tattypoo, each of them knowing her as totally different people who look nothing alike and have different names. My way doesn't contradict anything and neither does the other view. And you know what? It doesn't really matter! These are (allegedly) fictional creations, so we can make up what we want to about them within reason and the "rules" of the world they reside in. I just don't like this attitude that there is only one correct way to look at things. I ran into that in college in my Literary Interpretation class which I rather quickly discovered was a Guess What the Professor Thinks This Means class although all the class assignments were to write about what each individual person thought the author was trying to say. I will go on record right now as saying that from what I know I probably won't like the Lurline's Machine series. Does that mean I think Aaron should stop writing it or change it to something I will like? No way! Should I change my book so that it will come more into line with Aaron's or Dave's? Just try and make me! I got out my book of quotes and I decided to leave you with this thought for the day from Walt Whitman. It is probably the closest to what I think about Oz and the Historians. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)." Mike ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:55:52 -0500 From: Michael Oltz Subject: copyright; gravity Re when the various books go off copyright. Copyright law in the United States was changed by the Copyright Act of 1976. Under the law before that, you had to officially register for copyright or you didn't get it; the initial term was 28 years, then if you remembered to renew the copyright after the 27th anniversary but by the 28th, you could get another 28 years. For works written AFTER the new law went into effect, copyright lasts until the end of the 50th calendar year after the author's death, and you're not absolutely required to register but it's a very good idea legally speaking to do so. The tricky thing is the interaction between the old law and the new law. What happens to books which were copyrighted under the old law, but whose copyrights were still in effect when the new law was enacted? If the book was in its first 28 years, then you have to remember to renew it, but then you get a total of 75 years. If the book was in its second 28 years, then it was automatically extended to last a total of 75 years. If the book's copyright had *expired* before (not on) December 31, 1976, then it was just plain in the public domain, period. If you scratch your head enough, this means that if people remembered like good little girls and boys to do their renewals, that *nothing* has *entered* the public domain by expiration since the new law went into effect, but it's *about to* start doing so as of next January 1st. SO guess what. There's a bill before Congress to tack another 20 years on the end of all those. I think the number is Senate.483 (and a corresponding bill in the House) and its chief sponsor in the Senate is Orrin Hatch, who *just happens* to be the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, through whose hands the bill must pass before coming to the floor. If you're an author who has written a new book, you're probably for that. If like me you are involved in the digital conversion of old books and magazines whose paper is falling apart due to acid content, its effect in extending the copyright of old things makes it harder for volunteers to do such. (The public domain threshold won't be moved back by the new bill; it just won't start moving forward for another 20 years, at which time they'll probably extend it again) Anyhow, those are the numbers. For the complete text of U.S. copyright law and the international Berne Convention, see the Legal Information Institute on the Web, which happens to be right here at cornell (sorry, I don't have the URL in my head). Now, I have a comment about that "how long to fall through the tube" calculation. The orbital mechanics equations ASSUME that all gravity sources are point masses, to simplify things. This does not work if you are INSIDE a gravitational source. Why? Because it is no longer the case that all the mass is pulling on you from the same direction! If you were precisely in the center of the earth, and there was an open space there so you wouldn't be crushed by skillions of tons of molten iron, you would experience zero gravity, because the mass of the earth would be pulling on you in all directions at once. So it would actually take longer to fall through the tube; more of the velocity change would take place closer to the surface of the earth. For another story about a tube through the earth, which come to think of it may have been Baum's inspiration for this, see my home page: http://menagerie.cit.cornell.edu/mike/ Look under my hobbies for the hotword "another electronic text I made". ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:55:06 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-20-96 In-reply-to: <01I1F5LJG5GY9EHWVY@delphi.com> To: Dave Hardenbrook Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT My, my, where to start? Five digests to reply to. Luckily, most of what I wanted to say (e.g. non-Disneyfied versions of fairy tales being pretty darn explicit, quoting excerpts with ">" for the sake of context (although sometimes a little too much), etc.) having been said already... Aaron: I still don't understand why you feel the need to explain away every character in all the Oz books "just because they have no excuse not to be there (e.g. in the Emerald City)" Look at me. I'm in Baltimore 99% of the time, but if you visited here, I doubt you'd see me (unless I invited you to Shabbos lunch, which you and/or Barry are hereby invited to). I've been in Washington D.C. a fair number of times, and I have not once seen the president or any member of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the cabinet (to my knowledge). I was in Hollywood for two weeks, and did not come across any actor or actress, etc. Just because they are in the City doesn't mean they HAVE TO be seen. Give it a rest. Now it can be revealed: King Azaz the Unabridged from Phantom Tollbooth was really King Ozoz of Oz, who being soundly routed in a rebellion, fled to this different magical realm with the Mathemagician, and started over. BTW, I hereby relinquish all rights to this idea (but a mention in the acknowledgements would be nice) should any of you Ozzy writers want to take this one, once PT falls in the public domain (and when is that?). Worst idea for an Oz book that never was: Spinkilink in Oz-- the story of a convicted killer, who on the way to the gas chamber, found a secret tunnel to Oz. (For those of you who don't know, Spinkilink was one of the first (the second, I believe) person executed in the United States after the moratorium on capital punishments was lifted.) Also, can someone give me the address of BOW (and email address would be perfect, if they have one. I'm a notoriously bad snailmail writer), so that I can get a catalog? I'm really intereested in the last two Shanower graphic novels, as my three year is a fan of the first three. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:23:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Sick, Evil, Anti-Baum Historian of Oz 1) Mr. Randolph, I don't put so much faith in Laumer. I just get a good amount of useful material out of him, and the rest of what he does I complain about on the Digest. (Come to think of it, I forgot to complain about the Gucks...) For comparison, some of Farmer's ideas are getting recycled too. The difference is The Woozy of Oz and the rest of Lurline's Machine is going to be consistent with the FF and hopefully many other Oz books as well. 2) Oz writers who have actually gotten their works published: Is this IWOC Centenial Contest a good deal compared with Books of Wonder or not? 3) What's this thing about a radioactive teddy bear destroying Oz? (Please include author someone. Will have to try ILLing this. The title is probably the most unusual I've seen, ever.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:01:47 -0500 From: "Mark A. Semich" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-20-96 Tyler Jones writes: > Laumer has already been mentioned. His books are available through him > directly. I (or someone else) can give you his address. I had heard that the Laumer books are not currently available, but I would be most appreciative if you could send me his address anyways :-) Thanks! Concerning the buckethead books: I recently got my first buckethead catalog. Dave Hardenbrook already listed the books that are available, but could someone please let me know what these books are physically like? Are they photocopied 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper, bound 8.5 x 11, or bound in the R&L size (like the BoW, ECP, or some of the IWoC editions) with real covers? And if they are bound, are they hardcover or paperback? ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:45:46 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-16-96 Boy, you go out of town for one long weekend, and not only do you end up with FIVE Digests to answer (and a lot to say), you also get e-mail worried that you're not there! (I'm back now, Robin...) > From: Eric Gjovaag > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-14-96 > > Hey, Dave, what happened to the note I sent you on Tuesday's Digest? I > know you got it, since you sent me a personal reply. (If you need me to > resend it, I can.) > > [Sorry Eric, I didn't realize you wanted it public...Here it is: -- Dave] >sigh< No, that's not the one I meant. It must have been delayed or something, since the one I was thinking of is the next item in this issue... > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Pittsburgh!? Don't you mean P-IX-Burgh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :):):):) If you don't mind my saying so, that pun is the Pitts... > The reference to McCarthy and the Gestapo, for the record, was in the > Ozzy Digest of Feb 13, although it may not have been referring to me. No, it wasn't. I was referring to authors (AND YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THEM, TYLER!!!) who basically say, "Here's what I'm doing in my book, so I'll let you do this in your book so it won't contradict my book, or my general ideas, theories, practices, and beliefs concerning Oz." > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/14/96 > > I hope everyone had an enjoyable Valentine's Day. Since it was the first full > day my wife was back in town in almost a week, I certainly did! Laura and I delayed our Valentine's Day, and had a long weekend out of town instead... > I like your idea of assuming Oz authors have informants for the information > in their books. (Though I think the Shaggy Man is likelier to be Baum's > second source than the Wizard.) Thompson is the hardest to isolate; I think > that mostly they were a succession of young boys (are we getting weird and > perverty here? Of course not!), but that still leaves out a few books, like > ROYAL BOOK and WISHING HORSE. Maybe Dorothy occasionally deigned to > communicate with her. It was never stated in any of her books, but in "The Ozmapolitan" some of the material Thompson wrote strongly implied that she actually went to Oz and visited with the characters to get all the latest stories, while sipping Ozade under the trees... (Lucky woman!) > Dave Hardenbrook: > So Ozma's future hubby's name is Dan Maryk? Sounds like a Czech name to me - > does this mean he's made of rubber? > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Pre-Dorothean History of Laumer's Version of Oz > > 3) Back to Laumer. One thing I realised about him today is that he holds > by the simultaneous of multiple alternate-universe Ozes, as he has Glinda > remembering the destruction of the People Eater by the Tin Woodman in > Volokovian alter-Oz. Does he acknowledge the existence of any other > alter-Ozes than the Laumerian and the Volokovian, and does he have > characters travelling between different alter-Ozes? (Something to the > tune of Oz Jacobus the Pumpkinhead from Universe XVII visits Laumerian > Oz.) Perhaps this is why Eric considers the Laumer books a seperate > series--they take place in a seperate universe from 'classical' Oz! Yes, that's it exactly. While fun books, Laumer's are just too different from what Baum/Thompson/et. al. wrote for me to accept that they take place in the same Oz. But no, I don't see Laumer as believing in more than one Oz. Rather, his stories all take place in the same Oz, which also just happens to have Volkov's characters and events taking place in it. > n) Is there any evidence that non-biological characters (e.g, the > Scarecrow, Scraps, Jack Pumpkinhead) gain the self-repair capabilities > that non-magical life has? No, but what's to prevent humans from manufacturing new parts? (Tin Woodman's patches, Jack's new heads and legs, Sawhorse's ears and legs, Scraps' eyes that get reattached in "Lost Princess," etc.) > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things ( as if you didn't know! :) ) > > MORE ABBREVIATIONS: > Eric wrote: > >Perhaps, as ISTR Laumer using more of the story than appeared in the "Bugle." > > What does ISTR stand for? Whoops, forgot one! (I knew I would...) I seem to recall. > DAN AND OZMA'S ROMANCE: > Eric wrote: > >The problem is, if [Dave] makes it an ongoing, > >continuing romance, that is going to shake up the > >status quo in Oz, and other authors are either going to feel constrained > >by this, or completely ignore it, making Dave's book heretical. > > Well, of course I won't throw myself from the highest turret of the Emerald > City if _Fairy Princess_ is branded "heretical", though I _WOULD_ like it > to be considered part of the main series. I don't have a "quick fix" that > I can think of at the spur of the moment, but I do truly think I can make > this work... FWIW (THERE'S another one! For what it's worth), while I will read and usually enjoy every Oz book I can get my hands on, I mostly consider those not by Baum, Thompson, Neill, Snow, Cosgrove Payes, and the McGraws as heretical. Yes, this includes "Queen Ann." But this is more out of practical consideration than anything else. > ( P.S. Please don't ever "Oz off", Tyler! I can't speak for everyone, but > I for one want to hear *everthing* you has to say, as > long as there's no profanity. :) ) But do we have to hear it so OFTEN? --Eric "Hey, check out my new .sig, questions about it please e-mail me, I promise not to post it very often" Gjovaag *** WATCH THE NEW "DOCTOR WHO" TELEVISION MOVIE, COMING TO FOX *** *** TELEVISION IN MAY, STARRING PAUL McGANN AS THE EIGHTH DOCTOR *** ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:25:24 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-17-96 > From: "W. R. Wright" > > Tyler, Eric, and others have rightly pointed out that "romantic" interests > do exist in childrens books from days gone by. Perhaps I was not explicit > enough if my earlier post. What I was trying to address was the shift to > the sexual aspects of romantic love, and was questioning why this has been > occuring of late. Well, guess what, Bill? It hasn't been occurring of late. The vast majority of Oz writings do not have sex in them of any sort, and the few that do are too far out in left field to be worried about. Most Oz authors know to leave this alone. > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: Digest stuff > > How many smiley faces should I have to use to convince people that I > really am a nice guy who only wants the best for each and every one of > you? (Except Aaron, of course :) ) See, I'm kidding about that last > thing! I have to side with Eric who experience has shown me I have the > most in common with. (Pretty scary, Eric!) /me runs and hides. > I generally speaking will read > anything Oz-related and I really don't mind contradictions one jot or > tittle. If I did I would be insisting that the various publishers > "rewrite" all the Oz books to fix that little direction problem and that > is something I would never do. (What do you think, Eric, smiley or not?) You tell me... > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Green Dolphin of Oz > > 1) Just what part of The Green Dolphin of Oz was written by Baum? Er -- it's been so long since I read it, and my copy is buried in a back room of my in-laws at the moment, but it's the part that starts "Chapter One" about two-thirds of the way through the book. You know, where Ozma's skating on Lake Quad, and meets a visitor from Hiland. When it reverts back to Laumer's chapter numbering system and his characters appear, that's where it ends. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Deep underneath the Emerald City... > > A hush descends on the sacred chamber as the Lord High Inquisitor of Ozian > Accuracy enters with his cronies. The high and mighty Tyler Jones will > dispense his own brand of "justice" to those who dare to think for > themselves. > > "Let the supplicants approach the throne of justice. There are three > peasants who wish to write Oz books." Dave Hardenbrook, Aaron Adleman and > Eric Gjovaag enter by crawling on their bellies. Oh, brother... Tyler, I hate to say this again, but OZ OFF! (This time, I'll add lots of these: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) ) If compiling the HACC pleases you, be my guest. I don't blame you a bit for wanting to do this, I started doing something similar with "Doctor Who" myself once (and all my efforts will now be superceded by a book coming out later this year). But I have two questions about your posts here about the HACC, consistency, authors working together, etc.: 1. Do you have to say so much EVERY TIME? 2. Do you have to post it EVERY DAY? We know your views now, thank you. If you want to continue talking about it to others, or someone here questions the HACC again, or whatever, take it to e-mail! The rest of us are just tired of this, and want to move on to more pleasant topics. (And, we hope, in the process, cut the Digest down to a manageably readable size every day, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for THAT...) > As far as we know, there were at least three Wicked Witches of the South. > Blinkie, the one from THE ENCHANTED APPLES OF OZ and Sringa. It is doubtful > that Blinkie is the one who was defeated by Glinda (according to DOTWIZ), > since it is unlikely that Glinda would then have turned her loose on the > people of Jinxland. The leading candidate for the conspiring one is Sringa. Remember, there are a number of other witches, not all of whom correspond to compass points. Take Gloma in "Wishing Horse." Perhaps there were many other witches, some of whom claimed various titles at one point or another, who were later deposed and/or destroyed. > Peter B. Clarke wrote WHO'S WHO, WHAT'S WHAT AND WHERE'S WHERE IN OZ, listing > just about every person, place and thing in the Land of Oz. I'll get his > address for you Monday. But isn't this out of print now? > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-16-96 > > NEW TOPIC: > Fellas, please stop bickering. The discussion feels like just that, > bickering. Let's just get on with it. You've reached consensus, > essentially, so drop it already! (I think 'most everybody agreed to live > and let live. Most will aim at consistency with the FF. If they don't, that's > their problem and does NOT warrant this much on-line discussion.) Couldn't have said it better myself! > From: DIXNAM@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Five years ago I retired and rekindled my interest in Oz. I joined the IWOC > and have attended the last two Munchkin conventions, where I have been able > to fill the gaps in my RPT books, save one, (Does anyone have a Purple > Prince of Oz they would like to sell, condition not important, a reading copy > would be O.K..) Herm? Are you listening? > ...and have begun to add some of the "newer" authors books to my > shelves. I 've just recently acquired and read The Glass Cat of Oz, and > offer high praise to Dave Hulan for his excellent book. (I'm awaiting > delivery of Eric and Karyl's book.) But, who is March Laumer? And where can > his books be found? I haven't seen them in BOW's newsletter/catalogues. I'll just mention here, for everyone's sake, that not all Oz books are carried by BoW, especially small press-run fan-published books. > From: swarkala@cris.com (Sharon Warkala) > Subject: The fun of Oz > > I wanted to reply about all the little in-fighting that has been going on in > the digest about consistencies in the Oz books many of the members are > writing. All I can say is lighten up fellas. Have you forgotten what Oz is > all about? Baum wrote his books for children to enjoy and lately I think > some of the petty arguments going on here are quite childish. Yes, so do I. (And Tyler claims HE'S being misinterpreted...) > From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> > Subject: Musings on the Massive Mound of Oziana > > I have read all of the Baum Oz books several times. I finally made myself read > The Royal Book of Oz and found it to be "silly." I wondered if Baum was ill at > the time he was writing it or was it damaged after his death. Now thanks to > Eric G. I learn that he didn't write it at all. Thank you, thank you! I have > yet to read an RPT Oz book as I have suspected they would suffer badly by > comparison with the master. Will someone encourage me to think otherwise? I > admit I have purchased all of them but there are just so many books to read and > so little time. Especially at my age. Sigh. I don't get this: Why would anybody collect Oz books and not READ them??? That's what books are for, aren't they? (That's what I like about BoW's Baum reprints, they're made for readers, not collectors.) > While I am grumping, let me say, as an outsider, that some of you really have a > case of egographia. Particularly unappealing is the practice of cutting out > hunks of others email and reproducing them with ">" marks. I admire the way > David Hulan handles responses to other's mail. He is worth emulating for many > reasons. Brevity and conciseness are much to be admired. What you are referring to is a common internet convention. David does it his way, but I do it this way so that I don't have to precis what has been said before and possible misinterpret or misquote somebody. I can reply to what I want to (and cut out the parts I don't want to reply to, unlike those people in the newsgroups who will quote an entire three-page long message only to add "Me, too" at the end...) While I agree that brevity is to be admired, so, IMHO, is clarity. I'd rather have longer posts that I can understand rather than short, cryptic ones. > I would like to add my vote against Ozma having a "romance." Can't Oz be saved > for the young and the young at heart? I don't like to think of Baum spinning in > his grave. I know grade school children are now having sex, getting pregnant, > doing drugs and murdering each other. Does Ozian literature have to mirror this > trend? It was pointed out that many fairy tales have romance, eg. Snow White, > Cinderella, etc. However, in the ones I can think of we don't follow them into > the bedroom and find out if they really did live happily ever after. Can't > there be one place where socialist realism and extreme political correctness can > be banned? I don't see how romance, well-written and well-handled, automatically leads to premarital sex, drugs, murder, etc. Clarification, please? > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/16/96 > > Eric Gjovaag: > So you're the one who furnished Dave with the mailing list he started OD off > with - and left me off of it! Grumblegrumble... Well, I didn't HAVE your address... > Postponing the planting of the forest until after GLASS CAT would have poor > Jodie waiting a long time to start her occupation, since QA specifies it > happens 40 years after Ozma's coronation (meaning somewhere in the early > Forties, probably) and GC specifies it happens 75 years after Betsy Bobbin > comes to Oz (meaning somewhere in the late Eighties). Of course, Oz people > are probably very patient, but still... > However, it could be done. Maybe the knook in charge of the main forest had > second thoughts and had to be persuaded again, or something. Or Jodie had to > go on a quest for something to make the ground of the pass fertile enough to > support a forest, and it took her a long time. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're giving away part of the plot of our next book! > (Incidentally, why did you > have a knook in charge of the forest? In LaAoSC, knooks are the caretakers of > animals, not trees.) But in "Road," the knooks cared for the trees. > Aaron Adelman: > Button-Bright is still a child in GLASS CAT. Furthermore, though it's not > explicitly stated, it's clear from context that he's always been a child up > to that point (which, as I said to Eric, can clearly be dated to the > Eighties). The same is also true of "Christmas in Oz." > Tyler Jones: > I have no objection to sharing as much information about the world of Oz as > we can, so that there aren't any inconsistencies that are unimportant to the > plot. Most of what you say I find entirely unexceptionable. But when the > basic idea of a story happens to contradict what another, non-FF author, had > to say, then I say the writer should go ahead and write that story anyhow, > and let it be sorted out later. I think Tyler's actually saying the same thing. --Eric "I hope I never have to tell anyone to OZ OFF again..." Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:45:05 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-18-96 > From: "W. R. Wright" > > Ref the posting by Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> in the 17 Feb > Digest, > Subject: Musings on the Massive Mound of Oziana. > > Well said Richard!!! There are some very good thoughts in your posting that > are worthy of careful consideration. Er, what did he say again? (Another reason, IMHO, to include what your replying to in a post: There's so much stuff here, how can we remember it all?) > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: misc stuff > > "Aaron S. Adelman" writes: > > There goes the idea of having, say, Kabumpo step on the Big Zero. > > I believe _Kabumpo_ becomes public domain in 1998 (anyone know for sure?). > So you can use Kabumpo as long as you save this juicy event until then. > (A book started in 1996 might not be published until 1998 anyway.) If I understand copyright law at all (and I don't think I do), because Ruth was alive when the current law was enacted, the copyright on her books (with the possible exception of the posthumous "The Enchanted Island of Oz") is the rest of her life plus fifty years, meaning her books all become public domain en masse in 2026. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/17/96 > > One of the most puzzling questions about the Magic Belt, though, is why Ugu > didn't steal it along with all the other magic treasures of Oz. Baum's > explanation - that his information about magic treasures stopped before > Dorothy had captured the belt from Roquat - doesn't hold water, because the > Wizard's black bag of magic tools postdated the acquisition of the belt, and > Ugu knew to steal them. Anybody have a theory? MOPPeT is that, knowing how powerful the Magic Belt was, Ozma, Dorothy, Glinda, the Wizard, et. al., decided to keep it a secret, partly to keep word of its location from getting to Rug, and partly to keep would-be usurpers like Ugu from finding out about it. (When you review the books and see how many people actually know about it, it's actually relatively small.) Guess they succeeded, Ugu was never able to find out about it... > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Northern Wicked Witch of Oz > > Also: He tends to come up in discussions around here because I, 'Mr. > Consistency' am getting into the habit of reclassicizing (pardon the > coinage) material he writes, so I end up asking things like "What degree > does Laumer have Dorothy get anyway?" I don't get this. You give yourself the title "Mr. Consistency," use the Laumer books as part of your checking, but reject the much more faithful "Oz and the Three Witches" and "The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz"? Seems to me you're trying to have your cake and eat it too... > 10) Chris Warkala, I AM having fun with this digest! Can't one seriously > have fun? Not if it infringes on someone else's fun! If I found hunting fun (which, I might add, I don't), I might be in trouble if I tried to hunt in the nearby woods during a convention of animal lovers... > Also: Tyler, I enjoyed you putting me on trial. --Eric "I never even got to say ianything in that trial..." Gjovaag (I WAS BROUGHT UP ON FALSE CHARGES, I TELL YA!) ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 17:33:23 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Aaron, here, to the best of my knowledge, is the copyright status of the FF. Baum 1-14. WIZARD - GLINDA. All in the public domain. Thompson 15-28. ROYAL BOOK - SPEEDY. Copyrighted. From what I know of copyright law, it changed in 1976 such that a work is copyrighted until 50 years after the authors death. If this is true, then these books will be public in 2026. Thompson 29-33. WISHING HORSE - OZOPLANING. Due to an error, these books are in the public domain. Also, I believe that all major characters in these stories are also public even if they were introduced earlier. If this is true, this includes Kabumpo, but does NOT include everyone in the "mother" of all parades in Chapter 6 of WISHING HORSE. NEILL 34-36. WONDER CITY - LUCKY BUKCY. Since Neill died more than 50 years ago, these should be public, but they are not. Either I am wrong in my 50-year thing or the Neill estate somehow extended them. SNOW 37-38 MAGICAL MIMICS and SHAGGY MAN. Snow died around 1957. If my 50 year rule is correct, they will be public in 2007. COSGROVE 39 HIDDEN VALLEY. Rachel Cosgrove-Payes is still alive, so it will be a very long time before this book goes public. We hope. Please stay alive for a million years :) MCGRAW 40. MERRY GO-ROUND. Same as book 39. As I keep saying, Chris is an expert in copyright law, and as soon as get off my lazy butt and write to him, I will ask him about this. I suppose I must accept the reality that for most people, Oz is an MGM film and nothing else, so the park must embrace this. However, after hearing Janes comments, I now have hope that the park can be used to move people to an awareness of the books as well as keeping their interest in the movie alive. The problem with subject-specific digests is that we would have to have MANY digests and a separate mailing list for each one. Besides, with only one, people can broaden their interests. Oz is many things, and if people embrace more parts of it, their enjoyment will grow. Baum usually referred to the magic belt as "Dorothys" and he never mentioned an Emerald Safe. Thompson referred to the belt as belonging to Ozma and as far as I know, Dorothy never used it in any of Thompsons books. TOTO IN OZ, the first Buckethead book, is long since out of print. It was also not very good. Some of the better ones are no longer available, such as MR. FLINT, ENCHANTED NOME and GARDENERS BOY. One very good one that is still available is DISENCHANTED PRINCESS. Maybe the people who wrote Ugus books did not travel very far in Oz and only mentioned stuff belonging to the rulers, although how an ancient text could mention the magic picture is beyond me. The Magic Belt did not necessarily have to transport the dirt to fill the tunnel. Perhaps Ozma said something vague, like "I wish the tunnel to be filled". The Belt figured that the easiest way to comlpy with the wish was to create the dirt out of nothingness instead of transporting it. I second that, Dave. BUY SHANOWERS STUFF! His five graphic novels are excellent! His illustration of Glindas palace in THE BLUE WITCH OF OZ is beautiful beyond compare! --Tyler "My shortest post in a LONG time" Jones ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:27:18 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> Subject: RPT Robin, David, Aaron, Barbara, etc. Thank you for taking me seriously and for the encouragement to read RPT. Unfortunately for me I am an obsessive-compulsive and will have to read all of them, in order of course. I just recently completed my RPT collection so that I can now do that. With such a body of work I needed some encouragement as there is just so much else to read. Last weekend we took a short trip and listened to Mervyn Peake's "Titus Groan" and "Gormenghast" on tape on the way. Has anyone considered putting the Oz books on tape? My generation just loves to be read to. David Hulan was talking about Oz influences. A 1937 radio play I can think of that may have been influenced is "Judy, Jimmy and the Cinnamon Bear." It has a world of it's own, a quest, two lively children, a friendly bear and a cast of characters to rival an Oz book. It was on for fifteen minutes per day for 26 episodes before Christmas. It predated the 1939 MGM Oz movie so the influence would have been the books. I could never understand why a movie was never made of it. If anyone is interested I can tell you how to get the tape. It is great. I love it, my kids love it and, if I ever get any, I'm sure my grandchildren will love it. Oh, "egographia," according to my high school girl friend with whom I still correspond 40 years later (she is a high school English teacher) is the written equivalent of "verbal diarrhea." I couldn't find it in my Funk & Wagnalls either. But, I like it. :):):) Regards, Bear (don't call me Richard) Baum(an) (:<) ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 17:50:21 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-19-96 Say, Dave, feel free to spread all these replies I'm sending you out over two or three issues, if it makes it easier on you and your readers... > From: "W. R. Wright" > > 1. Baum's original books were best sellers. Did the rest just ride these > coat tails? What was it about the first books he wrote that struck such a > chord in the reading public, and what was missing from the later books, or > did the interests of the reading public change? WERE they bestsellers? (I know "Magic" sold 20,000 its first year, and the rest of the books around 5000 that same year, which according to "To Please a Child" was fairly typical for the Oz books at the time.) The Thompson books never sold as well as the Baum titles, and after WWII sales never really took off again in any sort of big way. > 2. What is the enduring cultural impact on our society of the Oz stories? > Or has this been only superficial? And which of it can be separated out from the movie's impact? > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Another HACC problem > > I just finished rereading The Giant Horse of Oz and it seems to be in > contradiction with the HACC. The Giant Horse of Oz puts the > transformation of Orin into Tattypoo as 25 years before the story. As > the HACC puts The Giant Horse of Oz in 1928, this would put the > transformation in 1903, four years after Tattypoo met Dorothy soon after > Gingemma's destruction. Please correct me Dave if that was actually Locasta. You are assuming, of course, that RPT was 100% accurate in her math. Which may or may not be the case. > From: David A Gerstein > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-18-96 > > Anyone read Neill's A RUNAWAY IN OZ, which Books of Wonder > published for the first time not long ago? Is it up to the quality > (or perhaps better than) Neill's other Oz books, and was some of it > rewritten for the new printing? Is it considered an honorary member > of the FF, given that it was intended to be such and would have been, > had Neill been able to draw it? I do believe that Eric Shanower had a hand in cleaning the text up a bit. And while it can't really be called part of the FF, it is just one step below, IMHO, because Neill wrote it. > I only saw it briefly in a bookstore, and seem to recall it > being a new adventure for Scraps, one of my favorite characters. Yes, Scraps is the main character. Neill captures her pretty well, actually. --Eric "Well, that one was relatively short, only one more to go..." Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:20:47 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-20-96 > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Various > > 1) When do all the FF books become public domain? David Hulan mentioned > Kabumpo in Oz becoming public domain in 1998, but does that apply to the > rest of the Thompsons? Someone also mentioned at some point the Neill > books becoming public domain in 2015. If my understanding of current copyright law is correct, Neill's books would become PD seventy-five years after his death (since he was dead when the current law went into effect), or 2018. ("Runaway," however, since it has a 1995 copyright, wouldn't become PD until who-knows-when.) > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > When sending e-mail, emotions are not conveyed, so messages appear to be > harsher than they actually are. Do smiley faces helpm? :):):):) > On appeal, Dave, Aaron and Eric have been found NOT GUILTY of of violating > Ozian consistency. :P <-- For those of you not familiar with this, it's someone sticking his tongue out... > For my part, the problem was that I did a very bad job communicating my > beliefs and the purpose of the HACC. If I gave the impression that I > sat on high and demanded that every author agree with every other author even > at the expense of story creativity, I appologize. I don't think you did a bad job of communicating your beliefs, you just did it too often and in too many words. > I believe that Kabumpo, since he was a major character in SILVER PRINCESS, > is already in the public domain. The last I heard, books are copyrighted > until 50 years after the authors death. In the case of Thompson, this is > 2026. But because Kabumpo is also in books still under copyright, we're treading in some VERY gray area, legally speaking. My advise is, if you MUST use Kabumpo, consult a copyright lawyer first... > I have some input for one of Bills "NEW" topics. Just before the MGM movie > was to be released, Thompson (the current historian) received a ton of mail > from angry children because the movie was not a truly accurate reflection of > the first book. Maybe if the movie had never come out, the books would have > been more well-known than they are today. Or, conversely, they'd be forgotten on the scrap heap of turn-of-the-century children's series books. > One thing I always suggest in the annual survey question "what would you do > to chagne things" is to use the MGM movie to reel people in, since most know > of the movie, and then "graduate" them to the books. It is my feeling that > many of the people who love the movie but are not aware of the books will > love the books even more. Good idea in theory. Can we get Ted Turner to go along with it? > From: DAlbright1@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-13-96 YEA!!! Jane's here! Post more often, y'hear? > Best of Ozianas would be terrific! If footing the bills for a publication > makes it impossible for the Club, how about parking it on a website > somewhere? Any of you willing too maintain it if the Club > site-in-development can't, for some reason, provide the space? I like this idea! One thing I would caution, though, is that issues that are still available for sale should not be included -- else why would people want to buy them? But that's so few issues anyway, it shouldn't be a problem. > Oz party!! Add to your schedules that the South Winkie Convention will meet > Oct. 19, 1996 in Dana Point, CA. For more information, contact Robyn Knutson > (714)494-2749. She and Louis Rhodes are working on the program, so let them > know if you have any suggestions or projects they could include. You can > write Louis them at P.O. Box 9447, South Laguna, CA 92677 So noted, will be in the FAQ (once I get around to posting it/starting my web page). The park and museum sound WONDERFUL! (Website? More details on where and when that I can put in the FAQ?) > I tracked down Clarkson Potter and wrote them begging for The Annotated > Wizard of Oz to be reprinted for the centennial. They responded (unlike > other Oz reference book publishers I wrote with similar requests who simply > ignored me) to say that the rights have reverted to Michael Hearn. If any of > you have any influence with MPH, he is our only hope to get that volume back > in print. I know from past experience that letters to him from me get > nowhere. Knowing Michael (okay, so I only met him once), he may already be thinking along these lines anyway... > TOC: how about just breaking out a Digest of comments specific to > book-writing and questions about obscure characters/history/etc., and another > "Digest" about everything else? That way, people who haven't read an Oz book > in years and don't intend to start, won't have to wade through so much to > find what interests them. I think more people, if they're talking to only one or two people, need to start using private e-mail, and not post EVERYTHING to the Digest. That would be the simplest way to handle it. If something comes up that needs a broader audience, a comment/question can always be sent to Dave for the Digest. > Surely, that's more than enough for my first contribution to the Digest. I'll > do my best to say less in the future. Jane Albright Well, you sure said less than I usually do... BTW, folks, in case you don't know who Jane is, she is the Oz Club's vice president, and editor of "The Oz Gazette," the Club's children's newsletter. And one of the most enthusiastic Oz fans I've never met in person. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-19-96 > > 4) If there had never been the 1939 movie, there would still be a small but > devoted coterie of Oz fans, but there might never have been an IWOC and > almost certainly there would have been virtually no awareness of Oz in > popular culture as a whole. I'm not so sure about this. When the Club started in 1957, while the movie was certainly big, it hadn't become the Institution it is today, and the earliest members were fans of the books. (The earliest issues of the "Bugle" have almost nothing on the movie. I don't think there was a major piece on it until 1969.) Now, whether or not the Club could have survived to this day, and grown to over three thousand members, without the movie, that's a horse of a different color (D'OH!). > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Various > > >Writers: consider entering manuscripts in the Centennial Manuscript Contest > >sponsored by the Oz Club. > > I have been toying with the idea of submitting a manuscript to the contest, > but I'm a little wary of relinquishing all copyrights (or does that happen > anyway, Eric, David, and Nate?) Don't look at me! > Tyler worte: > >One thing I always suggest in the annual survey question "what would you do > >to chagne things" is to use the MGM movie to reel people in, since most know > >of the movie, and then "graduate" them to the books. > > I think that this is a good idea, and that IWOC should consider it as a > possible "Oz Centennial" endevor! We could organize sceenings of the film > and in the theatres set up display tables proclaiming (and selling) the Oz > books! So the people going to these special screenings of the film would > think they're just going to see the film, but, in the words of the Lead Crow > in _Dumbo_, "Boy, them folks are sure in for a SUR-prize!" Hmm, THAT'S not a bad idea. Maybe include a trailer before the film about Baum and the books. Possibly a tie-in with a bookstore chain... --Eric "Hooray! I've answered them all! And it only took me...SEVEN HOURS???!!!???" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 23:11:01 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: There are many machines in Ix, new machines... I know this is probably going to sound like a stupid question, but I have to know. In the _Dune_ series, there is a planet named Ix. Does anyone know if this is a conincidence or did Frank Herbert borrow the name from Baum? In which Laumer book does the Tin Woodman replace himself piece by piece? I tried to obtain _The Ten Woodmen of Oz_ by ILL but I was told that there is only one copy of the book in any library and that they won't lend it out. I hope it doesn't happen in that one... But that does sound like an inevitable necessity. I remember in _The Magical Mimics of Oz_ that Aunt Em sewed up seams on Scraps that had come open and replaced her shoes, which would support the contention that the nonmeat people do not regenerate. But then again, in _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_ the Wizard replaces the Glass Cat's pink brains with clear ones (which in later books revert to being pink again). Since Baum did not mention the top of the Cat's head looking like it was lopped off and then glued back on again (which he would have had to done to get at the brains), I assume he had some way of making the glass "heal." (Then again, I don't know much about glassworking, so maybe it could be done; anyone know more?) ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 23:01:24 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: patchworks, Ozianas, belts, and books Tyler Jones writes: > I like the exciting story between E.C. and PATCHWORK. Hopefully, someone > will write it someday. Same here. :-) Speaking of PATCHWORK, there is something that has always puzzled me. At one point Ojo is looking for someplace to spend the night, and he sees a twinkling blue light. Thinking this is a house he follows it, but doesn't reach it as it seems to be moving too. There is a small house by the road, so he goes there to sleep. There is a voice in the house, but there is nobody to be seen. The voice commands them to be quiet, and Scraps gets thrown out when she refuses. Ojo sleeps in one of the three beds, and in the morning there is a breakfast for him, which he eats. Scraps is outside, and mentions seeing a big gray wolf come to the door three times during the night. Ojo finds that he is as tired and hungry as he was the night before. All of this seems to be full of hidden meaning, but I have no idea what it is. Does anybody else know? DAlbright1@aol.com writes: > If someone with a character-recognition scanner really will help Robin, I can > help provide Ozianas. I have a scanner and all Ozianas from 1980 on. I assume, though, that at some point the Ozianas were done on a computer, and so they would already exist in digital form. Does anyone know what years are already on a computer? I don't want to start scanning until I know what actually needs to be done. > An ideal scanning system for them would be like Adobe > Acrobat Capture that allows the artwork and layout to remain unchanged. My OCR software can't save the formatting, so I would be producing an ASCII file. I believe I could scan the artwork (or even whole pages) into GIF files. If you just want to reproduce the page there is no need for OCR. So what is really wanted? > John White, Are you Jared and Shayne's Dad? No. DavidXOE@aol.com writes: > I tend to think of the belt as residing in Ozma's safe, but I think that > was Thompson's usual place for it; if Baum ever said so, I don't recall it. The safe was Thompson's. In Baum's books the belt belonged to Dorothy, and she kept it in her own rooms after she came to live in Oz. > If the Magic Belt has the power to transport people from the outside world to > Oz, and vice versa, but not within Oz, then I would certainly have expected > the point to be made somewhere along the line. There are countless points that the books never get around to making. And that is just as well, as many seeming inconsistencies can be easily explained if we assume that there is more to Oz than we have been explicitly told about. > But that's a peculiar limitation on its power, Magic items often have limitations that seem peculiar to those who don't understand the type of magic involved and the manner in which the item was created. :-) That limitation was just a suggestion, however. An alternative is the "mana" idea. That is, the belt may not have been used for transport after E.CITY because sending all those invaders home drained the belts supply of mana. > By the time the Wizard was in Oz and working real magic, the Magic Belt was > in Oz as well, so I still consider it hard to explain why Ugu's books spoke > of the one and not the other; Ugu's books must have predated Ozma's reign by many years, so they would not have mentioned Ozma or the Wizard directly. They may have mentioned some ancient magical artifacts that the Wizard and Ozma happened to have, just as they mentioned the dishpan. Then Ugu may have used his magic to find out who owned these artifacts. In any case, the Wizard, Ozma, and Glinda are high profile magic workers. But Baum makes it clear that Ugu's books made no mention of the magic belt, and as Dorothy was not a high profile magic worker he would not have had any reason to investigate her. Thus, he was unaware of Dorothy and her belt. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 00:43:55 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/20/96 Before I forget it - I remember reading a good while back that someone was compiling all the January ODs and they would be available "soon". I can't remember who it was, and I don't remember ever seeing an address for downloading them. Since I didn't start receiving the OD until late January, I'd like to get the earlier postings (I did download December's) if they're available. Aaron Adelman: The current copyright law, as it has been described to me by people who should know (but if anyone knows for sure that I'm wrong, please correct me), is as follows: Works published before 1973 were originally copyright for 28 years. This was renewable for 28 years, but somewhere in the 1960s (and I can't remember the exact year), the renewal was extended to 47 years (even if it had already been made for 28 years), for a total of 75 years. This is what applies to most of the FF, since all of them were written before 1973. Apparently the copyrights on a few of the Thompson books and the two Snow books weren't renewed when the original 28-year term ran out, so they're public domain. For the rest, you can add 75 years to the copyright date and the year after that you can use material from that book. Works published since 1973 are copyright until 50 years after the death of the author, period. (I think this applies to works published -in- 1973, but I'm not sure about that year. It doesn't signify with regard to Oz, anyhow, as far as I know.) No, it was probably a typo (or maybe a garbled transmission), but the version of your message that I got referred to Utensia, Thi, and the Flatheads as "historicals", rather than "nonhistoricals". I was pretty sure you meant the latter, though. The last I heard THE GLASS CAT OF OZ hadn't been released to general bookstores yet, so probably not to libraries either. That's why I said you'd probably have to buy it if you wanted to read it. (The deluxe edition - 25 copies with a hand-colored frontispiece, selling for $125 - has sold out now, and the hardcover edition is getting fairly close, from what I hear.) Dick Randolph: Thank you for putting me in the company of Payes and (especially) the McGraws! Tyler Jones: I think smiley faces are easier to recognize when you add a hyphen between the colon and the close-paren, i.e. :-), vs. :), which can escape notice too easily. (It's the custom over on GEnie, where I learned my on-line etiquette...) Children buy a surprising number of children's books, but mostly in the low-cost PB form. This is why authors like Stine and Pike are so popular, not to mention Sweet Valley High, the Baby Sitters' Club, and Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys. As one who spends a lot of time in bookstores, frequently in the children's department, I see this. But the authors children like best are frequently not the ones their parents prefer to buy, and it's the latter (along with libraries) who buy the hardcovers. (I have a lot of friends who write children's books professionally, so I hear a good deal about the markets.) See my comment to Aaron: 50 years after the author's death applies only to books originally copyright after 1973. You'll have to admit that Ozma's intended intervention in SPEEDY was an interpolation into the plot on the order of Dorothy's in RINKITINK - it wasn't necessary at all, except that without it it wouldn't really have been an Oz book. I doubt that if the movie had never come out, the books would be better known than they are today. It's a pity, because a lot of kids still like the Oz books a lot if they encounter them, but once the once-a-year series stopped back in the Forties, the movie was really the only continuing reminder of the existence of Oz. (Even though it isn't true to the book it's based on.) Jane Albright: I'm considering entering the centennial contest, but only if we move somewhere soon and I retire. I figure that a full-length Oz book - written with the idea in mind that if it doesn't win, it needs to be cuttable by about 40% to be published otherwise - will take me just about the year that's left to create, if I'm not working. If I'm working, forget it. I have a scanner, but not the kind that can include text and pictures in the same document. I could scan in the text, but aside from anything else my scanner doesn't have the resolution to do justice to artwork that's any good in the first place. (It would be fine for the ones for my story in the 1995 OZIANA, but that's a sore point...) I've E-mailed you privately regarding the Story Circle; no need to put that in the open Digest. Dave Hardenbrook: Shanower is a first-rate artist; I agree with you that on the whole, he's probably better than Neill (although I'll admit that I don't like his Ozma in his first book). His story lines, though, are rather dark for Oz - I don't think any of the originals, with the possible exception of MAGICAL MIMICS, was as dark as any of Shanower's books. Which doesn't mean they aren't excellent, but I'm rather glad he's not the only unofficial Royal Historian working these days. Interspersed among the others, they're great, but if there weren't any others, Oz would start to get sort of depressing, I'm afraid. My contract with Books of Wonder gives them copyright control (with certain percentages to me) as long as they keep the book in print, or until something like 2010, after which it reverts to me (although George O'Connor gets copyright for the artwork). Which seemed fair enough to me. I don't know about other publishers. Based on the three Buckethead books I've read, there is no attempt on their part to ensure their writers follow Baum's writing style, since none of those three do. I think Tyler's comment meant only that they should be compatible with Baum's in terms of the sophistication level and such - no sex, no bathroom scenes, that kind of thing. (And I think OZMA GETS REALLY P---ED OFF AND CUSSES AND TOTALLY OFFENDS EVERYONE IN OZ sounds downright fascinating, though I question whether it really exists...) David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Wednesday 21-Feb-96 01:38:01 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things THE RADIOACTIVE TEDDY BEAR: Aaron wrote: >3) What's this thing about a radioactive teddy bear destroying Oz? >(Please include author someone. Will have to try ILLing this. I haven't read it (I don't dare), but it was written by Marcus Mebes. Why he opted to destroy Oz altogther given how much he apparently loved it I don't know... THE MAGIC BELT: Eric wrote: >MOPPeT is that, knowing how powerful the Magic Belt was, Ozma, Dorothy, >Glinda, the Wizard, et. al., decided to keep it a secret, partly to keep >word of its location from getting to Rug, and partly to keep would-be >usurpers like Ugu from finding out about it. Shouldn't they have kept the Book of Records, Magic Picture, etc. a secret too, in that case? COPYRIGHTS: Tyler wrote: >NEILL 34-36. WONDER CITY - LUCKY BUKCY. Since Neill died more than 50 years >ago, these should be public, but they are not. Either I am wrong in my >50-year thing or the Neill estate somehow extended them. Doesn't an author's estate have the right to extend a copyright? (Maybe the Thompson estate will do the same thing and FF 15-28 will remain copyrighted until 2076!) >SNOW 37-38 MAGICAL MIMICS and SHAGGY MAN. Snow died around 1957. If my 50 >year rule is correct, they will be public in 2007. Didn't someone ascertain that the Snow books are also already PD on a technicality? (Oops! Another abbreviation! :) PD = "Public Domain".) PUBLICIZING OZ II: Tyler wrote: >I suppose I must accept the reality that for most people, Oz is an MGM >film and nothing else ... WHY??? Did Columbus say, "Well, I guess I have to face the fact that everyone thinks the Earth is flat and there's nothing I can do about it"? Let's really do something great for Oz's centennial, let's let the world know there's more to Oz than Judy Garland!!! SHANOWER: I have to agree with David's comment that Shanower's graphic novels, as supurb as they are have the one fault that they're rather dark for Oz books... I generally prefer the lighter, more humorous, more _Patchwork Girl_-brand of Ozziness. I don't agree about his Ozma though--I think in all his books she's gorgeous!!! (i.e. Shanower gets a better likeness! :) :) :) ) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:14:08 -0500 (EST) From: swarkala@cris.com (Sharon Warkala) Subject: Various Jane Albright: Great to see your comments in the last digest. I don't really consider myself an Oz scholar and some of the dicussions I see in the digest are intimidating. My knowledge of the Oz books especially those outside the FF is not as in depth as some of the other members. I don't know if I am in the majority but I think some of the people who get the digest would like to discuss other topics such as Oz collectibles,the Oz theme park, and just some of their own personel recollections about the books,movies, etc. I don't think it would be fair to Dave to have two seperate digests though as this is a solely humanitarian gesture on his part to take care of just one digest and all of us have demands on our time. I would hope that there are other people like me who want to take the dialouge into different areas. Thanks for the update on the theme park I haven't heard anything about it since the '94 Munchkin Convention and thought that it might be a dead project. Also could you please be a little more specific about what kind of help Fred Meyer needs? If we could be any help we will. Tyler : Just so you know I think your idea using the MGM movie to reel people in to graduate them into the books is great. It happened just that way to me and I in turned reeled in my wife. It has now become a tradition with us to give The Wizard of Oz book as ababy shower gift to all our friends who have children. We can't think of a better way to start them off on life's Yellow Brick Road. Chris Warkala ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 07:06:30 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" (No Subject) Eric asked: >> 1. Baum's original books were best sellers. Did the rest just ride these >>coat tails? What was it about the first books he wrote that struck such a >>chord in the reading public, and what was missing from the later books, or >>did the interests of the reading public change? >WERE they bestsellers? I was referring to Wizard of Oz and Father Goose. The "rest" are his books subsequent to this. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 07:17:15 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Eric asked: >> 2. What is the enduring cultural impact on our society of the Oz stories? >> Or has this been only superficial? >And which of it can be separated out from the movie's impact? Exactly!! I realize that to old timers in the Oz club these are not new questions, and have probably been discussed at length at Ozzy conventions and other get togethers. Also, I have never seen anything substantive written on the subject although it must exist. I have posted queries at several different times inquiring into the existance/availability of a bibliography of Ozzy research writings, but so far no one other than yourself has identified any source material. Perhaps these are just not topics of much interest to Oziphiles?? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:15:20 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-21-96 Before I go into replying to the last Digest, I just want to say that "Oz" comic, issue #13, is now out, and boy, does it look like things are coming to a head now! One problem, though: Munchkinland is DEFINITELY based on the movie! Not that I mind that so much, but it DIDN'T in the earliest issues. There's also a number to call to get "Oz" and other Caliber comics. They suggest you check your retailer first (honest, there are still comics shops out there), but if you can't get it that way, call 'em at 1-800-346-8940. Now, replies to the last Digest: > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: Digest stuff > > I got out my book of quotes and I decided to leave you > with this thought for the day from Walt Whitman. It is probably the > closest to what I think about Oz and the Historians. > > "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am > large, I contain multitudes)." Bravo, Mike! Wiser words have not been applied here for a long, long time. (I just want to add another thought here: If we're treating Oz as history, then bear in mind that not all historians can agree on details or interpretations of true historical events, so why are we all getting our knickers in a twist about FICTIONAL history?) > From: Michael Oltz > Subject: copyright; gravity > Thank you, Michael, for all that helpful information on copyright. (If enough people keep asking, I may have to include this information in the FAQ.) > Now, I have a comment about that "how long to fall through the tube" > calculation. The orbital mechanics equations ASSUME that all gravity > sources are point masses, to simplify things. This does not work if > you are INSIDE a gravitational source. Why? Because it is no longer > the case that all the mass is pulling on you from the same direction! > If you were precisely in the center of the earth, and there was an open > space there so you wouldn't be crushed by skillions of tons of molten > iron, you would experience zero gravity, because the mass of the > earth would be pulling on you in all directions at once. So it would > actually take longer to fall through the tube; more of the velocity > change would take place closer to the surface of the earth. But what about acceleration? According to Gardner, acceleration would increase until you got to the center, and decrease the further you got away. (However, Gardner was probably looking at it as a mathematician, not a physicist.) Then there's momentum... > From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-20-96 > > Also, can someone give me the address of BOW (and email address > would be perfect, if they have one. I'm a notoriously bad snailmail > writer), so that I can get a catalog? I'm really intereested in the last > two Shanower graphic novels, as my three year is a fan of the first three. They don't have a web page (c'mon, Peter, are you going to let the Oz Club get ahead of you there???), but the snail-mail is 132 7th Avenue at 18th Street, New York, NY 10011, or call them at 1-800-345-6665. Ask to get a copy of "The Oz Collector." > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Sick, Evil, Anti-Baum Historian of Oz > > 2) Oz writers who have actually gotten their works published: Is this > IWOC Centenial Contest a good deal compared with Books of Wonder or not? Well, let's see. I've gotten a total of about $300 in royalties from "Queen Ann." I think Jack Snow never made more than $500 in royalties from ALL of his books. Yes, $5000 prize money is TERRIFIC! (My only question is, if your story DOESN'T win, what happens to it? Possibility of the Club publishing it later? Can the author market it around later? Considering how much work goes into a book, and the odds of winning, I'm not real sure this contest is such a great idea...) > 3) What's this thing about a radioactive teddy bear destroying Oz? > (Please include author someone. Will have to try ILLing this. The title > is probably the most unusual I've seen, ever.) Just remember, this is the same writer who came up with "Three-Headed Elvis Clone Found in Flying Saucer Over Oz." (I'm sorry I ever thought of that one, or suggested it to Chris...) > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Aaron, here, to the best of my knowledge, is the copyright status of the FF. > > SNOW 37-38 MAGICAL MIMICS and SHAGGY MAN. Snow died around 1957. If my 50 > year rule is correct, they will be public in 2007. Except their copyrights were never renewed (under the old law), so they are now public domain. > The problem with subject-specific digests is that we would have to have MANY > digests and a separate mailing list for each one. Besides, with only one, > people can broaden their interests. Oz is many things, and if people > embrace more parts of it, their enjoyment will grow. Or they'll just get sick of it all... > The Magic Belt did not necessarily have to transport the dirt to fill the > tunnel. Perhaps Ozma said something vague, like "I wish the tunnel to be > filled". The Belt figured that the easiest way to comlpy with the wish was > to create the dirt out of nothingness instead of transporting it. Alternatively, it could have filled it up with the dirt and rocks that had been taken out to make the tunnel in the first place. (Hey, it had to go somewhere...) > From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> > Subject: RPT > > Last weekend we took a short trip and listened to Mervyn Peake's "Titus Groan" > and "Gormenghast" on tape on the way. Has anyone considered putting the Oz > books on tape? My generation just loves to be read to. Bill, I think this is one for you to answer! (Bear, if he doesn't reply to this soon, write piglet@halcyon.com and ask about their Oz books on tape.) > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: There are many machines in Ix, new machines... > > I know this is probably going to sound like a stupid question, but I have to > know. In the _Dune_ series, there is a planet named Ix. Does anyone know if > this is a conincidence or did Frank Herbert borrow the name from Baum? Almost certainly coincidence. AFAIK (As far as I know) Herbert wasn't a fan of the Oz books, there are no other Oz or Ozzy references, and it's not that much of a reach for someone else to create such a short name. There's also an Ix in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," but that's CERTAINLY not a Baum reference, as it's a derogatory childhood nickname Ford Prefect had to endure. > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: patchworks, Ozianas, belts, and books > > Speaking of PATCHWORK, there is something that has always puzzled me. > At one point Ojo is looking for someplace to spend the night, and he > sees a twinkling blue light. Thinking this is a house he follows it, > but doesn't reach it as it seems to be moving too. There is a small > house by the road, so he goes there to sleep. There is a voice in the > house, but there is nobody to be seen. The voice commands them to > be quiet, and Scraps gets thrown out when she refuses. Ojo sleeps > in one of the three beds, and in the morning there is a breakfast > for him, which he eats. Scraps is outside, and mentions seeing a > big gray wolf come to the door three times during the night. Ojo > finds that he is as tired and hungry as he was the night before. > > All of this seems to be full of hidden meaning, but I have no idea what > it is. Does anybody else know? This episode was discussed in some detail in the latest "Baum Bugle." Unfortunately writer Patrick Maund could find nothing in tis at all. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 2/20/96 > > (And I think OZMA GETS REALLY P---ED OFF AND CUSSES AND TOTALLY OFFENDS > EVERYONE IN OZ sounds downright fascinating, though I question whether it > really exists...) It really does exist, I have a copy. But considering the title is almost longer than the book itself, it REALLY shouldn't be taken as canon, it's just a joke. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > Eric wrote: > >MOPPeT is that, knowing how powerful the Magic Belt was, Ozma, Dorothy, > >Glinda, the Wizard, et. al., decided to keep it a secret, partly to keep > >word of its location from getting to Rug, and partly to keep would-be > >usurpers like Ugu from finding out about it. > > Shouldn't they have kept the Book of Records, Magic Picture, etc. a secret > too, in that case? Maybe everything else was already well-known enough that they didn't even try? (Remember, part of that theory is because Ozma knew just how powerful the Belt was, in comparison to the Picture, Book, etc.) --Eric "My, that was short, now I don't have to get on the net at all today" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:39:40 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Hanff Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-21-96 Dave, Over the past several weeks there have been a number of comments about the U.S. copyright and its relationship to the Oz books. The Library of Congress Copyright Office has published a clearly written series of circulars on various aspects of the law. Circular 1: "Copyright Basics" is succinct and I thought readers of Ozzy Digest might find its section, "How Long Copyright Protection Endures," of some help. As some of the participants have noted, there is a bill being considered that would extend subsisting rights for an additional time period, but at present, the following is current: Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978 A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation, and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life, plus an additional 50 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 50 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identitiy is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 75 years from publication or 100 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, but not publisehd or registerd by that date Works that were created but not published or registered for copyright before January 1, 1978, have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given Federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-50 or 75/100-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2027. Works Originally Created and Published or Registered Before January 1, 1978 Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The current copyright law has extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the Copyright Act of 1976 to extend automatically the terms of copyrights ecured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977 to the further term of 47 years and increased the filing fee from $12 to $20. This fee increase applies to all renewal applications filed on or after June 29, 1992. P.L. 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. There is no need to make the renewal filing in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 75 years. HOWEVER, SOME BENEFITS ACCRE TO MAKING A RENEWAL REGISTRATION DURING THE 28TH YEEAR OF THE ORIGINAL TERM. For more detailed information on the copyright term, write to the Copyirght Office and request Circulars 15, 15a, and 15t. For information on how to search the Copyright Office records concerning the copyright status of a work, request Circular 22. What is not explained in that clear (at least for the government) explanation is that prior to 1976, unpublished works (unless formally registered in the Copyright Office) were protected by Common Law rather than by Statutory Law; in effect, unpublished works were protected in perpetuity. The 1976 law swept unpublished manuscripts under statutory protection, but also established a finite term of protection. Those of us interested in the original Oz books, published from 1900 to 1963, are dealing with works that were created before January 1, 1978, and therefore with works that under current law were given a maximum protection of 75 years from the original date of publication unless they had already slipped into the public domain. The automatic ending date under the newlaw is December 31 of the 75th year after publication. We'll all be interested in learning about the pending revisions. Peter ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:36:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Mark K. DeJohn" <103330.323@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-21-96 Oz Digest, I agree that Eric Shanower's graphic novels are really great. I love the illustrations but also think the story lines are rather dark. I felt the same about The Giant Garden of Oz. In the Blue Witch when the boy (star) rejected his mother after hearing about how Flinder had taken him and wasn't his real father was unsettling to me, Maybe because I am a mother ( Laurel-6yrs. and baby due in about 6 weeks) I don't know if this is real or imagined by me in my youth but I recall going to a movie based on The Land of Oz. It must have come out in the late 60's or early 70's. I remember Tip, General Jinjur and the end with Tip turning into Ozma. I have never heard mention of it in the Baum Bugle so I'm wondering if anyone else has heard of it. Barbara DeJohn 103330.323@compuserve.com ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:31:05 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest In deference to shorter digests I will rely on private e-mailings to explain my positions. Michael Burns: the FF does not SAY that Mombi was not both, but it is extremely unlikely. Maybe Microsoft will come out with a rhetorical button on their new keyboard. Eric Gjovaag: Welcome back! March Laumer also wrote about Oz authors going to Oz, namely himself! Laumers Oz was not the same as Volkovs Oz, since the Wizard deliberately brought a character from the Volkovian Oz to "his" Oz do help them out with a problem. Also, he had at least one direct reference to the "Russian" Oz. The Scarecrow needs several eyes painted in a circle around his head so he would have 360 degree vision. Eric, when you mentioned certain authors books as being "official", did you also mean their non-FF books? Such as RUNAWAY, OZMAPOLITAN, etc. Shanower named Gloma as "The Good Witch of the West", although of course we know by now that every quadrant in Oz probably had several good and wicked witches, all claiming the title of THE WITCH OF whatever. If only the celebs know about all of the magic items, that is less that 1% of the total population, which would make knowledge very rare. Queen Orin, who was transformed, lost her identity and took a while to establish herself, may only have been guessing 25 years. Barry Adelman: I seem to remember in DUNE that Ix was the ninth planet of its system, so the IX was the roman numeral for nine. The Tin Woodmans replacement was either in TEN WOODMEN or FAREWELL. There is nothing about this effect beyond the basic info I gave yesterday. Maybe the Wizard used transportation to get the brains out and then in. David Hulan: Ask and ye shall receive. You have already received the January Digests by now, nearly 500K. Also, OZMA GETS REALLY P'D... really does exist! It was a VERY small press run, and the company no longer exists. This does not matter, because this book contained no pertinent Oz information. Dave Hardenbrook: Thanks for lifting my spirit! The fact that most people know of only the movie is all the more reason for getting out the info about the books! As someone on the digest said, kids seem to really like the books once they know of their existence. Let's go!!! --Tyler "A new size record for small posts!" Jones ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:59:15 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com (No Subject) think Herm Bieber WAS listening to my plea for a copy of "Purple Prince". I e-mailed him directly about 3 weeks ago, when he was having a problem downloading the Digest, but never received a reply. Perhaps he still hasn't solved that problem. I'll try again. Eric and Aaron: Thanks for the comments on Laumer's books. I know where I CAN'T get them, but can anyone tell me where I can? Dick Randolph (DIXNAM@aol.com) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 22:09:51 -0500 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-21-96 Haven't had time to read Digest's since Monday night, but just got off the phone with LFB's granddaughter, Ozma, and wanted to post a quick note "straight from the horse's mouth (SFTHM?). She owns the hand-written manuscript to Glinda. It is entirely LFB's work. A four-man team led by Fred Meyer visited her a few years ago for the single purpose of examining the manuscript to determine if it was his and only his. They did. It is. The end. Hope that reassures whoever recently raised the issue on the digest. Jane ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 22:48:56 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: stuff Tyler Jones writes: > The Magic Belt did not necessarily have to transport the dirt to fill the > tunnel. If you accept SHAGGY, the tunnel was never filled. Perhaps the belt was nearly exhausted after sending the invaders home so it merely sealed the ends. Eric Gjovaag writes: > You are assuming, of course, that RPT was 100% accurate in her math. > Which may or may not be the case. In GRANPA, RPT has Dorothy saying six and one makes eight. In LOST KING Incantation No. 986 near the beginning is referred to as No. 980 near the end. (And look at how Rith Metic was portrayed in KABUMPO.) > --Eric "Hooray! I've answered them all! And it only took me...SEVEN > HOURS???!!!???" Gjovaag I don't know why you suggest that the digest should be smaller. There are 24 hours in a day, so the digest could be three times as big and you would still have a few hours left over. :-) BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN writes: > But then again, in _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_ the Wizard replaces the > Glass Cat's pink brains with clear ones (which in later books revert > to being pink again). My personal pet theory is that this never actually happened. After all, is the Wizard really the sort to rip somebody's brains out just because that person happened to have a lot of self esteem? That makes three anti-cat episodes in Baum's books that I don't think happened. (The first two are the beheading of the cat in WIZARD, and the trial in D&W.) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:07:33 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-21-96 WERE THE BAUM OZ BOOKS BESTSELLERS?: Dunno, but they essentially kept their publisher alive, as did Thompson's Oz books. Don't forget that the kids pitched a fit when Baum tried to end the series with E. CITY. IWOC would certainly have existed without the MGM movie, but who knows how large it would have gotten. When I joined, somewhere around '69, I'm pretty sure there were fewer than 1000 members. I remember being amazed when we hit the 2000, then the 3000 mark. Hard to tell how much influence the movie has on our numbers. Probably not all that much, since we get members every year who join thinking we're movie-oriented. Some do get hooked and stay, but many drop out after their first year. Eric beat me to telling y'all who Jane is. Let me just add that she's much more than enthusiastic; she's a doer, a go-getter, a smart lady, a heckuva good writer.... :) Copyright: to forestall possible questions about OZIANA and copyright law. My understanding is that we have permission to use most stuff, although I try very hard not to abuse the privilege and usually stick to Baum. Dorothy Marryott holds her Aunt Ruth's copyrights, and she's been very good to us, but it's not a good idea to push the issue. We do not use McGraw or Cosgrove Payes characters. I would never presume upon Eloise *or* Rachel to ask for use of their characters. Even when I wrote Eloise's Fred into a story of my own, I asked Eloise first. She said O.K., but I've never shown the tale to anyone because I know she was uncomfortable about letting me use her char acter. THE CENTENNIAL BOOK CONTEST: Read the rules. The prize money is pretty good. Remember, please, that one of the things we're looking for is a story in the Baum Oz tradition. I look forward to reading some of your entries. Go for it! --Robin "going to Dallas this weekend" Olderman ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 00:10:32 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest, 2/21/96 Michael Oltz: Thanks for the information about copyright - I was thinking the new law was effective in 1973 rather than 1976, but I don't have any reference handy to prove it one way or another. On the other hand, I'm not sure about your statement that "*nothing* has *entered* the public domain by expiration since the new law went into effect," since I was told that I needed to cut a reference to GLINDA out of GLASS CAT because it was going to be published in 1995, though it would have been OK the next year. My recollection was that when Congress started debating the new law, which was somewhere in the late 1960s, they passed the extension to 75 years for works still in copyright at the time, and that applied to all works up until the new law was passed, in 1973 or 1976 or whenever. So that for the past few years some works from the late 1910s -have- been passing into PD. I am not, however, a copyright lawyer; I can only say what I recall of what I've been told by someone who was. Anyhow, as the author of a new book, I don't have any reason to favor their extending the copyright protection from 75 to 95 years after publication for works copyright before the new law. My book, and any future ones I may write, are copyright until 50 years after my death under the new law. Which seems quite long enough to me. Michael Turniansky: I don't think it's really fair to compare the Emerald City to Baltimore or Washington; they're at least an order of magnitude bigger. (EC is supposed to be 50,000 or so.) I mean, I've only been in the Vatican City once, and I saw the Pope... Especially since most of the celebrities of Oz tend to hang out around Ozma's palace - people who go to a game at Camden Yards usually see Cal Ripken, don't they? But quibbling aside, I agree with you that in almost all cases there's no need to explain why a given character -doesn't- appear in a book. (Aside from anything else, most Thompson and Neill characters can't be put into a new book because of copyright. It didn't really make that much sense that Carter Green wasn't at Betsy's party at the end of GLASS CAT, but I couldn't put him there. And I didn't mention the presence of a number of other characters that I could have legally - the Woozy, Uncle Henry, Aunt Em, Eureka, Toto, the Sawhorse, probably others - because I didn't need them, although George drew a couple of them anyhow.) The snail-mail address of BoW is 132 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10011. I don't think the store has an E-mail address; if so, I've never seen it. Peter Glassman has one, but he's never answered any E-mail I've sent him, so you're probably better off using the regular mail. Aaron Adelman: From the standpoint of cash return, the $5000 prize for the centennial contest is -much- better than you'll get from any other Oz publisher, unless your book starts rivaling the Baums in sales. The downside, of course, is that only one person is going to win, and if you don't you get nothing. But if you have a MS ready to submit anyhow, and it meets the rules, there's probably no harm in trying. Eric Gjovaag: I don't know, is Clarke's WHO'S WHO, etc., out of print? It wasn't published all that long ago - March, 1994, or less than two years ago - so I'd think that if the first printing had sold out that fast, he'd arrange another printing of it. I think Richard Bauman -wants- to read the Oz books he's collected, but he's not a terribly fast reader and also likes to have a whole series on hand before beginning it. I'm a pretty fast reader, but I have at least a couple of hundred, and probably nearer five hundred, books that I intend to read someday but haven't read yet. And some of them, if I subsequently hear bad reports before I get to them, may never get read. Meaning no offense, really, but - I know that the quote with > signs ahead of it is a common Internet convention, and use it myself when I think it's appropriate. But if you scan through a lot of Ozzy Digests, I think you'll find that you're the only one who habitually quotes a couple or three paragraphs from someone else's posting in order to give a one-line response. It -does- add substantially to the bulk of the Digest. If you didn't have my address to give to Dave when he started the Digest, it was only because you didn't save any of the Oz repeater postings through Chris Heer back around the end of August, or the two or three direct E-mails I sent to you a few weeks after it collapsed. So I repeat my grmph. (Of course, since I'd also sent several direct E-mails to Dave himself, he's equally guilty...grmph.) (The above all to be taken as entirely tongue in cheek, of course!) I guess I rate a substantial discussion, including an important plot point, in SANTA CLAUS as more likely to reflect the real nature of knooks than a single paragraph in ROAD, though I'll admit that neither one is a book that I reread often because they're both among Baum's worst. Still, you certainly have backup for your theory (and in the sense that SC isn't in the FF, better than I have). True that Button-Bright is still a child in CHRISTMAS IN OZ. I was responding to a request to elaborate on how I'd depicted him in GLASS CAT, though, since Aaron hadn't read it, rather than giving a general description of how he's been handled in post-FF books. (Actually, there's been a book called BUTTON-BRIGHT IN OZ published somewhere along the line - I think back in 1986 or so - but it was mimeographed and didn't look very good. I saw a copy at a local used book store that carries a fair amount of Oz material [The Book Baron in Anaheim, if anyone lives in the area and doesn't know it], but they wanted $12 or so for it, and when a skimming indicated it was badly reproduced and not very well written, I passed. I don't know who wrote it. I hope nobody reading this...) Tyler Jones: The -main- problem with subject-specific Digests is that it's a lot of extra trouble for the person putting the Digest together. It's not as if someone were paying Dave or the Internet to compile the Digest; it's a labor of love, and love has its limits! There are other good reasons to keep the Digest unified, but as far as I'm concerned the one I just mentioned would override any others. Can you give us a list of which in-print Buckethead books are, oh, at least as good as MASQUERADE IN OZ, in your opinion? Having bought three, only one of which met that criterion, I've been somewhat reluctant to spring for others. But I have no problem with spending a good deal of money for new Oz books if I have some reasonable expectation that I'll like them at least enough to finish reading them. Thanks, by the way, for sending me the January DIGESTs. I'll read them one of these days RSN (that's Real Soon Now...meaning I really intend to do it but don't want to set a date). Richard Bauman: Pity that you're obsessive-compulsive enough that you feel it necessary to read all the RPT Oz books in order. KABUMPO, which would follow ROYAL BOOK, is important because it introduces Thompson's single most important new character, although in my personal opinion it's a B-minus. But you could skip COWARDLY LION and GRAMPA without missing a thing that will be mentioned in a later book (except for the big parade in WISHING HORSE, but that's really unimportant), and they're both pretty bad. After that the books are either at least pretty good or significant background to a later book that's at least pretty good (B or better). I suspect, from what you've told me about your reading habits, that you're going to get thoroughly bogged down by the time you get to LOST KING, which is the next B+ or better book in the series. (Anybody want hear my "grades" for all the books in the FF? Didn't think so...) I have a set of tapes of Ray Bolger reading abridged versions of WIZARD, LAND, ZIXI OF IX, and some of the stories from QUEER VISITORS. Decent listening (at least, the first three), though they're -heavily- abridged. As I've told you before, I remember listening to "The Cinnamon Bear" on the radio back before Christmas in 1947 and 1948; I don't remember much about it, but I remember listening to it faithfully every day. I don't know how much influence the Oz books might have had on it; I didn't think about it at the time, but I was certainly an Oz fanatic by then, and now that I think about it the story certainly did appeal to me in the same way the Oz books did. (And I hadn't seen the 1939 movie by then, either.) Eric Gjovaag again: I don't think the Oz books would be forgotten in the scrap heap of turn-of-the-century children's books without the movie. They were still quite reasonably popular when I was a child, and although the movie had appeared, it wasn't much of an icon in the Forties. (Judy Garland was better known for MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS when I first learned about her.)(Which is, incidentally, another one of the half dozen best movies ever made, IMO...) But they probably wouldn't be in print any longer, nearly a hundred years later. Which, I notice, you more or less say yourself later in your post. I'm not familiar enough with the founding of the IWOC to know how much the movie might have had to do with it, though it apparently wasn't that much of Justin Schiller's core interest. I almost joined back in the early Sixties, but didn't get around to it until 1984. Still, I think Oz in popular culture today is at least 95% based on the movie and not the books. Barry Adelman: I don't think the Wizard would have removed part of Bungle's skull to change the color of her brains - surely magic can do that without surgery! But my own theory is that he didn't really change their color, but just put an illusion on them so that everyone - including Bungle - thought they'd lost their pinkness. When the spell wore off, so did Bungle's brief bout of modesty. Dave Hardenbrook: An author's estate doesn't have the right to extend a copyright any longer, but they did up until the new law was passed in 1976 or whenever it was. Which is why Neill's books are still in copyright, even though the original 28-year copyright expired in 1968-70 and he was long since dead. One can face the fact that for most people, Oz is the 1939 movie, without then concluding that there's nothing one can do to improve the situation! Take a look at Ozma on the cover of ENCHANTED APPLES - or the first few panels of Chapter 4. Those are the ones I was thinking of (especially the cover). Admittedly, Shanower does quite well most of the time even in that book, but he gets better after that. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 00:20:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-21-96 1) Mike, I think I explained away a grand total of about two characters. Also: Azaz a monarch of Oz? Hmm...My memory of this is fuzzy, but I think that would make the Mathemagician a contender to the throne. I suppose that they quarreled so much that Lurline stepped in, gave the kingdom to their youngest brother Skippy, and dropped the two of them in Jestergea. 2) Someone (Peter Hannoff (sp?) I think) mentioned to me by private E-mail that the Bugle mentioned in an article that there were four continents on Oz's world: Imagination, Ozamaland, Tititi-Hoochoo's continent (named by me Antozia), and Iceland (from The Ice King of Oz). Is Iceland supposed to be to the far north or the far south. 3) Eric, hmm, I think I'd better explain my system. A) Be consistent with the FF. B) Pick and choose among the rest. As I didn't like Oz and the Three Witches and The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz (the latter of which is in contradiction to the FF), I choose not to be consistent with them. I have to take a side in the issue of Maden vs. Pendexter vs. Abbott since the overthrow of Pastoria and the following and preceeding events gets dealt with in Lurline's Machine, and so I choose How the Wizard Came to Oz to be consistent with. As for Laumer, simple consistency with him is impossible because he goes against the FF at times. Material gets horizontally transfered from his work because he's come up with what from the viewpoint of Adelmanian Oz are reasonable ideas. The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz, for comparison, is working with a very different mindset from my own, and hence its ideas don't work well enough with my own to horizontally transfer over. 4) Whatever happened to the Silver Shoes? We all know they were lost in the desert, but as there is a book in the HACC called The Silver Shoes of Oz, I suspect they were found again. 5) Another copyright problem question: Which Good Witch of the North character is copyrighted? Arguably Thompson intended her Good Witch of the North to be the same one as Baum's, so that Tattypoo would be public domain. However, Dave claims that the Good Witch of the North in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was a different person, Locasta, which would have the effect of making Tattypoo copyrighted and Locasta public domain. Or perhaps both are public domain, having claim to being the original Good Witch of the North. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 23, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 02:05:55 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> Subject: Oz Mail 1. Mike Turniansky - I don't know if BOW has an e-mail address. However, they have thoughtfully provided an 800 number. It is 1-800-835-4315. They also take Visa. They put out a nice catalog filled with Ozzy things quarterly called "The Oz Collector." 2. One of the funniest comments I have read in the Digest was Eric G's: >we hope, in the process, to cut the Digest down to a manageably readable size every day, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for THAT...) Eric, you could really help. :-):-) 3. Eric, to clarify, I was not suggesting that romance necessarily led to a lot of horrible things. I am in favor of it and have even indulged in it. I was just commenting on the current reality. I just don't see why we need to include "romance" among the "tours" and "quests." Aren't there enough things to write about in and around Oz? If you really need romance there are lots of "bodice busters," etc. People tried really hard and could hardly come up with an example of a "romance" in the FF. As I said, I hope we can keep Oz for the young and young-at-heart and not "modernize it. Sigh. 4. Please educate me. If there is a character in a copyright (non-PD) Oz book (e.g. RPT) does that prevent any other author from even mentioning the character by name? Legally? Please expand on this. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 14:32:59 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Where's today's Digest? Scene: New York City. Time: Last night. Dave Hardenbrook is walking along the street when suddenly an alligator pops out of the sewer. alligator: Yum! A human! Dave: I don't need this today... alligator: By order of the King of Gorzengorf I hereby claim you as food for our people! You will be taken to our city beneath the sewers, where you will be put through a grinder, mixed with bread crumbs, and made into meat loaf! Dave: Alligators don't eat meat loaf! alligator: I beg to disagree. As it says here we are supposed to jump out of sewers and drag people down to our city to be made into meat loaf. So that's a fact, na nanny na nah! Dave: Let me see that! Yadda yadda yadda... Who wrote this crazy thing? alligator: Aaron Adelman did. Dave: