] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 1, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:56:22 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Bear: A little additional information on "Ching Li." Illustrator Lynd Ward is more famous than author Alice Woodbury Howard. The U of MN has only one other Howard book (a retelling of an Egyptian folktale), but has over a hundred entries on Ward, who lived 1905-1985. She was a major contributor of original art/ms material to the U's Kerlan Collection of Children's Literature, and the Kerlan holds drawings or galley-stage work of hers from such famous children's books as Elizabeth Coatsworth's "The Cat Who Went to Heaven," Esther Forbes' "Johnny Tremaine," and Julia L. Sauer's "Fog Magic." Bear and Dave: Discussion of sex and/or romance in Dave's "Ozzy Feeling" -- This isn't going to be relevant until Bear can either buy a copy of the story or decide on the basis of other readers' reactions that he doesn't want to. Discussion in terms of author's description of a story that neither Bear nor the others on the Digest have read can't very well be particularly illuminating. And discussion of potential readers' potential objections to presentation of sex and/or romance in story can't very well be particularly illuminating, either. (The readers are guessing at what their reactions to the whole story would be, and the author is guessing at the likelihood that the readers' objections to the whole story would change if they'd read it, which at present they can't. Well, I suppose people could if they felt curious enough to pay Dave for photocopies of the ms, but I suspect that most of its likely readers would rather wait for some kind of publication.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:28:01 -0600 From: Gordon Birrell Subject: Ozzy Digest Bear: >Lisa >This time I managed to connect Oz to Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_. > >The mind boggles! How did you do this? Since Lisa hasn't answered this yet, I'll take it up myself: the connection is that both works concern a quest for a reclusive bald-headed man who has achieved legendary status, is rumored to be extraordinarily wise and powerful, and turns out to be a fraud. In Kurtz's case, a murderous, unspeakably evil fraud. You can't imagine Kurtz saying to Marlow: "Oh no, my friend, I'm a very good man. I'm just a very bad ivory trader." Still, there are some interesting parallels between the two books, and Marlow at one point even likens his journey to a fairy tale: "The approach to this Kurtz grubbing for ivory in the wretched bush was beset by as many dangers as though he had been an enchanted princess sleeping in a fabulous castle." Since both works were published within a year of each other, it might be possible to see them as in some sense complementary. To Mike Denio's information about the remaindered WoO 50th Anniversary book, I'd like to add that this is a useful purchase even for those who love the Oz books but hate the movie. Among other things, it contains a three-page spread with color photographs of the covers of the entire FF in first edition, first state, along with a few other later Oz works (_Who's Who_, _Yankee in Oz_, etc.). I've been thinking about Button Bright's real name. Saladin Paracelcus de Lambertine Evagne von Smith. Saladin and Paracelsus are easy enough identifications, and "Smith" at the end of all those ringing, illustrious, aristocratic foreign names is a very funny touch. But Lambertine Evagne is not as clear an allusion. I believe it is a fanciful Frenchification of the name Johann Lambert (Welsh : Evan; Russian: Ivan; "French": Evagne; English: John; German: Johann). Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-77) was a distinguished German physicist, mathematician, and astronomer who discovered a method for measuring the intensity of light. Named for him is the lambert, a physical unit of--what else?--brightness. --Gordon Birrell ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:00:09 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 David Hulan, > When I was in ROTC back in the days of the "brown shoe" > army, the upper outer garment of the Class A enlisted man's > uniform was called a "blouse." (It was rather like a suit > coat, only with brass buttons and a belt.) I forget if this > usage extended to the coat of the green Class A uniform > (without a belt) that I wore when I was actually on active > duty and wore black shoes with it... > > (Anybody else in here serve in the Army before about 1959?) I enlisted in 1959. I guess you could say that I was in the "brown boot (not shoe) army as I was issued brown boots which I was immediately required to dye black. I don't recall the green class A uniform jacket being referred to as a blouse, but the upper garment (shirt) of the fatigue uniform was. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:03:52 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Reviews from Faerie, next door to Oz Fairy Tale - A True Story There is quite a good website available at the following URL: http://www.fairytalemovie.com/ It contains some background information for the spectacular Charles Sturridge film _Fairy Tale A True Story_. Children under the age of 8 are likely to squirm a bit until they see what they came for, but it is everything those with a taste for the magical could ask for in such a modest film. As the film boasts Peter O'Toole as Arthur Conan Doyle, and Harvey Keitel as Houdini, along with work by those who contributed to the film _Orlando_, you will be pleased by the extent to which the film exceeds its promise. Some time ago, there was discussion on the digest regarding Thesophy. The site for the film contains quite a good essay on the topic, and more than one Theosophist is represented in the film (quite humorously, if gently). If there has been any tampering with the historical accuracy of the events portrayed, the trick cannot be detected in the negative of this photograph of those who embraced and challenged the notion of spiritualism, and the appearance of fairies to two little girls in a Yorkshire garden in 1917. This was the cultural milieu in which Baum wrote. If these belief systems are foreign to you, this is as good an introduction to the notions more children believe than don't, whether they're consciously aware of it or not. The shadows that give depth to the story are those of World War One, and the portrayal of child mortality that is less common in modern times adds a bittersweet edge to this tale. Such tales are not as much about encountering magic, as they are about the sundering, the resounding distance between the world of magic and an emergent modern world; between credulity and skepticism, childhood and grown-ups, fraudulent mediums and magicians. Stardust While the book I am about to recommend is not for younger children, I expect you to go out right now and and buy your own copy of _Stardust, Being a Romance Within The Realms of Faerie_, a 4 issue trade paperback written by Neil Gaiman and illustrated by Charles Vess. It will be released in installments every 6 weeks, and then will be issued hardbound. I have never before seen an entire story of this quality, in which the tale is 50% author, and 50% illustrator, in full color, with some of Charles Vess' best work ever, which says quite a lot. It is not a comic book, it is instead a lavishly illustrated, well-written story. If you can't afford a copy, rob a collection plate and buy one, now. If you are under a Faerie curse and would crumble to dust upon setting foot inside a church, have a friend rob the collection plate for you. If there is to be carnal bliss and its consequences portrayed, in a Fairyland, this is where it belongs; such certainly does not belong in Oz. For questions about DVD, I commend you to: http://www.dvdresource.com/dvdfaq/dvdfaq.shtml I can't pretend to be Ken Cope Someone who pretends to be Ozcot Studios Someone else pinhead@ozcot.com Or so my pretend friend tells me --The Rutles ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:22:42 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-29-97 I suspect one would find less distress among Oz fans had a book suitable for children been written in which Ozma married Dorothy. The notion, never even needing extrapolation, that Ozma/Tip has a love for Dorothy that is transcendent, completely unrequitable and pure, is far more romantic and chivalric than any story could possibly be which ended with Ozma's line, "Yes, dear reader, I married him." Ozma or Glinda will attain the state of wedded bliss about the same time that Captain James T. Kirk bears Spock's love child. The only place in which those events will ever occur is in the realm between outright copyright violation, and uninspired maggotry in the corpus of a deceased author's public domain creations. It will never occur in my library or browser cache. Stick around, and I'll tell you what I really think. A fairy tale wedding for two of the 3 most sparkling gems in the Crown of the Land of Oz is a tale I would read only if it flowed from the pen of L. Frank Baum. It was certainly beneath the wit of Ruth Plumly Thompson, whose unceremonious dispatching of Mombi marks her nadir as a hack. As a premise, I think it ranks right down there with standard Saturday morning cartoon fare. (You've seen the cartoon at least once in every series. The principle characters go to the country to visit the farm, where they're abducted by aliens to fill out a cosmic menagerie, and have to win a game of baseball with the other aliens to regain their freedom. They had a little fun, and they learned a valuable lesson too. Such a plot is invariably the work of writers who are willfully thumbing their noses at the franchise they rely upon to provide a day job and office in which they covertly pen their masterpieces, some of which are published or filmed.) It isn't the tale so much as it's the telling. Why hobble yourself? Is it so you can say that people didn't like your book because of its premise, so that you won't have to worry about people not liking your book for its writing? You can, and should, write anything you find yourself moved to write. You obviously can't let the discouraging words of the only group of people conceivably even _remotely_ interested in reading your book dissuade you. Maybe next, you can do a sequel to Walt (too dead to have his name removed) Disney's _Hunchback of Notre Dame_ where Quasimodo kills Kevin Cline and marries Esmerelda. Just don't expect to gain any sympathy when you try to blame the audience for rejecting it. It isn't about how much you love your ideas, it's about how much your ideas are loved by others. Oh, never mind. Oz, to the extent that it exists as a franchise, is fairly open. Marrying off the principals closes it to the further exploration of others as finally as if you had killed them off. Baum tried to close the tale of Oz by having Moriarty toss it over the waterfall, with no more success than Arthur Conan Doyle had. Essentially, Miss Manners would say that you have violated the accepted mores of those who share worlds by failing to provide a plot reset button at the end of your tale. Neil Gaiman can kill off characters in the 70 plus comic books comprising the saga of _The Sandman_, even if they are by his definition immortal and endless, and he can do that because he's a great writer. JMS can close an arc in B5 because he is also a great author, and it happens to be his story. Star Trek is a franchise. Superman is a franchise. Superman has married Lois Lane, and Lana Lang, and Lorelei Lee, and every poor girl cursed with double L initials and will do so for as long as Superman comics are sold...But then the RED KRYPTONITE ALWAYS WEARS OFF! _The Books of Magic_ is a comic book series commenced by Neil Gaiman and continued by author John Ney Rieber into something like issue #42. It concerns the adolescence and awakening of young Tim's foretold potential to become the greatest Magician the world has ever known. If he ever grew up, or experienced much other than the most chaste of blushing fumbling with a succubus-with-a-heart-of-gold, or resolved such tension with Molly, (who has been cursed most cruelly by Titania, queen of Faerie...) it would be a story that would irrevocably change the nature of the characters and shut off potential avenues of exploration for the inevitable future writers who will want to make unique contributions that define and refine the characters. That Rieber has such consideration for future authors, and for the franchise which he has positively extended rather than adulterated, certainly marks him as a gentleman, someone who can share a tale with others, with class. I collected "Oz" books not written by Baum originally for Neill's illustrations, and can almost stand to read Thompson's work. I can appreciate some of it more because of her reflection of the flavor of the time during which she wrote for Oz, the twenties and thirties, than for what she contributed to the series' expansion and continuation. Mostly what she contributed was the exploitation of Oz as a franchise, opening it up in future to fan fiction, a form of participation in a spectacular fantasy world. For me, _Glinda of Oz_ was the last book in the series. The way we each choose to explore Oz, and keep it alive for ourselves, is a highly personal thing. Just because I say I love Oz, it does not follow that I am going to automatically appreciate everything you have imagined about it while imagining you were under its spell. Others' mileage may vary. Doylies must be fun to some, but Baumies to me have so far, been mostly Bombs. The exception that gets my indulgence, generally, has been translation to new media, or new visual interpretation. I liked _Wicked_ better than anything since _Glinda of Oz_, but then, that wasn't an Oz book, was it, any more than a book containing the story of Ozma's wedding would be. Ozma belongs to Dorothy and to all who love her, and to nobody exclusively; Oz is immortal and endless. Anybody who tells a tale in which Oz ceases to be, or in which characters act in ways untrue to their nature, is not a compelling liar. I always look forward to a good seductive lie, but there is nothing more seductive about the lies of certain marriages in, or deaths of Oz, than the tale of Kirk and Spock's lovechild. If, by some remote chance, I spy any of the above mentioned tales for sale on the remaindered shelf in the Unbordered, Ignoble Barne of Books, I will lament the loss of perfectly good trees, and will not trade portraits of dead presidents for any of them. The extent to which such items move in the marketplace is a measure of the decline of civilization, a mark descending rapidly at the rate at which perfectly good children's books are crowded off the shelves by the crap published by the 800 ton Mouse. I celebrate blasphemy and sacrilege as much as does the next time-traveler stuck in a world bound by ninth century mores while happily exploring the spectrum of being fully human. When it comes to Oz, I accept no substitutes. For some silly reason, I prefer my Oz unadulterated. That, in addition to the discriminating tastes of even the most fanatical Oz fans, is the hurdle presented to any writer who would consider telling such a story. Then again, the notion is little more creatively bankrupt than the Oz Kids cartoon series... I can't pretend to be Ken Cope Someone who pretends to be Ozcot Studios Someone else pinhead@ozcot.com Or so my pretend friend tells me --The Rutles ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:53:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Re Disney: I am speaking of the Baptist Church's views on, yes, the _moral_ quality of modern Disney films. Beats me. May all things Great and Ozzy be yours, Jeremy Steadman http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:53:22 -0500 (EST) From: BluOrchid2 Subject: What a Day! I just had the most incredible experience.....and I have to tell you all about it. Over my lunch hour today I went to a Hobby Lobby store to buy some supplies for the Dorothy stockings that I make. I presented a rain check for a lower price on the ruby jewel stones, which turned out to be expired, at which point the cashier called the store manager. He and I began talking about how many of these stones I was buying at a time (100's), and how many more I needed. We discussed various ways of getting me what I needed at the best possible price. After about 15 minutes of chitchat, he said, "Well, just out of curiosity, what is it that you are using these for?" I explained that I make Christmas stockings that look like Dorothy's foot wearing the ruby slipper, and that these stones cover the part of the stocking where the ruby slipper is. He responded, "My great-grandfather wrote 'The Wizard of Oz.' " I'm sure I looked like a complete idiot for about 2 minutes while my chin was on the floor and I couldn't speak, let alone think straight! He said, "You know, I really believe in the 6th sense...I mean here we are, chatting about these stones for 15 minutes, and it turns out you are using them to make Dorothy stockings." CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT - I mean, the complete irony and coincidence of it all!!! When I could finally speak coherently again, I said, "Well, what is your name?" And he said, "Greg......Baum." I'm just still dumbfounded. I took it as a sign that I was destined to make these stockings. :-) http://members.aol.com/SantaSox Lora ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 21:03:05 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Melody >Even Baum married off characters. Pon & Gloria. Quelala & Gayelette (no mention made of her losing any of her magical powers simply because she married.) Ah, and how about Uncle Henry & Aunt Em? And other married couples we meet in the Oz books? As long as the author doesn't barge into the characters' bedrooms, Oz books featuring marriage will still be G-rated. I agree with you completely. My objection was not based on an expectation of bedroom scenes. However, none of these are entities of the "level" of Glinda, much less Ozma. My sense of this continues to be that Baum would be appalled at the idea. However, I'm willing to read Dave's book, if it ever becomes available, and revise my opinion accordingly. :) I was looking for an analogy and thought of Gandalf. Unfortunately, he had that problem with the Balrog, IIRC. If he hadn't, to me it would be like someone writing a story where they marry Gandalf off to some sorceress. This line of thought caused me to observe that, to my knowledge, no one has written a book based on LOTR. Anyone know of any? Unlike Baum, and Conan Doyle, maybe he hasn't been dead long enough. Will there be a Middle Earth Digest one of these years? Remember AOL-sufferers, I have used Compuserve for over five years with nary a glitch. It remains $9.95 per month for basic service. I would be happy to have them send any of you the start-up disk. Compuservatively, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:54:33 -0800 From: Robert Schroeder Subject: Ozzy Digest *That Ozzy Feeling* I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you and Melody, Dave. This book sounds wonderful. I'm a sucker for a love story (this from a person that just polished off *Taltos* by Anne Rice, *My American Journey, the Colin Powell Story* and *My Side* by Ruth Gordon in the last week. My hand Borders was out of Ozzy Books...new shipment next week! *Rosie on Halloween* BTW....Happy Halloween!! Did anyone catch the *Rosie O'Donnell Show* today (tis a benefit of being gainfully unemployed, being able to watch talk shows all day). Rosie's theme was the Wizard of Oz (1939 Movie) with Rosie, the band and crew dressing as characters from the movie. Rosie made a really good Dorothy, John McD (the band leader and pianist) was Scarecrow, Lion played the sax, Tinman on the guitar, Glinda on the drums, and the crew dressed as Flying Monkeys and Munchkins. The *highlight* (besides the special appearance of the Village People) was a duet between Rosie and Bette Midler, with Bette being the Wicked Witch of the West (in pink no less). They sang a medley of *If I only Had A ...* which Pheobe Snow sang on the 1995 Wizard of Oz in Concert special..... Well...back to the gobins at my door..... ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:58:27 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Well, I'm Home Alone again this weekend. Last week they found new cancers in my mother-in-law's lungs and abdomen, so my wife is out there with her trying to help her decide what to do. The alternatives are neither one very good. Bob Spark: Bear should probably have said that tattoos are a military or '90s thing, rather than a WW II or '90s thing, although they've also been popular with bikers all along. (Remember the old song from around '55, "Black Denim Trousers," that had the line, "On the muscle of his arm was a red tattoo,/ A picture of a heart saying 'Mother, I love you.'") J.L.: The Sawhorse has a purely utilitarian role in many Oz books - _Tin Woodman_, for instance, or _Glinda_ - but I consider his roles in at least _DotWiz_, _Lost Princess_, and _Wonder City_ to be as significant as Button-Bright's in any book but _Scarecrow_, and in _Land_ and _Scalawagons_ to be as significant as Button-Bright's in _Scarecrow_. YMMV. > Omby Amby's an interesting addition, though his role in action is >usually minor (OZMA being an exception). Usually, but not always (and Button-Bright's is usually minor, too). He's mostly just along to make up the numbers in _Emerald City_, and just acts as a police force in _Patchwork Girl_, but he's the one who advises Dorothy to go to Glinda in _Wizard_, is a major character in _Ozoplaning_ (though under an assumed name), and is the motivating force behind the major subplot of _Lucky Bucky_. > Two signficant recurring characters neither of us mentioned: Toto and >Polychrome. The latter is actually the person I think rivals Button-Bright >in playing major roles in plots without becoming the protagonist or title >character of her own canonical book. Agreed that Polychrome is another one who probably surpasses Button-Bright in playing major roles without having a book of her own or being the central character of one. Her role in _Road_ is certainly equivalent to Button-Bright's; her role in _Tik-Tok_ is comparable to his in _Scarecrow_; and her role in _Tin Woodman_ is well beyond any other role Button-Bright has. And she turns up in several more books as a minor character, usually to help get someone across the Deadly Desert. (_Purple Prince_ and _Lucky Bucky_ come to mind, and I think there were others.) > More on Button-Bright: On his inteligence, let's remember the >Scarecrow's hilarious response to meeting him in ROAD. And his choice of >how to test the magic umbrella--asking it to fly him to Chicago--doesn't >show much thinking ahead. Well, he's still pretty young - probably no more than 8 years old. Strong forethought isn't very typical of that age. (And he first tested the magic umbrella by asking it to take him to Buffalo; Chicago was later.) Bill in Ozlo: Thanks for the information on voting for the Oz newsgroup. I'll try to do it today. Dave: >MORE AOL HEADACHES: >As you can see in todays messages, some people are having problems again >with AOL...If anyone can offer a solution... They could get themselves a different ISP, as I did. AOL's problems seem to be primarily with E-mail, and I understand you can get free E-mail through juno.com; if you're having problems with AOL then adding juno.com just for E-mail might be worthwhile. I don't think there's anything you, Dave Hardenbrook, can do about it. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 15:08:50 -0500 (EST) From: Saroz Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-23-97 Scott: << This would not work for any of them in my novel, except if one were to illustrate one of Tip's dreams. >> I don't even want to know what kind of dreams he has.... :-/ Sarah ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:35:24 -0500 (EST) From: JOdel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Sky Island is one book that I had never encountered before. I quite enjoyed it, but find that in retrospect I have little to say regarding it. I do see that Button-Bright comes across as having at least normal intelligence in this book, pointing up the theory that he must indeed have been very young in Road. Also that we _might_ assume that more actual time has passed between the events of Road and those of Sky Island than can be explained by their copyright dates. (Did Baum's forward to Road offer a teaser to the events to be revealed in the upcomming City? He sometimes did that, and if so we could possibly interpret this as an indication that the events of ALL the books may have taken place considerably earlier than their publication would imply.) As to his wardrobe, I think it is only his notable "pure dumb luck" that saved him from tripping off into some magical adventure or other in a velvet Fauntleroy suit, since I'm convinced that he would undoubtedly have had one... As to Ozian marriage customs, I'm sorry, the whole thing sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. So far as any of the the FF ever shows us, Ozian "love" is little more than a friendly preference with mildly romantic, sometimes faintly sticky overtones, and "marriage" might just as well be a legal process for ensuring that one gets a companionable roomate, and an excuse to throw a big party. (You always get the impression that Pompadore and Peg's baby girl was special-delivered to them by the stork.) If I was determined to work myself up into a flury of indignation, it would be over the poor form displayed in insisting on discussing books which are not published yet. I would be very glad to read That Ozzy Feeling. I would probably enjoy the story. I do not antcipate that it would treat the subject of Ozma and Glinda's marrriages in any other than an appropriate context, in keeping with Baum and Thompson's precedents. I do think that the idea makes it inconvenient for anyone else who ever plans to try to write an Oz story, in that they will be put, willy-nilly, into the position of having to either set it into a period before the marriage, (approximately a 90-100 year period A.D.-- after Dorothy, that is) which, as time passes, will start feeling decidedly crowded since it already contains virtually all of the known Oz stories that already exist as well as any new ones, or it will put the author into the position of having to use someone elses' coppyright characters. Which means that anyone who wants to write a story and make it compatible with post FF writing will have to ask you permission to use the characters of Dan and/or Zim for anything beyond an acknowlegement in passing. At the very least, this is inconvenient. At a tolerable worst it is inconsiderate. (At an intollerable worst, it is a power ploy. But I do not really believe that eiter Dave or Melody is making a power ploy.) What it cannot help but being is an introduction into the chronology of a point of schism. If ToF is published, future works will have to be either compatible or incompatible (deliberately or otherwise) with the events therin. While an author will not be asked to decide whether he or she must take sides on the issue in all of their future works, they will necessarily need to make this decision for each piece of work they plan to write. This is hardly a development which the majority of fans and prospective fan-writers can reasonably be expected to welcome, and the probability that the actual story introducing it will be very well handled and very well written, indeed, if anything, only makes it worse, since it will be all that much harder to discount or ignore. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 21:22:30 -0500 (EST) From: Ozmama@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Jared and JoDel: Try downloading the DIGEST in a flash session (under your Mail menu...tell it to activate flash session). Then, once it's done that, either go to the Mail menu and select Read incoming Flash mail, double click on the DIGEST, and read it. If that doesn't work, and if you have a pc, pull down your File menu and select Open. Look for C\AOL30d\Download directory in the dialog box of files. Right click on the file you want to view and select Quick View Plus from the menu that appears. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 22:12:59 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: OZ AND BEYOND and Beyond Sender: "J. L. Bell" Yesterday I received Michael O. Riley's OZ AND BEYOND from the University Press of Kansas. Today it rained. So, now that I've read the book, I'm interested in what other readers think of it. Riley spends much of his book summarizing Baum's Oz and borderlands stories, noting differences among them in how magic works, what's special about Oz, and so on. I sense that this group periodically discusses the same inconsistences. To the bare list Riley adds his argument that those changes mirrored Baum's changing wishes for his fairyland. I enjoyed seeing that development over time; I knew most of the inconsistencies, but I hadn't explored the *patterns* they reveal. The book's organization also helped me piece together how Baum worked in his most fantastically productive years (1900-1906). For instance, I knew that he originally wrote RINKITINK as a stand-alone book, but I didn't realize that manuscript was his first about Nomes. Nor did I connect its insertion into the Oz series in 1916 to Baum's ill health and the struggles of his film company. I also enjoyed finding out (or rediscovering) that the famous maps of Oz and surrounding countries printed in 1914 included regions on which Baum hadn't yet published. He may have had these names in notes, but I like the thought of him plucking them off his map when he needed a setting. Those maps are crucial to Riley's main thesis, which concerns the gradual defining of Oz and its continent as "space." Riley's focus on "space" fits growing schools in literary criticism and social history. And, as he points out, consistency is especially important for a fairyland to maintain verisimilitude (the "three-dimensionality" that Warren Hollister said should be librarians' "Fifth Criterion"). This space can be fairly concrete for Riley. He suggests that Oz originally represented some undiscovered area or form of America itself, and that only when Baum went west to California did Oz move farther away, to the Nonestic Ocean. Riley's emphasis leads him to some interesting readings. He suggests that PATCHWORK GIRL is a recasting of WIZARD because (in part) both start in the Munchkin Country, move to the Emerald City, then out to the Winkie and Quadling Countries. In considering (and rejecting) this idea, I realized my own readings focus more on character and plot than space. (In those respects the two books are quite different. Ojo needs to grow psychologically, but Dorothy doesn't. And his search for a list of items is more like OZMA's ornament-hunt than the WIZARD's quest for home.) At times, Riley puts too much weight on landscape descriptions. He writes that in MERRY-GO-ROUND Robin's first impression of where he landed as like "pictures of England" shows that the McGraws depicted Oz as a "European landscape." But isn't Robin seeing the fox-hunting grounds of View Halloo, not Oz as a whole? The McGraws' Easter Bunny and circlet-guarding machine actually echo two of the elements that Riley says make Baum's books so American. (I in fact agree that MERRY-GO-ROUND, with its knights and nannies, is as much English as American; I just think Riley chose the wrong evidence.) Riley ties the growth of Oz to Baum's own experiences and the 19th-century American landscape he saw vanish. He leaves it to others to discuss the effects of social and historical environments: Chicago's turn-of-the-century utopianism, the World War, suffrage, racial attitudes. And we could, I think, learn more about Baum's Oz from changes in characters and quests than from whether the mud in the road is really purple. Nevertheless, this was a provocative and enjoyable rainy-day read. Methodologically, I envy Riley's freedom to discuss Baum's life and motivations. Studying at the American capital of deconstructionism in the 1980s, I was marked down for even hinting that Lewis Carroll had a plumbable *intention* [horrors!] in writing THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK. Finally, OZ AND BEYOND is a nicely designed volume. Its pages reproduce many illustrations from Baum's books, both as decoration and within Riley's argument. (The two maps of Oz from TIK-TOK are unfortunately switched. And some of the full-page drawings appear on a light gray screen, which reduces their legibility.) One of those full-page illustrations leads me to a question for the group. ROAD TO OZ, page 193. Top of the frame. There seems to be a statue of Jack Pumpkinhead on a ledge of Ozma's palace. But who's shown next to him? Could that be Roquat? J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 97 19:52:02 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things REGARDING _THAT OZZY FEELING_ AND QUESTIONS OF CONTINUITY: JOdel wrote: >I do think that the idea makes it >inconvenient for anyone else who ever plans to try to write an Oz story, in >that they will be put, willy-nilly, into the position of having to either set >it into a period before the marriage, (approximately a 90-100 year period >A.D.-- after Dorothy, that is) which, as time passes, will start feeling >decidedly crowded since it already contains virtually all of the known Oz >stories that already exist as well as any new ones, or it will put the author >into the position of having to use someone elses' coppyright characters... I guess what I can't understand is why two non-Canonical Oz books contradicting each other would be so horrible and tragic, since they are all equally "apocrypha" (I'm learning not to regard that as a dirty word) anyway. I have to say that this is the main reason that I am not as enthusiastic about the HACC as I used to be -- Because, with respect and high regard to Tyler and Chris, I feel that it sets up an atmosphere that says "If you write a book that cannot be reconciled with other books, some of which are yet to be written, then your book has no right to exist." I certainly don't think Tyler and Chris ever intended this, but it is the unfortunate side-effect of the HACC that I perceive. As a result you can argue, "You can't write a book in which a major Oz character gets married or otherwise undergoes a growth in character because it shackles other writers." In imposing these restrictions, I feel that *I* am the one who is being shackled! -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 2, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 06:59:27 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 All, It seems to me that recent digests have taken a turn for the better. More erudite. Keep up the good work, everyone. > The Sawhorse has a purely utilitarian role in many Oz books > - _Tin Woodman_, for instance, or _Glinda_ - but I consider > his roles in at least _DotWiz_, _Lost Princess_, and _Wonder > City_ to be as significant as Button-Bright's in any book > but _Scarecrow_, and in _Land_ and _Scalawagons_ to be as > significant as Button-Bright's in _Scarecrow_. YMMV. It's curious, but I was just ruminating about both the Sawhorse and Button-Bright. In many ways they have always seemed to me to exist for the same purpose, that of impartial observer, observing and commenting on the irrationality of the situation and it's participants. Some deflation of pretentiousness is always welcome, and I enjoy it. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:41:25 -0500 (EST) From: Saroz@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Robert: Yes, I caught Rosie by accident on Halloween...and I now have that episode on tape (except for most of the opening Rosie/audience member interaction). The Tin Man was the sax player, actually, and the Lion played the guitar. Also, the Wicked Witch of the West was also a band member...Bette Midler played the Witch of the _East_ ("But you only see her socks!" "I rest my case."). I wonder why there wasn't a Wizard.... Sarah Hadley ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 13:50:57 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Ken: I agree with you that the last true Oz book was Baum's final one. I know I will never meet up to such a standard--and the fact that I obviously try is just for the enjoyment it gives me (to try) and the hopes that someday I may come close. Yes, if one wants to read a true Oz book, I don't recommend my attempt. But if you want to read a "fun" attempt at one, mine would be acceptable (I think), and perhaps some other author's would be more so. Just a thought. Dave: Hope your M-i-L's okay. I know how I'd feel in your place . . . --Jeremy Steadman, hopefully http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 P.S. I'm constantly improving the web page above--I've added graphics now, for exanple, cartoonish though many of them be. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:14:36 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" JOdel: >(At an intollerable worst, it is a power ploy. But I do not really believe that eiter Dave or Melody is making a power ploy.)< Your concerns are understandable. And you're right--we're not. The solution is to give an established Oz character a reclusive mate who never interferes with them, so they can carry on pretty much as they did before. A jealous spotlight-hogging control freak, on the other hand, would definitely cause the problems you mention. Ozma & Glinda are already well-tied-down by their kingdoms. A mate surely would not tie them down much further than Baum, Thompson, etc have 'em already. When I brought back Tippetarius as a real boy in his own right in SBM1, it was with the intent that other Oz writers could now have him as a character in their books if they wanted, without having to pay me anything. (No power ploy there!) They don't even have to pay or ask for permission to mention Mombi's Tip-Ozma use of her Switcheroo Spell in their books. That is, unless I drop dead and a greedy relative demands permission & payment for their use. Those who want to believe that the events of "Ozzy Feeling" "really" happened (if "Ozzy Feeling" is ever published) have my permission to mention Zim if they want (Dave can decide what to do with Dan) but they don't have to. Zim: Did Columbo's wife ever appear in his television series? Dave & JOdel: The stipulation that series characters never change or grow is in itself a shackle on writers. That's what I liked about Star Trek-The Next Generation--the characters, though only O'Brian married, did change and grow. Picard learned to like, or at least tolerate, children, Data learned how to be more human, Riker became more mature, Barclay became less shy and nervous, etc. :-) Bear: Maybe Gandalf never found the right sorceress... ;-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:50:38 -0500 From: Richard Randolph Subject: Ozzy Digest 11-1-97 Lora (BluOrchid2): If the manager of the Hobby Lobby store was a TRUE relative of LFB, he would have insisted you buy SILVER jeweled stones, not ruby ones! ;-) Dick ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 02:33:39 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 To: "Dave L. Hardenbrook" Gordon: >I've been thinking about Button Bright's real name. Saladin Paracelcus de >Lambertine Evagne von Smith. Saladin and Paracelsus are easy enough >identifications, and "Smith" at the end of all those ringing, illustrious, >aristocratic foreign names is a very funny touch. But Lambertine Evagne >is not as clear an allusion. I believe it is a fanciful Frenchification of >the name Johann Lambert (Welsh : Evan; Russian: Ivan; "French": Evagne; >English: John; German: Johann). Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-77) was a >distinguished German physicist, mathematician, and astronomer who >discovered a method for measuring the intensity of light. Named for him is >the lambert, a physical unit of--what else?--brightness. Interesting speculation, and given Baum's interest in things scientific it might even be true. Of course, as I've pointed out before, "von Smith" is an unlikely combination, since "von" is normally followed by a place-name and "Smith" is an occupational name. (Most surnames fall into one of four categories: occupational, like Smith; patronymic, like Johnson; descriptive, like Brown; or place, like Washington (town) or Fields (generic place).) My guess is that since Button-Bright admits that he has more names that he can't remember, there's another name or three between the "von" and the "Smith", e.g. "von Hindenburg ibn-Saud Smith." Bob Spark: > I enlisted in 1959. I guess you could say that I was in the "brown >boot (not shoe) army as I was issued brown boots which I was immediately >required to dye black. I don't recall the green class A uniform jacket >being referred to as a blouse, but the upper garment (shirt) of the >fatigue uniform was. I wasn't quite sure when the changeover happened; I wore an OD uniform and brown shoes through my ROTC days, but graduated in 1958. I did a year of grad school and then spent another several months waiting around to be called up; by the time I went on active duty in early 1960 we had the green uniforms and black shoes. Ken C.: I'll have to look for that Fairy Tale movie - is it something I should look for at video rental places, or is it currently playing at theaters? (I think I'd have noticed if it were the latter, but maybe not; I've been to two movies in theaters in the last two years, which gives you an idea of how closely I observe such things.) I'll check for _Stardust_ as well. I loved the Gaiman-Pratchett collaboration _Good Omens_, though from what I've read of the two working separately I think it resembled Pratchett more than Gaiman. OK, so you don't accept anything anyone but Baum has written about Oz. Your privilege. I think you went on about it at somewhat more length than was necessary, but I'm hardly one to criticize anyone else for going on at great length about anything. :-) Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy Oz stories by other people (including ourselves) will continue to disagree with you and read them anyhow. Jeremy: >Re Disney: >I am speaking of the Baptist Church's views on, yes, the _moral_ >quality of modern Disney films. Beats me. Is the Baptist Church critical of modern Disney _animated_ films, or is their objection to the numerous live-action films that aren't G-rated that have come out from the Disney studio? (And to various TV programs on ABC, which is now part of Disney?) I ask for information; the stories I've seen have mostly indicated that it was the latter - and Disney Corp.'s homosexual-friendly policies - that they objected to, but it's not something I've followed closely. Lora: What a cool thing to meet an actual descendant of LFB himself (and not at an Oz convention)! (I hope that he really was a descendant and not just someone with the same last name who was doing a bit of self-aggrandizement.) Bear: I think no one has written a book based on LOTR because Tolkien did such a thorough job of defining his world and limiting any possible writing about it by others. I think I even used this as an example a month or so ago; one of the good things about Baum's rather sketchy (and sometimes apparently contradictory) description of Oz is that it leaves so much room for later writers to fill in the blanks. In this respect Oz is much more like Sherlock Holmes than like LOTR. >Remember AOL-sufferers, I have used Compuserve for over five years with >nary a glitch. It remains $9.95 per month for basic service. I would be >happy to have them send any of you the start-up disk. I remember a glitch on Compuserve not more than 2-3 months ago that had a number of people frustrated thereby. It's not nearly as erratic as AOL, but "nary a glitch" is remembering through rose-colored glasses. Joyce: It's not necessary to assume that much more time passed between the events of _Road_ and those of _Sky Island_ than between the publication of the two books. Button-Bright seems to be about four in _Road_ and about eight in _Sky Island_, and there were three years between their publication. But as I've said before, I don't think _Road_ actually took place later than about 1904, 1905 at the latest, which would mean that in fact _Sky Island_ would take place well before its publication date. >As to his wardrobe, I think it is only his notable "pure dumb luck" that saved >him from tripping off into some magical adventure or other in a velvet >Fauntleroy suit, since I'm convinced that he would undoubtedly have had one... Well, he was going out on a rainy day, and his nanny knew he was going out; if he'd been in velvet she'd probably have made him change. I don't think her employers would have been kind to her if he'd ruined a velvet suit. >As to Ozian marriage customs, I'm sorry, the whole thing sounds like a tempest >in a teapot to me. So far as any of the the FF ever shows us, Ozian "love" is >little more than a friendly preference with mildly romantic, sometimes faintly >sticky overtones, and "marriage" might just as well be a legal process for >ensuring that one gets a companionable roomate, and an excuse to throw a big >party. (You always get the impression that Pompadore and Peg's baby girl was >special-delivered to them by the stork.) It's a picture and not text, but have you checked the color plate of Files and Ozga going down the Hollow Tube in _Tik-Tok_? I think there's been a complete consensus among those of the rest of us who write Ozian books and stories that whatever Dave and Melody do with Ozma and Glinda will be ignored, however good the story might be. The HACC is a Tyler Jones/Chris Dulabone creation, and they can decide whether "That Ozzy Feeling" or other books will become part of it - but that's their decision, and it need mean nothing to anyone else. (Most of the stories I want to write will take place before "TOF" anyhow, as I understand their idea, but if I want to write one set in a later time I'll do it, and ignore their book.) J.L.: I commented on _Oz and Beyond_ a few weeks ago, but generally agree with your take on it. Riley liked some books better than I did and some less (I think he greatly underrates _Lost Princess_, which remains my favorite Baum Oz book), but I thought he had the right basic idea. The figure next to Jack Pumpkinhead in the illustration on p. 193 of _Road_ certainly looks like a Nome, but it's too small for me to be able to make it out for sure. Anybody with an early edition before the plates started wearing have an opinion? David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 97 18:03:26 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things BAUM BUGLE: I got the Autumn '97 Bugle yesterday. Looks good! But is that _Oz: The American Fairyland_ video really *$49.95*???? AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! "JUST ONE MORE THING": :) Zim the Flying Sorcerer wrote: >Did Columbo's wife ever appear in his television series? Good point, Zim! :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 3, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:41:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Dan and Zim Will NOT Be Ignored! (Ozzy Digest) Just a quick note: In contrast to David, I do not intend to ignore the Hardenbrookian modifications to Oz in Lurline's Machine. However, I have no plans when I get back to editing _Woozy_ to have Oz in the same condition as that in which Dave leaves it... scoodler 1: Yes! Then there IS a chance that we will be able to turn Dan into gumbo! scoodler 2: Don't be silly! He'd make a much better goulash. Aaron. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@ymail.yu.edu North Antozian Systems and The Martian Empire ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 00:52:26 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Ozian Standard Time: Aside from an apparent lack of a need for Daylight Savings Time, most of the evidence indicates that the east-west dimensions of Oz are not sufficient to warrant more than one time zone. Ken Cope: Hmmm, interesting idea about Dorothy and Ozma. Have you, by chance, been sneaking a peek at some of March Laumer's writings? Given your writings yesterday, I would tend to doubt it, since if I accept your words as genuine (and I do), then you would view Laumer as the anti-Baum or, dare I say it, the JOE CAMEL of Oz. Joyce: Currently, _Road_ has been assigned the year 1904 in the HACC, five years before its publication and _Scarecrow_ has been assigned 1909. It is to be remembered that books 2-9 of the FF had to be squeezed to allow for non-aging of the children who made return trips to Oz. _Sky Island_ has not been given a year yet. It is likely that it took place shortly before _Scarecrow_, perhaps in 1908. That would give Button-Bright four years of aging, which should be enough. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them. Dave: I must admit that this is an unfortuante effect of the HACC. In listing books that are textually consistent with the FF, those books themselves become part of the timeline and, with dozens of authors over a period of nearly one hundred years, some are bound to contradict one another and this has already happened a few times. I suppose the HACC can be viewed as the most common thread of Ozzy history (or perhaps as the path-of-least-resistance). The truth is that I myself am beginning to question the validity of the HACC as the "official" or "main" thread. Maybe all Oz books that are textually consistent with the FF should go into the list with no concerns about how post-FF books affect each other and are accurate to one another. Some will and some won't. Authors have, are now and will continue to write Oz books based on they want to and they will choose to be accurate with FF and non-FF books as they choose. The idea of hundreds (eventually) of Oz books, all written to be consistent with each other may be an ideal state, but it is simply not attainable. Let me say that, IMHO, some of the best-ever Ozzy writing comes from books that are not in the HACC and I look forward to reading _That Ozzy Feeling_. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 02:57:16 -0500 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: OZZY Digest Hello, I just returned from the EAPSU Conference and I must say my illustrations presentation went well, and I answered a lot of questions afterwards. The only trouble is that I opened the doors to a thousand more ideas that I want to look into. Oh well, that's what I am here for I suppose. Now, I can catch up on my Digests and, with EAPSU off of my shoulders I can relax about the rest of the work. I can't believe this semster is already half over!!?? October 25-27: Gordon & Ruth: The ideas you both discuss about patching and mismatched halves reminds me of two things. One, Manichean Philosophy, and two, Shel Silverstein's _The Missing Piece_. Bear: About Heart and Oz . . . Sorry I didn't get back to you, but as I said, I was at the conference. Ruth pretty much summed it up, for the most part. I won't drag on. October 29: Bear: I agree with all of your comments, but I do have to say my parents never rented me a room, I played with Barbies until I was in eightht grade, and my father actually had to sit me down and explain why the boys didn't want me to play tackle football anymore! I always asked my students where they were goig when they informed me of their "going with someone." I don't think I have an objection to romance in Oz, because romance, at least to me, still retains the magical connotation. When I think of romance I think of something along the lines of chivalry and quixotic adventures. From what Dave has explained about the book, I think this is what Dave & Co. are referring to. I don't think any of the children's fairy tales that have the prince and the princess living happily ever after are sexual. Gender stereotypic maybe but not sexual. In fact, that's what my illustrations work is exploring - the gender roles created by children's illustrations. No matter how much I love Oz and it's magic, I found amaxing parallels between the illustrations and representaions of women in other sources of the times. I think there is plenty of romance in Oz already, look at _Speedy_. Besides there is romance in adventure. Furthermore, call me pessemistic, but romance doesn't seem to happen much any more, so maybe I associate it more with fairy tales, and for that reason can't relate the sexual examples of todays society to the concept of romance of fairy tales. I don't think Dave and Co. are talking about writing another adult version of Oz; I took it as an exploration of the romantic qualities of Oz. Nathan: Of course I did! I was just overwhelmed with names and illustrations. Sorry. I'm surprised it took people so long to notice. Well, I'm off. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep up with the Digests at lot easier. :-l Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:00:07 -0800 From: Wm D Ryan Subject: OZ -- What else is there? Hi Thought you might be interested in a little trivia. You n=might already know it. The name OZ came when Baum was writing his fairy tale, he got the name OZ from the encyclopedia. His encyclopedia set included many books ond one of those books had the title OZ for contents "O to Z". I hope you find this interesring, I did 20 years ago when it was told to me by my Grandfather. And as we all know, Grandfathers do not lie. Check my site out at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/5251/ Also, I do wish to subscribe to your OZ digest. Thanks Wizard of DOS ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:32:22 -0600 From: Richard_Tuerk@tamu-commerce.edu (Richard Tuerk) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-02-97 On 11-02-97 David Hulen wrote: >I think no one has written a book based on LOTR because Tolkien did such a >thorough job of defining his world and limiting any possible writing about >it by others. I think I even used this as an example a month or so ago; one >of the good things about Baum's rather sketchy (and sometimes apparently >contradictory) description of Oz is that it leaves so much room for later >writers to fill in the blanks. In this respect Oz is much more like >Sherlock Holmes than like LOTR. Michael O. Riley's new book from University of Kansas Press, _Oz and Beyond: The Fantasy World of L. Frank Baum_, does an awfully good job of tracing Baum's changing conception of the Land of Oz. According to Riley, it evolves from being a relatively small place in the early Oz books to being a much larger place in the later Oz books. Riley theorizes that Baum made it large with vast unexplored areas after he cut it off from the rest of the world yet as a result of pressure from readers, his publisher, and his pocketbook, decided to continue writing Oz books. He felt that any more Oz books would have to be set almost entirely if not entirely in Oz, so he gave it the vast unexplored areas in which he could set new adventures of the sort we find in _The Tin Woodman of Oz_, _The Lost Princess of Oz_, _The Magic of Oz_, and _Glinda of Oz_, adventures that involve at least in part exploring previously unexplored areas of Oz. As far as I can tell, Riley presents sound evidence to support this theory. Later writers about Oz, like Ruth Plumly Thompson, Riley argues, basically accepted Baum's later idea about Oz, although some, of course, reconceived Oz altogether. I'm right now reading _Wicked_. That book pretty clearly uses the later idea of Oz's being tremendously vast but reconceives large protions of the geography and history. Rich Tuerk ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 16:28:53 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-02-97 There's all this funny white stuff coming down out of the sky and covering the trees and ground...never saw the like in Santa Ana! :-) Bob Spark: > It's curious, but I was just ruminating about both the Sawhorse and >Button-Bright. In many ways they have always seemed to me to exist for >the same purpose, that of impartial observer, observing and commenting >on the irrationality of the situation and it's participants. Some >deflation of pretentiousness is always welcome, and I enjoy it. That's seemed to me more the province of the Sawhorse than of Button-Bright; do you have specific examples of the latter in mind? (He frequently says that people shouldn't get upset because things always work out OK in the long run, but that's not exactly the same thing.) Dave: >I got the Autumn '97 Bugle yesterday. Looks good! But is that _Oz: The >American Fairyland_ video really *$49.95*???? AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! Ayup. But you have to expect that for a very professionally-produced video that's going to have a quite limited market, I'm afraid. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 10:30:59 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Bear: There's no professional "Lord of the Rings" world fiction because the books are under copyright. There's been some fanfiction about it (I don't know of any book-length, but various short stories). But most of the speculations about Tolkien's world have been published as appendix- style articles. I think this is partly because the example of the appendices provides a good model for doing it that way, and partly because Tolkien's work isn't exactly formed into a series the way the Holmes, Oz, "Star Trek," etc., stories are -- there are some individual stories that link up into a history, but don't have the same characters, and only the two stories of "The Hobbit" and "TLotR" where the characters overlap much. And "TLotR" ends with the disappearance of most of the major characters into a transcendental world. In terms of the world of the stories, it would be possible to imagine a romance for Gandalf -- the Elf Earendil marries the Vala Melian, as detailed in "The Silmarillion." And Gandalf is himself a Vala. Such a romance would probably have to take place in the ages before "The Hobbit," as there's scarcely time for it while he's investigating the One Ring, or in the interval after his resurrection and before the voyage off beyond the horizon at the end. But the example of Earendil and Melian is presented as something extremely rare, with no other examples in the history of Middle Earth, so in addition to the problems of making such a romance artistically convincing, it would be difficult to make plausible "historically." The artistic problems, of course, are major ones, including such matters as making it plausible that the character would fall in love with anyone at all, and making a love- interest-character interesting enough to be plausible in the role and attractive enough to win over the readers who would rather keep the unattached major character unchanged from the original author's depiction. Ken Cope and Joyce Odell: Interesting point that marrying off a series character limits the options for future story writers. This doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Fan-stories don't all have to follow the same plot-track. I don't think it's bothered readers that Moriarty is revealed in "The 7% Percent Solution" to be a harmless math teacher, and his criminal genius Holmes' delusion, where in John W. Gardner's Moriarty books, he's revealed to be a gangster with no real mathematical ability. On the other hand, I suspect these came out from two different publishers. Individual (professional) publishers may well want to offer their readers a coherent (sort of) storyline on such matters. Among fan publishers of stories about tv characters, however, it's quite common to find several incompatible versions of love-lives for the favorite characters, each version accepted as that individual fan's view of it and enjoyed by the readers. But professional may not want to ask their readers to be so accommodating about keeping track of multiple futures. David Hulan: The other books where Polychrome puts in a brief appearance are "Grampa" and "Wonder Book." She gets mentions in "Kabumpo" and "Ozmapolitan," and an endpaper apperance in "Royal Book." The "Fairy Tale" movie Ken Cope talked about is currently in the movie theaters. I haven't so far gone to see it and suspect that I don't want to, because I don't think I could get around the inaccuracy of presenting the children's fairies as "real" fairies and their photographs of them as genuine (if I understand the reviews correctly, that is how they're presented). In fact, the photographs were exposed as faked -- although Doyle himself, I believe, never accepted the proof of the photos' fraudulence. (And if they're going to call the character Arthur Conan Doyle, they could probably have found an equally fine actor who looks a little bit like him.) On Oz romance as more than mild and companionable -- besides the "Tik-Tok" picture you mention, there is the text's portrayal of Pon's depths-of-despair in "Scarecrow" at the prospect of losing Gloria, surely too extreme for a mild or merely companionable relationship. (Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?) J.L. Bell: Interesting comments on Michael Riley's book. I haven't finished reading it yet, so can't compare reactions yet. Dave Hardenbrook: Yup, the videotape really is that expensive. It is probably a good videotape, but I decided it was too much of a budgetbuster for me to get. ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 97 15:39:08 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Zim: Hmmm...Interesting that the Scoodlers do not propose turning *me* into soup... Glinda: Of course not, my dear...Scoodlers would never *dare* try to make soup out of the creation of an established and respected Oz author... Woozy: Of course, Aaron could go over to the _Red Dwarf_ universe and get The Inquisitor to erase Zim and Dan from history altogether... Dan: ARRRRGHHHHH!!! Zim: Fear not, Daniel! My magical herbs are far more potent than Mr. Inquisitor's Time Gauntlet...Or most anything else... :) :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 4, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 15:39:47 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-29-97 Tyler: I believe Baum stated more than once that it was the Wizard who built the Emerald City where there had previously been only a rustic castle and various sundry surroundings. David: Why don't you come to Indiana? Except in the Chicago and Louisville Metro areas, and in Posey at the bottom corner, there is not time change. :-) Bear: I'm 21, and I think a lot of the things you say are disturbing, especially parents getting after-prom hotel rooms for their kids, which if I have heard about, it never registered. I do see it as a problem. In _Tip of Oz_ there is a semi-implict sexual relationship of this nature, but the reader cannot know, because I don't know and wouldn't ask because it is not my place as a royal historian. There are actually several couples, but this is all ambiguous, of course. A child certainly wouldn't recognize any of this, or so I would think. Dave: Remember Salman Rushdie is also an Oz fan who appeared in _The Whimiscal World of Oz_ because he wrote a book-lenght analysis of the MGM film for that series where a critic analyzes a single film. One of the Focus On books or something. I might write on on _Evil Dead II_ if I could get paid for it. That reminds me. The IMDb credits Robert A. Baum as being in that documentary. Is this actually Robert A. Baum Jr (they will remain listed as two different people, otherwise). Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 16:31:52 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Sarah: Tip's dream is actually a bit like the climactic scene of _The City of Lost Children_ combined with that of the ending of _Zardoz_, in a much more G-rated manner. He dreams a mysterious young woman with a zoetrope has made them all age to skeletons, set to the allegretto from Beethoven's 7th symphony. Is that so bad? I don't think Tip would dream what you are thinking. I didn't at his age. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 16:49:34 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 J.L.: According to Justin Schiller, Bil Osco's porno never made it past the trailer stage which he saw. He also saw the R-rated cut of _Alice in Wonderland_ directed by Bud Townsend. Osco also produced _Flesh Gordon_. I'm ashamed that I found a tape in my garage this morning that my Dad had obviously put on the shelf, that was filled with German pornographic shorts. I kept watching because I recognized the music. At first I thought it was cribbed from Goblin's score to _La Via della Droga_, but after hearing a bit more, I realized it was _Evolution_ by Giorgio Moroder, a piece I may not think about the same way again. There was some weird stuff in that video, featuring women discovering idiotic new uses for common househould items. I felt quite dirty after seeing this crap. erhaps it was a good thing that this seemed multiple generations from PAL, as the picture was not nearly as clear as it could have been. I don't know why he wastes what little money he makes on this crap. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:00:17 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 I think if Oz is in our world than part of it would have to cross the International Date Linw, which would have to be reconfigured if this existence of Oz was made public. :-) Dave: Th unusual nature of _That Ozzy Feeling_ compared with other recent works from major publishers that it has been compared with (Maguire, Frarmer, Ryman) suggests it would have an easier time finding a publisher on that angle than would _Tip of Oz_, which I don't think is in any way heretical (I am not a naysayer to your book so long as it stays outside the "real" continuity) but is, rather, a serious and personal work that stays true to the Oz of Baum. Most non-canonical Oz books have had more of a Thompson flavor to them, while this goes back to early Baum. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 20:32:14 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: TODAY'S OZ GROWLS Sender: Richard Bauman Another nuclear detonation by Ken! I am humbled before the Master. David - Yeh, "Something, something and tatooed." Most of us older folks remember that associated with the military, but I didn't think I would bring it up. I meant that tatooes had some cache and attention in the world during WWII and now in the 90's. In between they were just sort of around, IIRC. Robin - Thanks for another wonderful example of why I have a MAC and use Compuserve. Continued sympathies.... :) I'm beginning to be concerned for Dave and Melodies feelings here. Relax, we still have freedom of speech in the U.S. (Well, except at many universities.) Your marriage idea makes me think of the mushy green beans my Mother served me. I told her, "OK, I'll eat the things, but don't expect me to like them." Sarah - Of course, the Wizard is behind the scenes. He is the producer who put together this show (Rosie), which I have heard, has blown all the other "Children of Donahue" away. By the way, a curse on all of them! :( David - You don't know about "Fairy Tale" because you avoid TV. It has been advertised considerably lately. Also, my Sunday magazine section had a very favorable review. David - If you don't see something it doesn't matter what color your glasses are! :) See comment to Robin above. :) Clearly, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:25:07 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Gandalf and his women: It is to be remembered that Gandalf was not really human. He was an Ainur, similar to an Angel. Therefore, he may not have had the same feelings as the rest of us. Ozma is a fairy, but she was also born human. --Tyler ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 08:04:07 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-10-96 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bear: Additional thought: Tom Bombadil of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" is spoken of as even more of a magical being than Gandalf. (Tom is one of the few beings who cannot be affected by Sauron's rings--not even the One.) In marrying Goldberry, the River Daughter, he presumably married a magical being like himself. On Sky Island: If, as Rosalie says, Button-Bright's umbrella is powered by live fairies, they must be pretty dumb. It is shown (and this is what propels our heroes into their predicament) that once the Umbrella is given an order, it carries it out to the letter, ignoring any more orders until it has completed its mission. Seems that Button-Bright's umbrella is probably powered by the magical equivalent of an automatic pilot instead of intelligent beings. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 09:06:26 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest A drawback to worktime email access is that I can't check references at home until a bit later, and memory can mislead. So I have to correct two points from yesterday's posting. One is that Melian didn't marry Earendil -- she married King Thingol, and it was one of their descendants (Elwing) who married Earendil. When I looked for references on the Cottingsley fairies, I couldn't find much, and realized I was repeating second-hand info. So I phoned up Peter Blau (which means it's still second-hand, but much better second-hand), and learned from him that the authoritative debunking was much later than I thought, long after Doyle's death. In 1982-83 a series of articles in "British Journal of Photography," on "that Astonishing Affair of the Cottingsley Fairies," written after careful examination of the negatives, showed that they photos were faked. About the same time, the girls (by then old women) were interviewed by a newspaper and admitted that the photos were faked (except the double exposure -- what they meant by excepting that, I don't know). One of the two still said that the fairies were real, although the photos were faked, and the other declined to say if she thought the fairies were real. Peter thought the movie delightful (in spite of its various inaccuracies), so I probably will try to go see it. There was also, a little earlier, an article debunking the photos (but without access to the negatives) by Martin Gardner, in the 1976 anthology "Beyond Baker Street," and reprinted in his "Science Good Bad and Bogus." Lisa Bompiani: Er -- that was Gordon Birrell who explained the resemblances to "Heart of Darkness." J.L. Bell and David Hulan: That little figure in the "Road" illo could be Roquat, but it looks to me as if the pointy bit at the top is a hat rather than a hairdo. Maybe "Guardian of the Gates" (although Neill didn't otherwise draw the Guardian as knock-kneed)? Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 10:34:33 -0500 (EST) From: BluOrchid2@aol.com Subject: For Ozzy Digest I am a fan of the movie, but have not yet read any of the books - I know, that's probably blasphemy around here, but I do want to change my sinful ways! LOL Would someone please submit a chronological list of the Baum books, so that I may read them in proper order? Thanks so much. Lora ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:05:24 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Aaron: >Just a quick note: In contrast to David, I do not intend to ignore the >Hardenbrookian modifications to Oz in Lurline's Machine. However, I have >no plans when I get back to editing _Woozy_ to have Oz in the same >condition as that in which Dave leaves it... Fine, do so if you like. Since I have no notion when I might be able to read _That Ozzy Feeling_, or even _Locasta_, I'm not going to let it affect my writing. (The fact that I have, optimistically, maybe 25 years of writing life left vs. your likely 60+, might have something to do with this as well.) Tyler: >Ozian Standard Time: >Aside from an apparent lack of a need for Daylight Savings Time, most of >the evidence indicates that the east-west dimensions of Oz are not >sufficient to warrant more than one time zone. It seems unlikely that Oz would need more than one time zone - in fact, it seems unlikely that all of Baumgea, if you accept the Haff-Martin map, would need more than one time zone. Time zones average a bit over 1000 statute miles E-W at the equator, and 500 miles even at the latitude of Seattle. But Daylight Savings Time and time zones have little to do with each other. The lack of snow in Oz, even though it's in the middle of a sizable land mass, probably means that it's at a fairly low latitude where the change in length of day through the year is small, if it's on an Earth-type planet at all (which is questionable). Another alternative could be that Oz is on a planet with no axial tilt (there don't seem to be any seasons to speak of), which again would mean there's no point in DST. I think your estimates of 1904 for _Road_, 1908 for _Sky Island_, and 1909 for _Scarecrow_ sound about right. I'd actually prefer to move them all about a year earlier yet, but I can live with those dates, and if you're trying to cram in all the non-FF, but FF-consistent, books that take place between _Ozma_ and _Emerald City_ then it's probably necessary to allow that much time. My feeling, often expressed, is that any book that's consistent with the FF is Historically Accurate enough for me. To hold otherwise would hamstring other authors too much, and there's no Official Publisher any more to define whose books are Official and whose are not. And as you say, consistency with the FF is not at all a measure of how well-written or enjoyable a book is. It's something like height and weight - on average, taller people will weigh more than shorter people, and on average I enjoy FF-consistent books more than those that aren't, but the heaviest person around is probably not the tallest one, and vice versa. Ruth: >Bear: There's no professional "Lord of the Rings" world fiction because >the books are under copyright. Is that true? I thought LotR itself was PD in the US (though not elsewhere) because of a loophole in the old copyright law. Did it get re-protected somehow? If the "Fairy Tale" movie actually presents the fairies in those photos as real, then it's certainly inaccurate. It's pretty obvious they're faked just from looking at copies of the photos, and IIRC somebody even dug up the book they'd been cut out of. (Not the physical book, but another copy with identical fairies in identical poses.) Still, it could be an amusing movie if I ever have time to go to a movie while it's still playing. (More accurately, if Marcia ever has time to go to a movie while it's still playing. I have plenty of time, but the theaters around here aren't open in the daytime, and when Marcia's home I don't want to go off and leave her.) Hard to think that that picture in _Tik-Tok_ was an accident; Neill had to be aware of where he'd put Files's hand. But a joke, yes. I'm surprised nobody at R&L caught it and made him change it. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:06:57 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Ruth: > On Oz romance as more than mild and companionable -- besides the "Tik-Tok" picture you mention, there is the text's portrayal of Pon's depths-of-despair in "Scarecrow" at the prospect of losing Gloria, surely too extreme for a mild or merely companionable relationship. (Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?)< Thanks for pointing that one out, too. Congratulations on your Bugle article. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:05:44 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bompi: > I think there is plenty of romance in Oz already, look at _Speedy_. Besides there is romance in adventure. Furthermore, call me pessemistic, but romance doesn't seem to happen much any more, so maybe I associate it more with fairy tales, and for that reason can't relate the sexual examples of todays society to the concept of romance of fairy tales. I don't think Dave and Co. are talking about writing another adult version of Oz; I took it as an exploration of the romantic qualities of Oz.< And thanks to you, too, Bompi! (Hey, Dave! How about all these nice folks willing to give "That Ozzy Feeling a chance!) :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:03:45 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Tyler: >Let me say that, IMHO, some of the best-ever Ozzy writing comes from books that are not in the HACC and I look forward to reading _That Ozzy Feeling_.< Thank *you,* Tyler! :-) (And JOdel, and David Hulan, and.....) :-) :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:06:05 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Ruth: >And "TLotR" ends with the disappearance of most of the major characters into a transcendental world. < Which fits the description of Tir na n'Og of Celtic legend. Thanks for pointing out that example of a Valar marrying an elf in Silmarillion--especially since I've never read that one myself. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:07:56 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Robert Schroeder: >I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you and Melody, Dave. This book sounds wonderful.< Thanks for your vote of confidence. I hope it lives up to your expectations. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:07:35 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Dave: >Zim: Hmmm...Interesting that the Scoodlers do not propose turning *me* into soup...< Scoodler 1: Not a chance, Mr. Super-Skinny! A soup made of *you* would be all bones! Scoodler 2: Yeccch! Melody Grandy :-) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 97 11:30:05 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things TIME ZONES: If we assume the IWOC maps are to scale and we extrapolate my values in the Ozzy FAQ for Oz's size, then Baumgea is about 250 miles across, well within the limits for a single time zone. Even using David's values should work out. As for Dayling Savings Time, the Ozites probably just don't see any point -- Heaven knows I sure don't... _THAT OZZY FEELING_: I just want to second Melody's appreciation toward those who have expressed support, or at least open-minded neutrality, to _That Ozzy Feeling_, even though I have already contacted many of you privately... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 5, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 17:18:29 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-97 > David: Why don't you come to Indiana? Except in the Chicago and > Louisville Metro areas, and in Posey at the bottom corner, there is not > time change. :-) > This is also true of Arizona, which part of the year has the same time as California and part of the time has the same time as New Mexico. (Of course Tyler knows all about this.) > > David - You don't know about "Fairy Tale" because you avoid TV. It has > been advertised considerably lately. Also, my Sunday magazine section had > a very favorable review. > I wonder if the favorable reviews "Fairy Tale" has received, and most of the ones I have seen are mixed at best, come from reviewers who do not know that the famous photographs have long been proven to be fakes. The film apparently tries to have it both ways. > > Clearly, Bear (:<) > > > > I think there is plenty of romance in Oz already, look at > _Speedy_. Besides there is romance in adventure. > _THAT OZZY FEELING_: > I just want to second Melody's appreciation toward those who have expressed > support, or at least open-minded neutrality, to _That Ozzy Feeling_, > even though I have already contacted many of you privately... > > -- Dave To put my two cents into the romance question: True, there is romance in TIK-TOK IN OZ and SCARECROW OF OZ, both of which were adapted from pre-existant theatrical or cinematic works, and true, there is romance in several of Thompson's books e.g. KABUMPO, GRANDPA, and SILVER PRINCESS. But in all those cases the romance is between characters who were created for the specific books and had not previously appeared (except for Randy in SP). The romance that some people object to is with an established major character from previous books by another author. Some readers would consider this encroaching upon someone else's territory. If R. L. Stevenson wants David Balfour to grow up and have a romantic encounter, that is his privilege, it is his character. If J. M. Barrie wants Wendy to grow up and have children of her own, that is his priviledge. But does anyone else have the right to marry off Peter Pan? BTW: As one person who *has* read THAT OZZY FEELING, I would like to say that I enjoyed it very much, and that it really constitutes SEVEN BLUE MOUNTAINS Book III, and I hope I will be available for general reading--but let's get SBM II out first. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 17:30:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-02-97, 11-03-97, 11-04-97 Catching up here! The 2nd-- Re the Baptist Church and Disney films: I am not the person to ask as to the BC's rationale (I personally am happily atheist). I get that info from a Baptist friend of my sister's; I do not know what type of Disney film she refers to. The 3rd-- Lisa B: Re "going"--I shared your confusion about the meaning of this obscure phrase that meant nothing and refers to even less. (I still don't see the point, even if I've come to get the gist now.) The 4th-- Re Freedom of Speech at Universities: Bear, you claim that FoS is suppressed at many universities. At Berry (which is not a university, but a mere college), I have observed and heard about certain religious and political viewpoints being suppressed here, so I think you have a valid point. However, I think the atmosphere of suppression is far less than in other places. Daylight Savings Time: It makes sense to me. Having lived in various places in the Eastern and Central time zones (and having visited the Mountain zone) I can only dread what it'd be like if one zone were chosen for the entire country. One size does NOT fit all! By the way: My web page is still defitely UNDER CONSTRUCTION and therefore will change at least weekly (often daily). --Jeremy Steadman http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:17:41 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11/3/97 and 11/4/97 David Hulan, > > It's curious, but I was just ruminating about both the > Sawhorse and >Button-Bright. In many ways they have always > seemed to me to exist for >the same purpose, that of > impartial observer, observing and commenting >on the > irrationality of the situation and it's participants. Some > >deflation of pretentiousness is always welcome, and I enjoy > it. > > That's seemed to me more the province of the Sawhorse than > of Button-Bright; do you have specific examples of the > latter in mind? (He frequently says that people shouldn't > get upset because things always work out OK in the long run, > but that's not exactly the same thing.) Sorry, you are absolutely correct. That aphorism of Button-Bright's was what I had in my so-called mind at the time. > I am a fan of the movie, but have not yet read any of the > books - I know, that's probably blasphemy around here, but I > do want to change my sinful ways! LOL Would someone please > submit a chronological list of the Baum books, so that I may > read them in proper order? Thanks so much. > > Lora > Lora, Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder, at least around here. There's room for all points of view (although that doesn't preclude the occasional argument). Here are a few websites with a great deal of information on Baumology: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9075/ http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/index.html http://www.NeoSoft.com/~iwoc/ I'm sure that you will have other replies. My list is certainly not a complete one, but it does contain sites with a plethora of valuable information. Welcome aboard! Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:13:56 -0800 From: stlove Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-97 BluOrchid2@aol.com wrote: >Would someone please submit a chronological list of the Baum >books, so that I may read them in proper order? I posted such a list just days ago. Please visit: -- Scott P.S. Dave, I apologize if I've presumed wrongly by sending you my reply. Please let me know if there's some other vehicle by which I should address the Ozzy Digest. ____________________________________ Scott Love scott@tiktok.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:03:26 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Scott: The WIzard himself said that he built the Emerald City, or at least bossed the job. In _The Lost King of Oz_, Pajuka confirms that there much of the city was new and that in his day there was only a small castle. Given the population of the Emerald City (50,000), it seems reasonable to assume that th green area supported a high population, if not urbanized, probably scattered in farms and little villages. It seems unlikely, even in Oz, that the Wizard built the whole city and then went around and drummed up 50,000 people to come and live there. David: Yes, the plethora of non-FF books at that time require a little bit wider spacing in the Baum 14. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:13:39 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman David - It's 75 F right now, 5 pm, in Palo Alto. And not a cloud..... :) Bob > _Oz: The American Fairyland_ video really *$49.95*???? Just wait until it is remaindered. :) Ruth >The artistic problems, of course, are major ones, including such matters as making it plausible that the character would fall in love with anyone at all, and making a love- interest-character interesting enough to be plausible in the role and attractive enough to win over the readers who would rather keep the unattached major character unchanged from the original author's depiction. Dave, are you listening? :) :) Ruth - >Pon's depths-of-despair in "Scarecrow" at the prospect of losing Gloria, surely too extreme for a mild or merely companionable relationship. (Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?) Do you mean the color plate on p. 129 where Pon is giving her a chaste little peck on the cheek? Surely not? Lora - See Dave's FAQ. Welcome to the "Real Oz World." David >Hard to think that that picture in _Tik-Tok_ was an accident; Neill had to be aware of where he'd put Files's hand. But a joke, yes. I'm surprised nobody at R&L caught it and made him change it. To what picture are you referring? Hmmmm. Maybe Ruth and David have some special editions that I haven't seen? Egad, maybe plates have been stolen from my editions. What an awful thought. I'll have to check the BOW's. Worriedly, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:13:52 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: A Skeptical Enquirer in Oz Fairy Tale opened in theatres a week ago last Friday, in San Francisco anyway. They are apparently relying on rave reviews to promote the film rather than spending Disno-bucks on advertisement. When released on DVD, I'll buy it, and place it on the shelf next to the book by Terry Jones, _Lady Cottington's Pressed Fairy Book_. There is not much point in making a film in which Houdini, gone all James Randi, shows Doyle what a twit he was for being duped by little girls who are soon to leave their childhoods behind at 12 to work 16 hour days in a mill. The filmmakers acknowledge in a cunning manner the probable method by which the photos were faked, but forced me in a diabolically clever sequence to admit that it would be beside the point of such a thoughtful film to dwell on it overmuch. I thought Doyle was quite a bit more massive than O'Toole's reediness, but his is a compelling presence anyhow. If Peter O'Toole doesn't look enough like Doyle, Harvey Keitel's Houdini will more than make it up to you. He was forced to forego an earlier opportunity to portray Houdini, and in this film eagerly sketches quite the portrait. The period details are intoxicatingly vivid. I found myself both wanting to have lived in that time, and grateful that I hadn't. No fairies were harmed in the making of this film, so far as I could tell, and they came right out in the credits and acknowledged that trick photography was employed! It is the conceit of the film to tell the tale as what might have been, had it been true, now that 80 years of compositing technology can be compared to the state of the art in the era of the Oz Film Manufacturing Company. Did you ever get the feeling That the Truth is less revealing Ken Cope Than a downright lie? Ozcot Studios And did you think your head was hip pinhead@ozcot.com To certain things it's not equipped To qualify? --The Rutles, Shangri-la ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 22:36:27 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: feeling on OZZY FEELING Sender: "J. L. Bell" I was considering THAT OZZY FEELING (of which I'm as ignorant as almost everyone else here) and the Centennial Book Contest's criterion that the story fit with "Baum's concept of Oz." I concluded that Dave and Melody are at least *courageous* in having it measured by that yardstick. Yes, couples fall in love in Baum's books--as I said before, those couples usually show up in stories that he adapted from the stage or screen (i.e., with adult audience-members in mind). And married couples are plentiful, from Em and Henry to Nimmee Ammee and Chopfyt; indeed, they tend to come off as more realistic than poor Pon and cardboard Gloria ("Oh no! Princess Gloria's heart has been frozen!" "How can they tell?"). But Ozma and Glinda are two of Baum's powerful, wise, ageless virgins, along with Maetta, Aquareine, Zixi, Reera, the Adepts, and so on. Isn't one of the foundations of his magic land, I thought, that such women are beyond the grasp of men and beyond any weak desire for men? And then I remembered Gayelette. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:04:44 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Sorcery's Apprentices in Oz In my previous blast of bombast from the flaming papier-mache head... I wasn't brief, but I thought I had said more than "I don't like non-Baum Oz." You're all certainly free to enjoy writing it, as long as you don't mind my explaining why I really couldn't stand another, wafer thin bite. You can keep the bucket... You're welcome to disagree with this at greater length or less, whichever you prefer. I prefer argument to contradiction. I sought to contrast the saga of _The Royal Wannabes in Oz_ with creations that are more centrally organized for multiple contributors. Oz precipitates and anticipates all of them. It could be said that the Oz series makes a huge contribution to the form of the fantasy universe with multiple recurrent characters, to which much present serial entertainment seldom acknowldedges debt. What Baum began, his publishers made their best effort to perpetuate, with incredibly mixed results. With dueling central clearing bodies these days, you're on your own, and it's up to you as to whether or not you want to branch off into alternity or stay consistent with the contributions of others. If you stay TOO consistent with the famous forty, you should expect a lawsuit. If you differ TOO drastically, you stray into "Wicked" territory at one extreme, where you will at least be creating something original. At the other extreme, you are proposing drastic revisioning of what (arguable) continuity can be said to exist. Between those extremes bubbles a tepid, vapid brew. Welcome to post modern civilization, where ambrosia must compete for shelf space with artificially sweetened soda pop. There isn't enough caveat emptor to go around. I suppose I most heartily agree with Dave when he describes the shackling effect of the HACC. I consider everything purporting to be "an Oz book," that wasn't written by Baum to be apocryphal, having nothing to do with the Oz that I recognize. Others raised on Thompson to whom later, Baum was an alien flavor have their own problems in this regard. So why bother remaining so consistent as to not contradict anybody? Too many lack wit, condescend, or promote a worldview that seems to me to conflict with Baum's, or otherwise show how little they understand about Oz, or magic. Should such work crowd Baum's off the shelf? I don't automatically dislike non-Baum Oz, I just find my tolerance for it to have worn exceptionally thin. I'm the last to criticize the notion of a series, but come now, after a few of Baum's best, there are other books and authors in the library suitable for permanently warping a child's mind. I have pointed to one author who steals from the dead far more liberally, Neil Gaiman. The characters from mythology, fable, the Bible, Shakespeare and Baum, and his publisher's comic books, are flavors in a brew all his own, one that presumes familiarity with its ingredients, and/or incites sufficient curiosity in the reader to inspire him to identify each flavor by sampling it in the original. I remember reading, on my paperback of Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien's plea to the reader to read his, and no unauthorized edition of his work, if you have any respect for a living author. Perhaps Tolkien was wise to close Middle Earth away from this world, and wise to raise such an editor in Christopher. C. S. Lewis drew his tale to a close. Baum left his world open, and contemperaneous, and its continual exploitation has taken many forms, not uniformly bad. One more keenly appreciates Baum after wading through enough imitations. Perhaps he was successful in closing Oz to the outside world at the end of The Emerald City of Oz, to the extent that its true nature appears to remain invisible to all who would reflect it in their clouded glass. That is the kind of respect a great author can command from beyond the grave. So we have Thompson's continuity, and MGM's, and Disney's, and yours, and Oz Squad's and Wicked's and Was's and mine. James Thurber considered the Oz books finished after two had been published, and disregards the rest. There is no compelling reason to be true to anything but one's own personal vision. The more outrageous the better. Please, have at least some vision; strive to understand the characters and scenaria you choose to plunder when you chose not to create your own. Have some idea outrageous enough to transcend the borrowed props you move about while illuminating your theme. All the information at my disposal about Laumer has been gleaned from this Digest, and my description of Ozma/Tip has nothing to do with him. Illustrations such as the one on the back cover of Road to Oz, or Dorothy and Ozma's perpetual kiss inside the covers of The Emerald City of Oz don't translate well from a more innocent time to this one. I purposely referred to chivalry. One never married one's true object of love. That which is forever denied, is that much more desirable. Ozma/Tip's heart belongs to Dorothy, a future princess rescued by the fairy princess from Langwidere's tower, at the commencement of their first adventure together. And Dorothy, "as soon as she heard the sweet voice of the girlish Ruler of Oz knew that she would soon learn to love her dearly." I cannot see any evidence in Baum that Ozma/Tip is older than at most, 12 to Dorothy's 8 or 9, if there is even that much of an age difference with Dorothy perhaps having had a birthday or two, nor do I see any reason for two young girls who enjoy having boys' adventures together (I mention it to refer to Baum's iconoclasm) to grow up when they can be forever young. As I was trying to explain to an aging member of Alcor who expects to have his severed frozen head revived on an L5 colony someday, people are not as eager for immortality as they are for perpetual youth. I am certainly not attempting to describe the nature of Ozma and Dorothy's fast friendship as sexual. (Adults usually impose that interpretation on innocence, and usually to no good end.) Nor am I declaring Ozma's gender ambiguity to be of central importance. It's certainly problematic, along with her physical youth, when a marriage proposal is at issue. Ozma and Dorothy are fortunate to have Glinda, and a chastened fraud of a Wizard, for positive adult surrogates to protect them from such nonsense. Is the counsel of elders heeded except in violation of the terrible prohibition? In many magical traditions, the transmutation of sexual energy into power is a common theme. Baum's Ozma is an immortal magical being who transcends gender. The hermaphrodite is a powerful symbol of mastery and attainment, the marriage of the Sun and Moon, preceded by death. Archetypally, a marriage ceremony is a funeral for the death of maidenhood. To what Hades will Persephone be bound? These are powerful magics. Their mastery separates the sage from the student. If you are willing to be sufficiently outrageous with your ouvre, my attention is yours. I don't want to visit Oz to find out that the perfect child ruler of fairyland grew up and got married, and it will take mastery of a magic most rare to convince me that it happened. I see nothing so wrong with the status quo in Oz that would require such a drastic remedy, while purporting to be a children's book that was true to the spirit of Baum. Or, to be brief-- If it ain't broke, why fix it. That's enough Jiminy Cricket from the evil propagandist for now. As I recall, the cricket got no medal for his efforts, just hammered. Where did I hide those volatiles... Please prove me wrong, and assure me by your work that my fears are groundless. Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com -- "Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort. If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:34:30 -0500 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: Ozzy Digest Hello, I hope everyone voted today . . . Melody: No problem, I think _TOF_ sounds intriguing. Ruth: Sorry, I guess that's what I get for responding so late at night/early in the morning. :-) I was just happy to see someone knew where I was heading; some folks around here thought I had finally carried the Oz thing too far, but I (once again) showed them that I was not alone! Anyway, thanks Gordon! I have to admit, this fairy tale movie has me thrown for a loop, too. I guess if it's not advertised during football, TLC, History Channel, or the like I just don't see it. I'll have to check it out. Until later . . . Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 04:20:28 -0500 (EST) From: Saroz@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 On Jack and the Nome: I just got in my Road first ed (which my bookseller wanted to repair before I took it home), and checked page 193 for the Nome/Jack conspiracy. ;-) That does indeed look like a Nome, but another possibility is that the figure is no more than a grouchy Munchkin/Winkie/Ozian with a tall peaked hat and a bushy set of whiskers. Which is entirely likely. Sarah ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:12:30 -0500 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Ken Cope wrote: >Ozma or Glinda will attain the state of wedded bliss about the >same time that Captain James T. Kirk bears Spock's love child. You are probably aware, but many digesters may not be, that there _is_ a considerable body of fanfic (mostly by women) involving a gay relationship between Kirk and Spock. It is frequently referred to as "K/S fiction", which has led to the generalization "Slash fiction". >Superman has married Lois Lane, and Lana Lang, and Lorelei >Lee, and every poor girl cursed with double L initials and >will do so for as long as Superman comics are sold...But >then the RED KRYPTONITE ALWAYS WEARS OFF! Actually, Clark Kent and Lois Lane are married in the comics, and it is quite clear that this one is real, and for the long haul. (The new blue-and-white look and "energy" powers, on the other hand, I give another six months at the most.) Richard Bauman wrote: >I was looking for an analogy and thought of Gandalf. Unfortunately, he had >that problem with the Balrog, IIRC. Yes, but the Powers decided that he still had a job to finish, and sent him back as Gandalf the White. >If he hadn't, to me it would be like >someone writing a story where they marry Gandalf off to some sorceress. That would be difficult, as he departs Middle Earth at the end of the book, on the same ship as Frodo. >This line of thought caused me to observe that, to my knowledge, no one has >written a book based on LOTR. Anyone know of any? Unlike Baum, and Conan >Doyle, maybe he hasn't been dead long enough. Will there be a Middle Earth >Digest one of these years? I'm not sure about the 1st edition of "The Lord of the Rings", which slipped into public domain in the USA thanks to the arcane and barbaric US copyright laws of the period; perhaps its status was normalized. (It was the outcry over this that led, after over a century of disgrace, to the US joining the civilized world in these matters.) But the rest of Tolkien's oeuvre, at any rate, will be protected for decades to come. That does not mean that no Tolkien fanfic exists. I myself am guilty of "A Hobbit in Oz" (Munchkin research-table winner, '95, but inelligible for Oziana for the above reason). But, apart from the occasional jeu d'esprit such as mine, there is little of it, probably because the Tolkien corpus is so intimidating and so thorough. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:11:59 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest David Hulan: "Lord of the Rings" lost the U.S. copyright protection on its original text, but most publishers, I think, want to keep the option of having a world market, and are reluctant to take on projects that could not legally be sold elsewhere. The professionally-published Sherlock Holmes pastiches didn't start appearing in quantity until the British copyright ran out, although the copyright on all but the last couple of Holmes collections had run out in the U.S. some years earlier. (In fact, the last collection, "The Casebook of SH," is still under U.S. copyright protection for a few years yet.) Melody Grandy: Your suggestion of some kind of autopilot operation for Button Bright's umbrella sounds plausible. But perhaps a largely automatic operation is consistent with Rosalie's claim that it is fairy- powered -- there might be some kind of safeguarding that would cut in to ring an alarm to call for attention when the umbrella operator is being thrown off from a height that wouldn't cut in for second-guessing on a destination. (Perhaps there is a way to change destinations in mid- airstream if only Button Bright knew it, although maybe it would be more likely to be itself some kind of automated control procedure rather than needing direct attention from fairy guardians.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:44:25 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Electronic auction house offering Wizard of Oz game... Just in case no one said anything yet, I wanted to mention that the electronic auction house, eBay has a WOZ board game for sale. See http://iguana.ebay2.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1708493 for more info and pic. (personal to Alan: they have a LOT of board games, starting bids for some VERY cheap. might be worth checking out for your collection) --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky, still reading VERY old e-mail... ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 97 12:29:32 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things WHAT ARE MY "RIGHTS"??: Steve Teller wrote: >If J. M. Barrie wants Wendy to grow up and have children of her own, that is >his priviledge. But does anyone else have the right to marry off Peter Pan? Well, in that case I would argue: Did Ruth Plumly Thompson have a "right" to drastically alter (essentially expunge altogether in fact) L. Frank Baum's character known as the Good Witch of the North in _The Giant Horse of Oz_? Bear (responding to Ruth) wrote: Ruth >>The artistic problems, >>of course, are major ones, including such matters as making it plausible >>that the character would fall in love with anyone at all, and making a >>love- >>interest-character interesting enough to be plausible in the role and >>attractive enough to win over the readers who would rather keep the >>unattached major character unchanged from the original author's depiction. >Dave, are you listening? :) :) I think -- and I hope those who have read _That Ozzy Feeling_ would agree -- that Melody and I have given Ozma and Glinda mates that are totally worthy of them. Dan worships Ozma, and Zim is at least equally devoted to Glinda... In regard to the original author's depiction if Ozma et. al., I still argue that there is *nothing* in the original author's (i.e. Baum's) depiction of either Ozma or Glinda that precludes either of them from falling in love. In fact, I'll put a challenge to anyone on the Digest to find the passage in Baum which states unambiguously either "Ozma cannot fall in love", "Glinda cannot fall in love", or especially the global "No magic-worker can fall in love" (As J.L. Bell points out, what about Gayelette??)... Just because Baum didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't think it could ever happen...That's _Argumentum ad Ignorantiam_, a fallacy that could be used to "prove" anything is "blasphemous" on the grounds that Baum didn't definitely say that it wasn't. Therefore I could argue that _Silver Princess in Oz_ is heretical becuase it features someone from "Anuther" planet and there can't be extraterrestrials in Oz because Baum didn't say there ever *could*... >>(Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- >>otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?) >Do you mean the color plate on p. 129 where Pon is giving her a chaste >little peck on the cheek? Surely not? I think she's refering to the color plate in _Tik-Tok_ in which, in the midst of the "Terrible Tumble Through a Tube", Files' arms are around Ozga's...IMHO "sexy" is overstating it a bit... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 6, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 19:35:25 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-97 Scott H.: >Tyler: I believe Baum stated more than once that it was the Wizard who >built the Emerald City where there had previously been only a rustic >castle and various sundry surroundings. I don't think Baum ever referred to a rustic castle on the site of the EC. In fact, as far as I can remember the only reference to anything specific existing on the site of the EC was to the Forbidden Fountain, though in _Land_ Glinda refers to Ozma's father as having been the ruler of the EC. The city as it existed in the time of _Wizard_ was built at the behest of the Wizard, though; possibly when the wicked witches conquered Oz they destroyed the city that Pastoria (or his father) had ruled. It's unclear whether Pastoria himself ever actually ruled - Ozma's account in _DotWiz_ seems to indicate that he didn't, but in other books it appears that he did. (If you accept Thompson then he definitely did, but Baum is more ambiguous.) >David: Why don't you come to Indiana? Except in the Chicago and >Louisville Metro areas, and in Posey at the bottom corner, there is not >time change. :-) I think you're confusing me with Earl. I approve of Daylight Time; I just wish more clocks were like the ones in my computers and changed themselves automatically (or at least had a button you could push that would make the one-hour change either way, rather than, as in the case of a couple of my clocks, having to be manually advanced 23 hours in the fall). There may be some parents who rent after-prom hotel rooms for their kids, but I don't think it's anything like the common practice Bear makes it out to be. And either Portland was a lot purer place than Hopkinsville, KY, in the early '50s, Bear wasn't aware of what was going on around him at the time, or his memory of the time is failing. It wasn't all that wildly different from today - in degree, maybe, but not in kind. For instance, three girls out of my high school class of 72 got pregnant while they were in high school and before they were married, and my class wasn't that unusual. One 14-year-old girl and her father were arrested when the police found a line of young men waiting outside their house and learned that the father was collecting $5 each from them to have sex with her. It's true that in those days publicity about such things was kept down compared to now, but they happened then too. And it's true that the girls who got pregnant either went out of town to have the babies and put them out for adoption or married the father rather than having the baby openly out of wedlock and raising it as a single parent. There's no question that hypocrisy was greater then; I'm less sure that morality was. Bear: >David - You don't know about "Fairy Tale" because you avoid TV. It has >been advertised considerably lately. Also, my Sunday magazine section had >a very favorable review. Unless it was advertised during a football broadcast I wouldn't have seen an ad on TV, it's true. (Well, maybe if it were on the Weather Channel.) And even if it were there's good odds I wouldn't have seen it, since I don't even watch football that much. Melody: I'm not sure Tom Bombadil is more of a magical being than Gandalf - just a different kind of magical being. Gandalf and Sauron are the same kind of magical being, differing in that one is good and one is evil, but both originally being Valar - equivalent to angels in Judeo-Christian-Islamic theologies. Tom Bombadil seems to be an earth spirit; not greater or less than the Valar, but different. Button-Bright's umbrella seems to be powered by the magical equivalent of a computer. It does what you tell it, but it does _exactly_ what you tell it, not what you meant to tell it. And it does everything serially. Ruth: You undoubtedly have a better copy of _Road_ than I do, so I'm sure you're right that the pointy thing on top of the mysterious figure next to Jack is a hat and not hair. Maybe just a generic Munchkin? Lora: Chronological list of Baum books (add "of/in/to Oz" to all titles): Wizard, Land, Ozma, Dorothy and the Wizard, Road, Emerald City, Patchwork Girl, Tik-Tok, Scarecrow, Rinkitink, Lost Princess, Tin Woodman, Magic, Glinda. That's the order of writing and probably the order they happened in Ozian history, though there's some room for doubt among the later books. If you have Web access, though, I recommend you go to Dave Hardenbrook's web site and read his FAQ, which will tell you a lot more about the Oz books. (And I envy you being able to read the books for the first time! Though it seems to be true that many people who first encounter them as adults aren't that impressed, alas. I know my wife isn't.) ***********Possible slight spoilers for Baum books********** Mini-essay: Speaking of the order of the Baum books in Ozian history suggested to me that I ask the Digest if anyone can fill in the few gaps in establishing the chronological order of the events in the books. The main line, with at least one point of justification (events refer to the situation at the beginning of the book unless otherwise stated): 1. Wizard: (Wizard is ruler) 2. Land: (Scarecrow is ruler) 3. Ozma: (Ozma is ruler) 4. Dorothy and the Wizard: (Wizard is not in Oz; Ozma has Magic Belt) 5. Road: (Shaggy Man is not in Oz; Wizard is) 6. Emerald City: (Dorothy is not resident in Oz; Shaggy Man is) 7. Patchwork Girl: (Dorothy is resident and only mortal child in Oz) 8. Tik-Tok: (Betsy is not resident in Oz) 9. Scarecrow: (Trot is not resident in Oz; Betsy is) 10. Rinkitink: (Trot and Betsy are resident, so follows Scarecrow. No latest date that I know of; could follow all other books.) 11. Lost Princess: (Trot and Betsy are resident, so follows Scarecrow. Frogman is not resident, so precedes Magic and Glinda. Tin Soldier not mentioned when it would be logical to put him in a search party, so probably, but not certainly, precedes Tin Woodman.) 12. Tin Woodman: (Trot and Betsy are resident, so follows Scarecrow. Tin Soldier unknown, so precedes Magic. Probably follows Lost Princess, q.v.) 13. Magic: (Frogman and Tin Soldier are known, so follows both Lost Princess and Tin Woodman. No latest date I know of, could be last historically.) 14. Glinda: (Frogman is known, so follows Lost Princess. Could be before or after Tin Woodman and Magic.) It appears that the two possibly out-of-sequence books are _Rinkitink_ and _Glinda_, unless someone can think of textual evidence that ties them down more firmly. I know of no reason to think _Rinkitink_ took place at any time other than between _Scarecrow_ and _Lost Princess_. However, Ozma's behavior in _Glinda_ seems somewhat suspect to me; she seems wiser in _Tin Woodman_ and _Magic_, and there is also the factor that Captain Fyter is charged with keeping the peace in the Gillikin Country at the end of _Tin Woodman_, yet he is never mentioned as a possible resource when trouble brews up in the Gillikin Country in _Glinda_. These are hardly conclusive, but are a slight indication that the events of _Glinda_ might have taken place between _Lost Princess_ and _Tin Woodman_ rather than after _Magic_. Unless someone remembers a reference that I've forgotten that places it in writing sequence. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:43:57 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 Hello Digesters, (speaking non-gastronomically), > I remember reading, on my paperback of Fellowship of the > Ring, Tolkien's plea to the reader to read his, and no > unauthorized edition of his work, if you have any respect > for a living author. Perhaps Tolkien was wise to close > Middle Earth away from this world... Not to be a nit-picker, but I believe that particular plea was against the purchase of unauthorized editions of his work published in America for which Tolkien received no royalties. About the resistance to the idea of romance and marriage for both Glinda and Ozma, I recall having the same feelings about Polgara (as did Garion), but wasn't Durnik a perfect choice? I just finished reading Baum's _Animal Fairy Tales_ , purchased from IWOC. I was enchanted by them. They remind me quite a bit of Kipling's Jungle Book although there are differences. That analogy was discussed in the introduction. Quite a change of pace from OZ, but still appropriate for children and at least one adult (me). If indeed _That Ozzie Feeling_ in reality constitutes _The Seven Blue Mountains of OZ book III , I want to add my plea for the publication of SBM II first. If not, never mind (to quote Emily Letitia from Saturday Night Live, I believe). Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:07:13 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 (second thoughts) Hi! Just an afterthought. I would have really preferred not to have heard about Zim and Glinda before I had the opportunity to read it for myself. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:27:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Christine R. Gray" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 I came across an item in a drama catalogue the sale of a program for "Fred R. Hamlin's Princely Production of The Wizard of Oz, A Musical Extravaganza." It is an 18-page program from 1904. The catalogue is selling it for $20. Please email me if you want details. There is only one copy, I believe. crg Christine R. Gray, Ph.D. "You are unique--just like everyone else." china@wam.umd.edu ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:52:28 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Jeremy - You are the first live atheist I have ever encountered. The religious are ABSOLUTELY sure there is something up there. You are ABSOLUTELY sure there isn't? Really? Personally, I just don't know. Hard evidence for either position would be appreciated. >At Berry (which is not a university, but a mere college), I have observed and heard about certain religious and political viewpoints being suppressed here, so I think you have a valid point. However, I think the atmosphere of suppression is far less than in other places. Fascinating! What other places do you know about? Dave >I think she's refering to the color plate in _Tik-Tok_ in which, in the midst of the "Terrible Tumble Through a Tube", Files' arms are around Ozga's...IMHO "sexy" is overstating it a bit... Curiouser and curioser???? My book has Queen Ann landing on the head of "a Peculiar Person." Page 113. Hmmmmm. It is not a color plate. Continuing To Be Puzzled, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 22:10:09 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Time after Time: It is true that Arizona has no Daylight savings time, for which I am most grateful. A few years back, there was a proposal to have us use "reverse" DST, setting our clocks one hour the opposite way. That way, we would sometimes be at the same time as California and sometimes on time with Chicago, but we would NEVER have matched the rest of our own time zone. I'm sure Ozma would never afflict her subjects with this. Jeremy: Be glad you don't live in China. One time zone for all. John Bell: I must admit that I'm a little concerned at your analysis of the nature of fairyland as it applies to women (or certain women anyway). You seem to be casting men in the role of the defilers of all that is good while women are eternally innocent and pure, unless a man shows up and ruins the whole thing. While this attitude may be very PC, it begs the question: why are there in fairyland at all if they are nothing but poison? Ken Cope: If you consider only the Baum 14, then there is no real need to have Dorothy be over the age of 10. It is only when you add the rest of the FF and other books into the mix, and attempt to draw a timeline, that the need arises for several years to elapse between Dorothy's first visit and the time when she came to stay. As for Ozma, remember that Baum himself said she looked about 14, and that Dorothy was only a little younger than she was. Given your opinion of Baum as the only real Oz and others as apocrypha, where do you stand on books written by Baum's descendants? Some people feel that the authority to write "official" Oz books flows through family lines, and some of their aruements are similar to yours. I am curious about how you feel on multi-generational official Oz. As for Ozma transcending gender, Baum also mentioned her as being "girlish" several times. One thing about Oz that is different from other series is that it has grown beyond the original author. I, for example, would never consider writing another Lord of the Rings or Foundation novel, but Oz has grown beyond Baum and now belongs to everybody. ********* POSSIBLE THOMPSON SPOILERS AHEAD ********** ch-ch-changes: RPT altered a few other characters, such as Ojo, who is now prince of Seebania, and the Scarecrow, who once was Chang Wang Woe. ********** END OF THOMPSON SPOILERS ********** Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:20:45 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Steve: >But does anyone else have the right to marry off Peter Pan< Speilburg did a pretty good job in "Hook." With a lot of respect for Barrie, too. :-) It's possible Barrie himself would have adamantly *ever* refused to marry off The Pan. Then again, had he lived long enough, he might have changed his mind... :-) Sorry for *my* multiple posts, but the Compuserve interface tends to get temperamental & stubborn when it comes to doing multiple cut & paste operations into the same reply.... :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:21:54 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Message text written by "Dave L. Hardenbrook" >I think -- and I hope those who have read _That Ozzy Feeling_ would agree --that Melody and I have given Ozma and Glinda mates that are totally worthy of them. Dan worships Ozma, and Zim is at least equally devoted to Glinda...< At least we tried to. :-) Zim: The true issue is, "Am I the right sorcerer for that particular Sorceress? Does *she* think I am the right sorcerer for her?" Glinda: Well, after the part you played in "Forever in Oz," I am convinced you are not quite the Ice King you appear to be... Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:56:21 -0600 From: Bill Wright Subject: oz digest >Would someone please > submit a chronological list of the Baum books, so that I may > read them in proper order? Thanks so much. > > Lora Lora, a complete listing (with dates) of Baum's childrens books, short stories, and songs can be found in the library section of the Oz Encyclopedia. For the Oz books a synopsis and book cover is also included. Go to the following URL to enter the library. http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/Books.htm Bill in Ozlo ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:40:29 -0500 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: >Well, in that case I would argue: Did Ruth Plumly Thompson have a "right" >to drastically alter (essentially expunge altogether in fact) L. Frank Baum's >character known as the Good Witch of the North in _The Giant Horse of Oz_? Well, one can certainly argue that RPT, working with the express license of MGB and R&L, had the authority to do so. That authority is now dispersed; a ghost of it exists, perhaps, in the IWOC, but Buckethead and BoW and its Royal Club both challenge that. In addition, the Good Witch of the North was a minor, ill-defined character who had appeared on-stage in one chapter of "Wizard" and was briefly mentioned in the initial exposition of "Land", and had not appeared, except in catalogs, since. Her biggest actual role in the saga, apart from "Giant Horse", was actually to come later, in "Wishing Horse". Indeed, she seems to have retired completely from public affairs in the Dorothean Age, and RPT may well have viewed the events of "Giant Horse" as the best way of clearing up an intractable loose end, three loose ends, in fact. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:56:58 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Lora BluOrchid: Listing all the 40 main line of Oz books is probably more info than is useful for you to start with, but the first seven are "Wizard of Oz," "Land of Oz," "Ozma of Oz," "Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz," "Road to Oz," "Emerald City of Oz," and "Patchwork Girl of Oz." The first six have already been discussed on the Digest, and "Patchwork" will be the next one up for discussion when Dave announces a start date for it. If you're not interested in good repro of the artwork, you can probably find Del Rey paperback editions (the International Wizard of Oz Club also has copies of them for sale -- have you joined, or would you like info on it?). If you're interested in good repro of the artwork and durable binding, send an email with your mail address to Peter Glassman of Books of Wonder -- glassman@ix.netcom.com -- and ask him to send you a BoW catalogue. The BoW "Wizard" is particularly well worth getting, because there is so much artwork and so much color artwork (full-color plates plus monochrome color illos in between). If the BoW volumes would be bad for your budget, you could take the catalogue to your library (which may have some of them already anyhow) and ask them if they can order them in. Dave Hardenbrook: Yes, the tube-tumble color plate in "Tik-Tok" is the one David Hulan and I meant. I'm surprised that you think "'sexy' is overstating it a bit." A man's hand closely clasped on a woman's breast is generally considered quite sexy, even if the pair of them are too worried about crashing into the sides or at the bottom of the hole to be paying immediate attention to their embrace. This is going to sound harsh -- but I think you should stop talking about your "Ozzy Feeling" ms. I find myself swinging back and forth between boredom and irritation at this now-long-ongoing discussion of a book I haven't read and cannot read (because it isn't published). I suspect that many (most?) of the others are finding the discussion similarly annoying. Wait until you either get someone to publish it or decide to publish it yourself, and THEN try to convince people it's worth reading. It's pointless to try now when it isn't available. If you keep going on about it while it's unavailable, you're more likely to turn potential readers off than to build up a pre-publication demand. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:13:28 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 Dave: In answer to your question, "Did Ruth Plumly Thompson have a "right" to drastically alter (essentially expunge altogether in fact) L. Frank Baum's character known as the Good Witch of the North in _The Giant Horse of Oz_?" I would have to say no, because he set up the world, so why should we attempt to change it? RPT probably couldn't think of a plot device, so she chose to make an about-face like that in the series. (Gosh, I sound almost . . CONSERVATIVE in that statement! (No offense, Bear, Tyler, et al--just that it sounds so little like me--don't you agree?) Yours somehow, Jeremy Steadman http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:18:32 -0600 From: Gordon Birrell Subject: Ozzy Digest Liz: >Gordon & Ruth: The ideas you both discuss about patching and mismatched >halves reminds me of two things. One, Manichean Philosophy, and two, Shel >Silverstein's _The Missing Piece_. Could you explain the connection to Shel Silverstein? As far as Manichean philosophy is concerned, the divisions in _Sky Island_ don't really break down into a clear-cut opposition of good and evil. While the Boolooroo is certainly more wicked than Tourmaline, she seems to be another of those cold-hearted female rulers that keep showing up in Baum's works (Languidere, the Mangaboo princess, Coo-ee-oh, etc.). And both the Blueskins and the Pinkies are hostile not only toward each other but toward outsiders of any kind. It's interesting, though, that so many of Baum's works involve a bipolar configuration in which two clearly defined spatial arenas are set off against each other. The resolution frequently is brought about by interventions or complications from a third area. WWoZ: Emerald City vs. house of WWW Third area: Glinda's palace Xixi: Noland vs. Ix Third area: Forest of Burzee (Lulea's intervention at the end) Sea Fairies: Aquareine's palace vs. Zog's castle Third area: Anko's palace Sky Island: Blueskins vs. Pinkies Third area: Polychrome's mobile rainbow (I think Sky Island is a stronger book because the third area plays a less crucial role here; the final resolution is more the result of Trot's, Button Bright's, and Cap'n Bill's courage and resourcefulness) Ozma: Castle of Ev vs. Realm of Nome King Third area: Oz (intervention of Ozma's army) Rinkitink: Pingaree vs. Regos/Coregos Third area: Realm of Nome King, intervention of Dorothy & Wizard Glinda: Skeezers vs. Flatheads Third area(s): house of Red Reera; expedition from Emerald City This configuration occurs so frequently that I was surprised that Michael O. Riley doesn't discuss it in his book on the evolving geography of Baumgea. However, his principal focus appears to be the way the conception of Oz was elaborated and modified in response to Baum's other projects and his changing perception of America. Speaking of Oz and America: the Steven King / Peter Straub book, _The Talisman_, has also been seen as related to Oz in that the topography of the Other Dimension duplicates or reflects the topography of real-life America. (This book is another example of a bipolar configuration, incidentally, and in general I think literary fairy tales tend to favor such configurations.) David: The Southern Baptist boycott of Disney involved a full-scale attack on practically every aspect of the Disney operation. Particular emphasis was put on Disney's gay-friendly policies, of course, but the animated features were also cited for indecency. The sharp-eyed Baptists, proving once again that evil is in the eye of the beholder, spotted alarmingly salacious details in the wedding scene from _The Little Mermaid_, for example. --Gordon Birrell ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:17:58 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 I guess my comments on the 11/4 Digest didn't get to Dave in time to be included. (I had some problems with transmission, so it didn't go out until after lunch.) So you're all going to have to suffer through a double dose of me this time... Steve: >I wonder if the favorable reviews "Fairy Tale" has received, and most of >the ones I have seen are mixed at best, come from reviewers who do not >know that the famous photographs have long been proven to be fakes. The >film apparently tries to have it both ways. The review in the _Tribune_ here acknowledged that the photos are known to be fakes, but said the movie was charming anyhow, though the Doyle/Houdini debate would probably be boring for young children. >If J. >M. Barrie wants Wendy to grow up and have children of her own, that is >his priviledge. But does anyone else have the right to marry off Peter >Pan? Dunno about the "right," but somebody did; haven't you seen _Hook_? Jeremy: >Daylight Savings Time: >It makes sense to me. Having lived in various places in the Eastern >and Central time zones (and having visited the Mountain zone) I can >only dread what it'd be like if one zone were chosen for the entire >country. One size does NOT fit all! Daylight Savings Time and time zones have nothing to do with each other. Until time zones were introduced (and that only happened in the latter part of the 19th century, at the behest of the railroads), every town in the country had its own local time, and things could get really confused. Rome time, for instance, might be 3 minutes behind Atlanta time and 3 minutes ahead of Chattanooga time. IIRC, Daylight Savings Time was introduced during WW I as an energy-saving measure; by working rather than sleeping during the early hours of daylight, the need for electricity for lighting was reduced. During WW II I remember we were on DST year-round, which meant getting up in the dark during the winter months. Tyler: Of course, we only know that the Emerald City had a population of 50,000 at the time of _Emerald City_; it may have been considerably less populous in the Wizard's time. Probably not, though, considering that even during Ozma's reign it seems to have been walled, which would limit the amount the population could grow. (It could grow, as many walled cities have, by the addition of suburbs outside the walls, but the evidence in the books is that it didn't. When characters go outside the walls they seem to be among open fields immediately.) Bear: >David - It's 75 F right now, 5 pm, in Palo Alto. And not a cloud..... :) Yeah, but I _like_ cold weather, at least part of the time. I'll be tired of it by the time it warms up in June (if this year is like the last couple), but right now it feels good. (When Marcia got back from Southern California Monday she got off the plane to a temperature over 50 degrees lower than when she got on. And was very happy about it.) >Do you mean the color plate on p. 129 where Pon is giving her a chaste >little peck on the cheek? Surely not? No, we're talking about the color plate opposite page 108 of _Tik-Tok_ where Files's left hand is clearly clutching Ozga's left breast. J.L.: Gayelette marries, to be sure, but Gayelette is a rather ambiguous character. Her drastic punishment of the winged monkeys for what was really a fairly harmless prank (the only real consequence was that a suit of clothes was ruined; even Bear probably doesn't consider that serious enough to justify permanent enslavement of an entire race) doesn't seem to put her in the class of good and wise sorceresses like Glinda or Maetta or even Zixi (who did some wrong acts, but nothing anywhere near as serious). Ken C.: >I cannot see any evidence in Baum that Ozma/Tip is older than at >most, 12 to Dorothy's 8 or 9, if there is even that much of an age >difference with Dorothy perhaps having had a birthday or two, nor >do I see any reason for two young girls who enjoy having boys' >adventures together (I mention it to refer to Baum's iconoclasm) >to grow up when they can be forever young. How about the statement in _Tin Woodman_: "To judge Ozma of Oz by the standards of our world, you would think her very young - perhaps fourteen or fifteen years of age - yet for years she had ruled the Land of Oz and had never seemed a bit older." This is not evidence that Ozma is older than 12? Dave: >Well, in that case I would argue: Did Ruth Plumly Thompson have a "right" >to drastically alter (essentially expunge altogether in fact) L. Frank Baum's >character known as the Good Witch of the North in _The Giant Horse of Oz_? The GWN is a pretty minor Baum character; she has a few lines in one chapter of one book, and has a walk-on in one other. In the course of expunging her Thompson gives her more ink than Baum ever did. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:36:05 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Latin For Oz Occasions After the retcon orgy of the 80s, Crisis on Infinite Earths, I've really lost track of most of the DC universe; I'm following only a few Vertigo series. Since I grew up reading new Silver Age titles numbered in the single digits, with Golden Age reprints published in 25 cent 80 page giants, or in Feiffer's _Great Comic Book Heroes_ borrowed from the Garden Grove Library on Chapman, near the stacks of fantasy, religion and science fiction, I've watched Supes go through too many changes. He grew up in Smallville in the 20s, 50s, and now, presumably, he's grown up yet again in the 70s. Among the finest moments in comics was the time Frank Miller had Batman figure out a way to land a punch Kal El would feel. I never pictured Supes as the dead and resurrected type. I'll have a harder time watching him portrayed by Nicholas Cage. Oh well, that's what happens when characters are wholly owned by corporations. The closest thing to LOTR fanfic I've read is Harvard Lampoon's _Bored of the Rings_. "This paperback edition, and no other, has been published for the purpose of making a few fast bucks. Those who approve of courtesy to a certain author will not touch this gobbler with a ten-foot battle lance." RIGHTS RPT was entrusted with Baum's literary legacy by his estate and publishers. She had the right to bang out most anything she pleased at her publisher's and public's pleasure, and so do you. We all have the legal right to do what we like with all of Baum's creations. RPT killed off Mombi, Disney killed off the Nome King-- Maguire canonized the WWW and demonized the Wizard. There is no shortage of questionable decisions made by writers mucking about in Baum's mythos, if you feel the need to rationalize. While RPT set, overall, a high standard for Oz pastiche, her revisionism and retcons don't justify the practice any more than they condemn it. Finding a publisher and an audience for fan fiction is not a right. Pastiche is automatically apocryphal, and only publishers and readers can determine heresy by subjective standards. It's the price paid by writers whose characters are not their own, whose word is automatically suspect, no matter how eloquent. What you propose is up to the "loving tyrants" to accept or reject. At least the illustrations are certain to be top notch... Speaking of prurience and the eyes of the beholder, how about page 211 of Tik-Tok? Get out your crayons and color the bubble flesh, though they usually travel in pairs, to quote Woody Allen...Neill didn't say it wasn't what it looks like to me, so it must be what I think it is. >Argumentum ad Ignorantiam... Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Is everything not forbidden compulsory? Sequella numquam tam bona est quam origo. Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur. Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse. -- Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com Row, row, row your elebethiel saliva githiel Mann a fubar lothario syzygy snafu O bring back my sucaryl Penna Ariz Fla mass. -- Henry (Latin for All Occasions) Beard and Doug Kenney ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:31:47 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Lois and Clark in Oz Waitaminute, John-- You say Superman married Lois Lane? Who's she? Boy, that sure came out of left field, I never heard of her... I suppose next you're going to try to tell me Sheridan and Delenn woo-hooed connubially, I mean, as if. A wedding eh, hmmm. I guess the only stunt left after killing off the big blue dope is marriage. Musta happened during some comix shoppe sweeps week. -- Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com -- >I should feel tired...But I don't! All I want to do is fly--and >enjoy being alive! I'm rejuvenated in a way I never thought possible! >This whole thing has been hard on everybody--and I have no idea >what's coming next-- --Superman circa 1993 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 97 15:35:56 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things DAVID H.'S THEORY ON BOOK ORDERING: David, you reflect my view on this exactly! In fact, if you look at my "History of Oz" page , you will see that I have _Glinda_ take place just after _Lost Princess_... (I actually speculated that _Glinda_ may have occured even before _LP_, but the Frogman is a stumbling block to that...) A LITTLE SELF-IMPOSED DUCT TAPE: At the request of the Oz Book Contest judges, I will no longer discuss _That Ozzy Feeling_ on the Digest, and after today any comments about _TOF_ from other Digest members will not be posted. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 7, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:11:46 -0500 From: Erik Tracy Subject: Ozzy Digest Dear Dave, would you please put this into the digest? I felt that I needed to respond to something: As to the ongoing argument as to whether RPT should have changed the course of the Good Witch of the North, I believe that she had the right to do so. While other people have said that they don't think that RPT should have changed Oz, isn't she changing Oz just by writing about it? Maybe I should be a little clearer. She changed Oz just by writing about it. By bringing in her own characters that have populated Oz, she has changed the face of Oz. I personally found it thrilling to learn more about the Good Witch of the North, since she only had a small part in the Baum books. I didn't mind it at all that RPT went ahead and changed the course of one character. Forgive me, if this isn't very clear, but it is my first time writing something like this, so I am a little nervous. Sincerely, Erik Tracy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 02:34:15 -0800 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: The past few Ozzy Digests J. L. Bell: Interesting that you should mention Reera as an eternal virgin, considering that she was married in the recent _Red Reera the Yookoohoo and the Enchanted Easter Eggs of Oz_. Tyler: Thompson didn't exactly alter Ojo and the Scarecrow. She just elaborated upon their origins. Unlike Tattypoo, both of these characters remained in the same form throughout the Thompson books. (No, the Scarecrow's transformation in _Pirates_ doesn't count, since that was quite temporary, while Tattypoo's transformation into Orin is supposedly permanent.) Melody: What is this "Forever in Oz" that Glinda mentioned? Ken: >Finding a publisher and an audience for fan fiction is >not a right. Pastiche is automatically apocryphal, >and only publishers and readers can determine heresy >by subjective standards. It's the price paid by writers >whose characters are not their own, whose word is >automatically suspect, no matter how eloquent. What >you propose is up to the "loving tyrants" to accept >or reject. At least the illustrations are certain >to be top notch... Couldn't the illustrations also be considered apocryphal, since Baum didn't make them himself? Dave: >At the request of the Oz Book Contest judges, I will no longer discuss >_That Ozzy Feeling_ on the Digest, and after today any comments about >_TOF_ from other Digest members will not be posted. That sounds suspiciously like censorship to me. IIRC, the last time you tried to censor remarks on a certain topic, there was an uproar on the Digest. The Digesters seem to be reasonable people. Why not just ask people nicely to stop commenting on _That Ozzy Feeling_, so you won't look like the Big Bad Censor? -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff vovat@geocities.com or lnvf@grove.iup.edu http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "I'm having a wonderful time, but I'd rather be whistling in the dark." ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 01:06:30 -0600 From: Bill Wright Subject: oz digest Whoops....sorry about that. The correct url to enter the Oz Encyclopedia Library is http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/books.htm The webserver is very fussy about uppercase/lowercase usage in the page name. Bill in Ozlo ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 07:12:08 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 Bear, > Jeremy - You are the first live atheist I have ever > encountered. The religious are ABSOLUTELY sure there is > something up there. You are ABSOLUTELY sure there isn't? > Really? Personally, I just don't know. Hard evidence for > either position would be appreciated. I guess what "they" say about short-term memory and the chronologically challenged is correct. I'm positive that I stated my alignment with the atheistic camp a month or so ago. As far as being ABSOLUTELY sure, can anyone be ABSOLUTELY sure (beyond all POSSIBLE doubt) about anything (except people of that philosophical stripe of which we are avoiding mention now)? Absent proof to the contrary I will follow the dictates of logic. Happily. Daylight Savings Time (or Standard): Personally, I would prefer the entire world to be on Greenwich Mean (Zulu) Time . I believe that would simplify a lot of things. Does it really matter if you arise at 6 PM? Or any other time? I realize I am in the minority on this, and that the whole subject is just an annoyance, not a serious problem. > No, we're talking about the color plate opposite page 108 of > _Tik-Tok_ where Files's left hand is clearly clutching > Ozga's left breast. > Speaking of prurience and the eyes of the beholder, how > about page 211 of Tik-Tok? Get out your crayons and color > the bubble flesh... I have a Rand McNally paperback copy of _Tik-Tok_ which I have always assumed to be a reproduction of the original, but there is no color plate opposite page 108 and in the picture on page 211 (Gulph surveying Kaliko sitting on the throne) the throne appears to be on top of some round structure, maybe a bubble, but I can't for the life of me see anything purient about it even if if it were flesh colored. Has my edition somehow been bowdlerized? > At the request of the Oz Book Contest judges, I will no > longer discuss _That Ozzy Feeling_ on the Digest, and after > today any comments about _TOF_ from other Digest members > will not be posted. > I appreciate that, thanks. Not puzzled (much) at all, Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 09:29:15 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 David: Kids' behavior today is definitely NOT the same as it was in the '50s and '60s...or even the '70s. Many hotel rooms are rented for afterprom activities...not always by parents, but frequently with parental consent. Condos and beach houses are popular venues in the Houston/Galveston area. The pregnancy rate, overall, is significantly higher now for kids than it was before. I wish this weren't so, but it is. Ask any high school teacher who's been around for more than, say, twenty or thirty years. We've seen the changes. Kids are still kids, bvt the standards have changed. Parents are no longer doing the job they used to do. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:34:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Kirk and Spock (Ozzy Digest) John, somehow I can't imagine Kirk and Spock being more than Platonic friends. For Kirk it really makes no sense, given that he repeatedly shows an sexual attraction (and resultant behavior) towards women but never towards men. With Spock, it's harder to tell. Though Vulcans would certainly agree that homosexuality is biologically useless, they do have an appreciation of art (used in a very general sense) and might therefore appreciate the experience if they found it pleasurable. On the other hand, the few times Spock shows any sexual attration it is only towards women, dimming the prospects that he might become interested in Kirk. Even if he did anyway and, Kirk would probably just give Spock a speech saying that he was flattered but not interested and that they should just be friends. Of course, none of this precludes love in the purely Platonic sensec between Kirk and Spock (which argueably exists anyway), but I assume that is not what K/S fiction is about. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman óñåé ìåàù ïá äîìù ïøäà adelman@ymail.yu.edu North Antozian Systems and The Martian Empire ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 10:50:39 -0600 From: Mike Denio Subject: For Ozzy Digest >From: David Hulan > >There's no question that >hypocrisy was greater then; I'm less sure that morality was. > David, it sounds like your championing the degradation of morality in society as a blow against hypocrisy. Although I don't feel I'm any more moral than the next fellow, I have enough sense to know that lowering society's "moral bar" a the level based of the actions of its lowest common denominator is nothing to be proud of. By your argument, because it is so wide spread, shouldn't rape and murder also be socially acceptable? After all, those rapists and murderers are so darn hypocritical! ----- >From: Gordon Birrell > >The sharp-eyed Baptists, proving once again >that evil is in the eye of the beholder, spotted alarmingly salacious >details in the wedding scene from _The Little Mermaid_, for example. Gordon, I've seen a documentary type report on the Disney films. They showed an example of suggestive animation and low level voice dubbing on _Mermaid_ and _Ali Baba_, respectively. To be honest, I personally questioned the validity of the examples, since in _Mermaid_, I had trouble seeing what they were talking about, and the whispering voice in _Ali Baba_ could have easily been faked. There was a third example however, in _Lion King_, where a lion flops down on a cliff and a dust cloud billows up, temporarily (CLEARLY) spelling out the word "SEX" in the sky. This example was quite convincing, and although I never rented the tape to try and verify it myself, I have no personal doubts as to its validity. Quite obviously (to me), it was some animator's idea of a joke, and (in my opinion) quite harmless, but it was also incredibly irresponsible of Disney to allow such behavior by their artists. I personally expect better of Disney, and I'm sure it wouldn't have happened in Walt's day. Mike ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:51:34 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest David Hulan and Dave Hardenbrook: Maybe when "Lost Princess" and "Glinda" come up for Digest discussion people can remember to keep an eye out for indications of definite chronology. Gordon Birrell: The similarity you point out of two poles opposed and resolution through intervention from a third place -- it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's quite as neat as it looks in your schematization. It leaves out other spatial areas that are important (for instance, the Munchkin country in "Wizard," although aligned with the Emerald City, isn't really part of it, and the Ocean in "Ozma"), and conflates some separate groups as the resolving third force (Nome King plus Ozites in "Rinkitink," Reera plus Emerald Citians in "Glinda"). And the Pinkies in "Sky Island" get further divided into the Sunrise and Sunset tribes, who are opposed to each other, but without any moral superiority on either side. But certainly Baum uses geography as a way of thinking about questions. He also liked a sort of quincunx set-up of four countries and a center, as in Oz and Yew (and maybe the two Pinkie tribes plus the incumbent and incoming Blueskin factions plus the fogbank in "Sky Island"), although that division doesn't tie so clearly to the moral themes of the stories involved. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 17:22:34 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 Bob Spark: I agree that Baum's _Animal Fairy Tales_ are excellent. Very different in tone from Oz, or Baum's other fantasy books, but well-written stories. Tyler: >Time after Time: >It is true that Arizona has no Daylight savings time, for which I am most >grateful. A few years back, there was a proposal to have us use "reverse" >DST, setting our clocks one hour the opposite way. That way, we would >sometimes be at the same time as California and sometimes on time with >Chicago, but we would NEVER have matched the rest of our own time zone. I'm >sure Ozma would never afflict her subjects with this. I assume that the reverse DST would have operated in the winter rather than the summer? >Jeremy: >Be glad you don't live in China. One time zone for all. Not only that, but it's the proper time zone for only the eastern part of the country; it's as if all the US except Alaska and Hawaii were on Eastern Time. Of course, the great majority of the population of China lives in the eastern third of the country, so it's more comparable to all of the US being on Eastern Time in 1850 or so than today. ********* POSSIBLE THOMPSON SPOILERS AHEAD ********** >ch-ch-changes: >RPT altered a few other characters, such as Ojo, who is now prince of >Seebania, and the Scarecrow, who once was Chang Wang Woe. True, but Thompson never used Ojo again, and after _Royal Book_ no use was made of the Scarecrow's having been Chang Wang Woe. (And when Neill decided to use Ojo as a minor character in a couple of his books he ignored Thompson's change.) I think Thompson's and Neill's changes in the personalities of the Wizard and Scraps were more flagrant alterations of Baum than her revelation of the origins of Ojo (which aren't that inconsistent with Baum's allusions) or of the Scarecrow's spirit. ********** END OF THOMPSON SPOILERS ********** Melody: >Sorry for *my* multiple posts, but the Compuserve interface tends to get >temperamental & stubborn when it comes to doing multiple cut & paste >operations into the same reply.... :-) But - but - Bear has assured us that Compuserve is Perfect! :-) Gordon: Interesting rundown on Baum's frequent use of two opposing areas whose conflict is resolved by intervention from a third area. I don't think your example in _Wizard_ holds, though; the conflict between the Emerald City and the WWW's castle isn't resolved by intervention from Glinda's palace, but (ultimately) from Kansas. Glinda doesn't appear in the story until after the WWW is melted. In _Zixi_, OTOH, there are really two sets: Noland vs. Ix, resolved from Burzee, and Noland vs. Roly-Rogues, resolved from Ix. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:23:40 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 Daylight Savings Time: The number of times I have fallen forward or sprung back is not even funny! And I'm serious here! Okay, Bear, you asked for it!: 1) You're right; I am an agnostic that leans very far toward the lack of anything. (After the Big Bang, if there was anything, it left us to fend for ourselves, in my philosophy. And certainly, if it/he/she/they did exist and it/he/she/they did wait and guide evolution toward humans--why I could not say--it/he/she/they must certainly have given up, seeing what [expletive]s we turned out to be. I do NOT believe there is any kind of higher power guiding our everyday lives, and don't expect to even as a result of living in Georgia for so long. Happy now?) 2) Atmosphere of suppression of religious and political ideology and dissent, location of: THE DRATTED SOUTH!!! Enough said? Excuse me, I have some very strong feelings about this subject, to say the least. Re Thompson's changes to certain characters: Speaking of defiling . . . Re Baptist Convention and Disney: A girl in my speech class did a presentation informing us of the reason for the SBC's dissent (and showing us clips from three different animated films--Aladdin, Mermaid, and one other I can't remember--and telling us that where blame could be traced, _the guilty party was FIRED!!!_ ) Thus I still think Disney is innocent (and no, my parents do not own stock in the company or anything. My webpage: I think most of my links work now (hee hee hee). You can find it at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 Without a lengthened nOz, Jeremy Steadman (okay, so that was stretching it a bit. sorry) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 16:19:42 -0500 From: David Levitan Subject: Oz Newsgroup Hi, I would just like to remind everybody who didn't vote to vote for the Oz Newsgroup. All voting is ending Monday at midnight UDC time. -- David Levitan Oz Enthusiast wizardofoz@iname.com Netscape Supporter Designer of the Wonderful Land of Oz http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9075 Ring Master of the Oz Web Ring http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=ozsites;home ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 17:22:54 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Tyler >Given your opinion of Baum as the only real Oz and others as apocrypha, where do you stand on books written by Baum's descendants? Some people feel that the authority to write "official" Oz books flows through family lines, and some of their arguements are similar to yours. I am curious about how you feel on multi-generational official Oz. What a thought! This sounds like something left over from the middle ages. IMO Melody - You must be using a PC. A MAC has no problems "doing multiple cut & paste operations into the same reply.... :-)" David > No, we're talking about the color plate opposite page 108 of _Tik-Tok_ where Files's left hand is clearly clutching Ozga's left breast. ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! This plate is missing from my edition. It is also missing from the white paperback version and the Ace paperback versions that I have. Hmmmmm. Have the overly-religious struck here???? Ken - p. 211 of Tik Tok - bubble flesh? I'm beginning to think my copy has really been eviscerated. What chapter is that? Worriedly, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:54:37 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Oz, why hadn't I thought of that? To: "Dave L. Hardenbrook" David-- > There's no question that > hypocrisy was greater then; I'm less sure that morality was. I don't know where I read this, (unless it's the work of gylanic revival revisionists, or goth pagan behavior as portrayed in Marion Zimmer Bradley novels or some such) but not so long ago (and in some cultures, probably still), there was only one proof of fecundity (a highly desirable trait). If a maiden wasn't round at the wedding, people would talk. I suppose, over the long view, morality is what the traffic will allow. Of course, these were times when women were considered chattel, and were only attempting to improve their market value, which of course no longer occurs. > How about the statement in _Tin Woodman_: "To judge Ozma of Oz by the > standards of our world, you would think her very young - perhaps fourteen > or fifteen years of age - yet for years she had ruled the Land of Oz and > had never seemed a bit older." Baum's word is good enough for me. I appreciate your ready encyclopedic knowledge. Since I hadn't recalled there being a specific passage, I did pull that number out of um, thin air. Somehow Tip didn't strike me as more than 10 or 12. Of course there no reason to presume that the transformation to fairy princess should be constrained to match the apparent age of Tip. Still, 14 or 15, nearly a hundred years ago, is not necessarily what it is today. The onset of puberty is statistically earlier these days, with much taller children, is it not? But 14 or 15 is just right for Ozma relative to Dorothy's age, making her a big sister. I suppose if I were offered the opportunity to park at any age I chose, for all time, it would be 17. I misspent my youth quite thoroughly, I was just getting good at it, and I like being 17 now. The problem is, my driver's license says I'm 42. I'm working on the problem. Bruce Sterling has a great book about a careful, elderly woman a few decades hence, who undergoes drastic, experimental rejuvenation to the state of a 19 year old. She goes a bit crazy and awol, and hooks up with some young euro esthetes who fancy themselves post-human. The book is a 1997 Hugo nominee, _Holy Fire_. Thoughtful in a picaresque, "Candide" sort of way. Bob S.-- > against the purchase of unauthorized editions of his work published in > America for which Tolkien received no royalties. I'm sure Mr. T. wouldn't mind you reading a plundered, pirated paperback, so long as you paid for the one his publisher issued! Bear-- > Jeremy - You are the first live atheist I have ever encountered. The > religious are ABSOLUTELY sure there is something up there. You are > ABSOLUTELY sure there isn't? Really? Personally, I just don't know. Hard > evidence for either position would be appreciated. That certainty is what always troubled me about either position. Both my male in-laws, Gen's father and brother, are atheists. Her father has taught college english for years, and has taught the Bible as literature for many of them. Puzzles the students greatly when they find they're not being graded on the quality of their faith. Both are comfortable with the notion that things appear to hold together rather well without the need for divine intervention. If they're wrong, and Bishop Ussher was right, the world had its 6000th birthday just last Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 08:55:16 -0400 (EDT), with the changeover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar system taken into account. If one can infer anything about Carl Sagan's beliefs from his novel Contact, he was an atheist who studied the nature of the universe hoping to find proof that he had bet on the wrong horse. Among the tenets of Theosophy is that there is no such thing as the supernatural, as anything that can be shown to occur, must be in fact natural. Their skeptical skills were not that hot. I'd say I'm an atheist who'd like to find proof that I'm wrong though I'm not holding my breath, which puts me into the agnostic category. Ask me tomorrow and I'll give you a different answer, as I'm in the habit of acquiring and discarding belief systems just to get a flavor of the way the world looks through glasses tinted that particular shade... You can meet lots of atheists arguing away on the usenet newsgroup, alt.atheism quite contentiously. > It is only when you add the rest of the FF > and other books into the mix, and attempt to draw a timeline, that the need > arises for several years to elapse between Dorothy's first visit and the > time when she came to stay. I personally would not consider incorporating her work into any timeline to which I might contribute in pastiche, unless I remunerated her estate. It's got to be challenging enough to juggle all the conflicts in Baum alone, without incorporating everything else too. It's simpler just to approach the series as freshly as she did nearly 60 years ago. If one were to adapt the FF to another medium, that would be a different question entirely, and largely one of scope and scale. I don't mean to downplay RPT's contribution to Oz, I'm merely suggesting that we all have the same historic opportunity she did, to look at what Baum established, and in exploring his world, see where it takes us. > Given your opinion of Baum as the only real Oz and others as apocrypha, > where do you stand on books written by Baum's descendants? Some people feel > that the authority to write "official" Oz books flows through family lines, > and some of their aruements are similar to yours. I am curious about how > you feel on multi-generational official Oz. It isn't appropriate to stand on books written by Baum descendants... Talent isn't transmittable by genes alone. I am unaware of the extent to which the Oz franchise was ever under much control by the Baum Estate. R&L could have made quite the argument that an Oz book had little to do with who wrote it as much as it had to do with trade dress (something like a trademark, but the sort of overall feel that tells you you're in the establishment of chainstore franchise A instead of B; one burger joint's clown has arches, the other is "bringing back" its clown), the illustrations, the formula for a generic adventure with familiar characters meeting new ones and new surroundings. That quality was a property of the whole more than its parts, and stayed successful enough to more than double the life of the series. I don't know to what extent the Baum estate successfully negotiated participation in profit from the Oz franchise. The Burroughs estate is quite active in protecting its property, and Christopher Tolkien was practically born in Middle Earth. He has truly extended the scholarship in such a positive way, that I doubt anybody else can match. Now, Tom Swift books. There is a standard of quality maintained by 3 generations. A legacy is rarely improved upon by its inheritor/s. > As for Ozma transcending gender, Baum also mentioned her as being "girlish" > several times. Was that a device to say that she was girlish rather than a girl? Or was the whole notion just popped out for a surprise at the end of the sequel. Exploration of that question has resulted in a lot of interesting speculation. > One thing about Oz that is different from other series is that it has grown > beyond the original author. I, for example, would never consider writing > another Lord of the Rings or Foundation novel, but Oz has grown beyond Baum > and now belongs to everybody. Baum's Oz belongs to everybody, and some of Thompson and Snow's is also up for grabs, probably others. Oz is a highly diluted and esoteric franchise, to say the least. It's a surprise to most folks that there was a book apart from MGM's film, let alone that other books exist at all. -- Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com -- Tell me what you think about the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea Do you think there's one True God, a False God, or No God at all? Put a tick in the appropriate box - there's nothing to it... -- The Rutles, Questionnaire ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 97 15:31:40 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things WHO'S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD CENSOR?: >That sounds suspiciously like censorship to me. IIRC, the last time you >tried to censor remarks on a certain topic, there was an uproar on the >Digest. The Digesters seem to be reasonable people. Why not just ask >people nicely to stop commenting on _That Ozzy Feeling_, so you won't >look like the Big Bad Censor? Well, I could "ask nicely" (I did not mean to be "mean" about it), but I know people could still see it as "censorship". The Book Contest judges requested that I cut off debate on _That Ozzy Feeling_ until a winner is announced, and I was merely acting on their request. This "moratorium" on _That Ozzy Feeling_ discussion is only until the Contest has officially concluded and a winner has been announced. Jellia: If you think *Dave* is a "Blue Meanie", you should see the draconic "Zero-Tolerance" policy against Off-Topic and other "unapproved" posts that the _Red Dwarf_ Digest has! Aurah: Besides, if anyone still wants to E-mail Dave privately with questions/comments they can. Aujah: That's *questions and comments* -- No flames! :) ATTACK OF THE KILLER "NAUGHTY BITS"??: :) Bob Spark wrote: >I have a Rand McNally paperback copy of _Tik-Tok_ which I have >always assumed to be a reproduction of the original, but there is no >color plate opposite page 108 and in the picture on page 211 (Gulph >surveying Kaliko sitting on the throne) the throne appears to be on top >of some round structure, maybe a bubble, but I can't for the life of me >see anything purient about it even if if it were flesh colored. I guess you have to have seen that (IMHO astronomically moronic) film with Woody Allen to see it...Quite frankly I never at that saw the resemblence in the _Tik-Tok_ picture until is was pointed out the other day on the Digest...I'd say that if you can't see it, count your blessings. :) BCF: How do folks feel about moving on to _Patchwork Girl of Oz_ fairly soon? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 8, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] (This will be the last Digest for perhaps several days...See my special message... -- Dave) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 17:22:54 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Tyler >Given your opinion of Baum as the only real Oz and others as apocrypha, where do you stand on books written by Baum's descendants? Some people feel that the authority to write "official" Oz books flows through family lines, and some of their arguements are similar to yours. I am curious about how you feel on multi-generational official Oz. What a thought! This sounds like something left over from the middle ages. IMO Melody - You must be using a PC. A MAC has no problems "doing multiple cut & paste operations into the same reply.... :-)" David > No, we're talking about the color plate opposite page 108 of _Tik-Tok_ where Files's left hand is clearly clutching Ozga's left breast. ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! This plate is missing from my edition. It is also missing from the white paperback version and the Ace paperback versions that I have. Hmmmmm. Have the overly-religious struck here???? Ken - p. 211 of Tik Tok - bubble flesh? I'm beginning to think my copy has really been eviscerated. What chapter is that? Worriedly, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:54:37 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Oz, why hadn't I thought of that? David-- > There's no question that > hypocrisy was greater then; I'm less sure that morality was. I don't know where I read this, (unless it's the work of gylanic revival revisionists, or goth pagan behavior as portrayed in Marion Zimmer Bradley novels or some such) but not so long ago (and in some cultures, probably still), there was only one proof of fecundity (a highly desirable trait). If a maiden wasn't round at the wedding, people would talk. I suppose, over the long view, morality is what the traffic will allow. Of course, these were times when women were considered chattel, and were only attempting to improve their market value, which of course no longer occurs. > How about the statement in _Tin Woodman_: "To judge Ozma of Oz by the > standards of our world, you would think her very young - perhaps fourteen > or fifteen years of age - yet for years she had ruled the Land of Oz and > had never seemed a bit older." Baum's word is good enough for me. I appreciate your ready encyclopedic knowledge. Since I hadn't recalled there being a specific passage, I did pull that number out of um, thin air. Somehow Tip didn't strike me as more than 10 or 12. Of course there no reason to presume that the transformation to fairy princess should be constrained to match the apparent age of Tip. Still, 14 or 15, nearly a hundred years ago, is not necessarily what it is today. The onset of puberty is statistically earlier these days, with much taller children, is it not? But 14 or 15 is just right for Ozma relative to Dorothy's age, making her a big sister. I suppose if I were offered the opportunity to park at any age I chose, for all time, it would be 17. I misspent my youth quite thoroughly, I was just getting good at it, and I like being 17 now. The problem is, my driver's license says I'm 42. I'm working on the problem. Bruce Sterling has a great book about a careful, elderly woman a few decades hence, who undergoes drastic, experimental rejuvenation to the state of a 19 year old. She goes a bit crazy and awol, and hooks up with some young euro esthetes who fancy themselves post-human. The book is a 1997 Hugo nominee, _Holy Fire_. Thoughtful in a picaresque, "Candide" sort of way. Bob S.-- > against the purchase of unauthorized editions of his work published in > America for which Tolkien received no royalties. I'm sure Mr. T. wouldn't mind you reading a plundered, pirated paperback, so long as you paid for the one his publisher issued! Bear-- > Jeremy - You are the first live atheist I have ever encountered. The > religious are ABSOLUTELY sure there is something up there. You are > ABSOLUTELY sure there isn't? Really? Personally, I just don't know. Hard > evidence for either position would be appreciated. That certainty is what always troubled me about either position. Both my male in-laws, Gen's father and brother, are atheists. Her father has taught college english for years, and has taught the Bible as literature for many of them. Puzzles the students greatly when they find they're not being graded on the quality of their faith. Both are comfortable with the notion that things appear to hold together rather well without the need for divine intervention. If they're wrong, and Bishop Ussher was right, the world had its 6000th birthday just last Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 08:55:16 -0400 (EDT), with the changeover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar system taken into account. If one can infer anything about Carl Sagan's beliefs from his novel Contact, he was an atheist who studied the nature of the universe hoping to find proof that he had bet on the wrong horse. Among the tenets of Theosophy is that there is no such thing as the supernatural, as anything that can be shown to occur, must be in fact natural. Their skeptical skills were not that hot. I'd say I'm an atheist who'd like to find proof that I'm wrong though I'm not holding my breath, which puts me into the agnostic category. Ask me tomorrow and I'll give you a different answer, as I'm in the habit of acquiring and discarding belief systems just to get a flavor of the way the world looks through glasses tinted that particular shade... You can meet lots of atheists arguing away on the usenet newsgroup, alt.atheism quite contentiously. > It is only when you add the rest of the FF > and other books into the mix, and attempt to draw a timeline, that the need > arises for several years to elapse between Dorothy's first visit and the > time when she came to stay. I personally would not consider incorporating her work into any timeline to which I might contribute in pastiche, unless I remunerated her estate. It's got to be challenging enough to juggle all the conflicts in Baum alone, without incorporating everything else too. It's simpler just to approach the series as freshly as she did nearly 60 years ago. If one were to adapt the FF to another medium, that would be a different question entirely, and largely one of scope and scale. I don't mean to downplay RPT's contribution to Oz, I'm merely suggesting that we all have the same historic opportunity she did, to look at what Baum established, and in exploring his world, see where it takes us. > Given your opinion of Baum as the only real Oz and others as apocrypha, > where do you stand on books written by Baum's descendants? Some people feel > that the authority to write "official" Oz books flows through family lines, > and some of their aruements are similar to yours. I am curious about how > you feel on multi-generational official Oz. It isn't appropriate to stand on books written by Baum descendants... Talent isn't transmittable by genes alone. I am unaware of the extent to which the Oz franchise was ever under much control by the Baum Estate. R&L could have made quite the argument that an Oz book had little to do with who wrote it as much as it had to do with trade dress (something like a trademark, but the sort of overall feel that tells you you're in the establishment of chainstore franchise A instead of B; one burger joint's clown has arches, the other is "bringing back" its clown), the illustrations, the formula for a generic adventure with familiar characters meeting new ones and new surroundings. That quality was a property of the whole more than its parts, and stayed successful enough to more than double the life of the series. I don't know to what extent the Baum estate successfully negotiated participation in profit from the Oz franchise. The Burroughs estate is quite active in protecting its property, and Christopher Tolkien was practically born in Middle Earth. He has truly extended the scholarship in such a positive way, that I doubt anybody else can match. Now, Tom Swift books. There is a standard of quality maintained by 3 generations. A legacy is rarely improved upon by its inheritor/s. > As for Ozma transcending gender, Baum also mentioned her as being "girlish" > several times. Was that a device to say that she was girlish rather than a girl? Or was the whole notion just popped out for a surprise at the end of the sequel. Exploration of that question has resulted in a lot of interesting speculation. > One thing about Oz that is different from other series is that it has grown > beyond the original author. I, for example, would never consider writing > another Lord of the Rings or Foundation novel, but Oz has grown beyond Baum > and now belongs to everybody. Baum's Oz belongs to everybody, and some of Thompson and Snow's is also up for grabs, probably others. Oz is a highly diluted and esoteric franchise, to say the least. It's a surprise to most folks that there was a book apart from MGM's film, let alone that other books exist at all. -- Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com -- Tell me what you think about the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea Do you think there's one True God, a False God, or No God at all? Put a tick in the appropriate box - there's nothing to it... -- The Rutles, Questionnaire ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 20:00:45 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bear: > Curiouser and curioser???? My book has Queen Ann landing on the head of "a Peculiar Person." Page 113. Hmmmmm. It is not a color plate. < It is indeed a reference to a color plate. Having owned a B&W Tik-Tok, then acquiring a Tik-Tok with color plates, you can indeed be assured that Files is embracing Ozga in a color plate. :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 20:01:44 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" John Bell & Tyler : >You seem to be casting men in the role of the defilers of all that is good while women are eternally innocent and pure, unless a man shows up and ruins the whole thing. While this attitude may be very PC, it begs the question: why are there in fairyland at all if they are nothing but poison?< After all, Baum had both good and nasty women in the Oz books. Could anyone call the four Wicked Witches of Oz "innocent & pure?" And good and evil men, too. Just like real life. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 20:02:25 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Ken Cope: >A wedding eh, hmmm. I guess the only stunt left after killing off the big blue dope is marriage. Musta happened during some comix shoppe sweeps week.< Yes, and I have the Wedding Album comic to prove it. :-) Of course, as you mentioned, the red kryptonite could wear off, and a new stable of Superman artists & writers might decide to say the whole thing was a dream... Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:54:15 -0500 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Various points: K/S fiction certainly cannot be rationally justified. It appears to originate in a fairly transparent attempt to disguise (or sublimate) what is known as the "Ensign Mary Sue Ellen" school of fan fiction. Sagan's theological attempts in "Contact" are rather naive, although in a way opposite to the usual misunderstandings; the usual mistake is to assume that intelligent believers believe in a God scarcely to be distinguished from Superman, but Sagan went the other way, and posited a God free to select the value of pi. It is a pretty commentary on present-day society that the most respectful and adult treatment of religion in popular culture is on "Babylon 5", a series created and written by an avowed atheist. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:05:22 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Bob - My apologies. I did not recall you are a card carrying Atheist. Now I have collected two: Bob and Jeremy. Would anyone else like to sign up? Bob - I agree with you about DST. However, it would probably take us about as long to get used to GMT as it is taking us to switch to metric units. Robin - Thank you. I have a large number of friends who have been or who still are teachers. Their war stories are truly depressing. I wasn't generalizing based on my experience in a fairly quiet high school in Portland, Oregon. I don't know much about Kentucky David, but I have a hunch it was a bit different from my experience. My, I think this is really a reflection of the times. Aaron, I think that Ken was kidding about Kirk and Spock. Is someone next going to suggest Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello? Mike - I got around to "The Lion King" fairly recently and I don't recall the "sex." Maybe I am just so used to seeing overt sex on TV that I missed that which was more covert. David >But - but - Bear has assured us that Compuserve is Perfect! :-) Correction - As noted, the combination of the MAC and Compuserve is Perfect!:) Jeremy >I do NOT believe there is any kind of higher power guiding our everyday lives, and don't expect to even as a result of living in Georgia for so long. Happy now?) Fascinating. BELIEVE? We can believe all sorts of things. What do you KNOW? I gather living in THE SOUTH has its drawbacks. I must admit I was only there once. Huntsville, Alabama. The place looked just like San Jose except there were less people of color there. It confused me. Jeremy, you are a kick. Do these puns just spring into your mind? You remind me of Woody Allen in his youth. Do you know he started out as a kid gag writer? (Unfortunately, I don't find him too funny lately.) As we are leaving Sky Island: p. 86 Ghip-Ghisizzle......we Blueskins try to forget all we can--especially whatever is unpleasant. Those who remember are usually the unhappy ones; only those able to forget find the most joy in life." It sounds good, but I have never been able to figure out how to forget something. It seems the most unpleasant memories have the most emotional load and thus stick the fastest. p. 142 Queen Tourmaline - ".....If with my great power, conferred upon me by the people, I also possessed great wealth, I might be tempted to be cruel and overbearing. ........The Ruler, be it king or queen, has absolute power to rule, but no riches--no high station--no false adulation. The people have the wealth and honor, for it is their due. The Queen has nothing but the power to execute the laws, to adjust grievances and to compel order." Now I wonder where Baum got this idea? Baum also forsaw modern feminism on p. 147. The Pinkies..... "In this country the women seemed fully as important as the men, and instead of being CODDLED AND PETTED they performed their share of the work, both in public and private affairs, and were expected to fight in the wars exactly as the men did." Any of you ladies been coddled and petted lately? :) :) Back to earth, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:42:16 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 > Forgive me, if this isn't very clear, but it is my first > time writing something like this, so I am a little nervous. > > Sincerely, Erik Tracy Erik, I understood you perfectly. Please feel free to contribute anytime you wish to. > How do folks feel about moving on to _Patchwork Girl of Oz_ > fairly soon? Lets do it. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:57:09 -0500 (EST) From: Ozmama@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 11/7 Bob Spark ( I think): <> Polgara had done her job, remember? Glinda and Ozma haven't completed theirs, yet. OTOH, I have no objections to reading a tale which marries them off. And yes, Durnik is quite wonderful. I just finished _Polgara, the Sorceress_. That lady deserved a Durnik, didn't she?! --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:20:40 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" David: >But - but - Bear has assured us that Compuserve is Perfect! :-)< Well, I seem to have much less trouble logging onto Compuserve & collecting Ozzy Digests than the Oz folks on AOL. :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:19:42 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Nathan DeHoff >What is this "Forever in Oz" that Glinda mentioned?< Another entry I wrote and submitted to the Oz Book Contest. In this one, Nick Chopper tells Zim the Flying Sorcerer that the one thing he wants in the whole world is to love again. Be careful what you ask Zim for; you might get it! :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:24:12 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Message text written by "Dave L. Hardenbrook" > How do folks feel about moving on to _Patchwork Girl of Oz_ fairly soon?< Sounds good to me. Looks like "Sky Island" has fizzled out. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:23:51 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bear: >Melody - You must be using a PC. A MAC has no problems "doing multiple cut & paste operations into the same reply.... :-)"< Yes, it's a PC. But only the Compuserve interface is giving me the problems. Cut & paste works exactly as they should in Pagemaker, CorelDraw, WordPad, etc. So your Mac Compuserve interface does not insist on pasting the first copy & ignoring all requests to copy something else? (Rather like Button-Bright's Magic Bumbershoot! David Hulan's comparison of the Umbrella's power to a computer was apt--but then, what *else* could an autopilot be? All right, maybe there are autopilot devices that are not computers...) ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:43:12 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones David: I must have been mixing some Baum and Thompson references. Pajuka, in _Lost King_, said that the EC now was "nothing like" what they had now. This implies that there was some sort of settlement there, although not on as large a scale as the modern Emerald City. _Rinkitink_ is certainly a "detached" book in the temporal sense. _Glinda_ is also in that mode, to a lesser degree. While there is no smoking Magic Belt, Ozma's attitude in _Glinda_ would seem to a indicate a regression from her strength in _Tin Woodman_, unless the "wimp mode" conspiracy was already in effect, to use a Hardenbrookian reference. In that case, it would be appropriate for _Glinda_ to be the last Baum book, signifying the transition to the Thompsonian era of indeciseiveness. Part of the ambiguity comes from the fact that, except for the Frogman, there were no major characters introduced by Baum after _Scarecrow_, unless you count the Tin Soldier, although David correctly points out that he would have figured in the adventure in _Glinda_. Erik Tracy: There's nothing wrong with being nervous. It shows that you care enough to want to do a good job. If Oz meant nothing to you, you would not have been nervous. As it happens, I believe I understand what you were trying to say. Each new Oz book changes the Ozzy situation by its very existence. New characters come into play, new places are discovered, the old characters have new experiences and so on. Could you imagine if the Famous Forty only used people and places from the first book? IMHO, it would have died an early death. Even Baum himself changed Oz as he wrote the series. Oz, like many other things, must change and grow in order to survive and remain healthy. The question is how much and how fast. I doubt many would approve of Ozma turning Oz into a slave labor camp and eating children, to use a ridiculously extreme example, but some change is necessary and inevitable. There are some things that will, and should, remain constant, such as Ozma ruling from EC and so on, but giving new dimensions to existing characters is OK, as far as I can tell. David: Reverse DST meant that we would set our clocks back when everybody else set theirs forward and vice-versa. Ugh. I had forgotten about Dr. Pipt's hints about Unc Nunkie's Royal origins, so Ojo could easily have been a prince, even if only Baum is considered. CompuServe is as perfect as an on-line service can be. What I do is open the Digest in Word and then type my repliy piece by piece in the normal CompuServe mail window. No cutting or pasting, just switching back and forth. Bear: I have often compared this idea of things flowing from parent to child as very similar to the Middle Ages idea of the Divine Right of Kings. This is apparent not only in Oz, but in many other walks of life. I disagree with it, but it is everywhere. Ken Cope: I wasn't asking about talent as much as canononical legitimacy. I have heard and read about such people who will readily admit that _The Wishing Horse of Oz_ is superior to _Dinamonster_ in terms of pure literary quality, but they feel that _Wishing Horse_ is not a real Oz book because it was not written by Baum or one of his descendants, and _Dinamonster_ is, for that same reason and for that reason only. Reilly & Lee once fought a lawsuit with the Baum Trust over who had the right to publish "real" Oz books. At issue was _The Laughing Dragon of Oz_, written by Frank J. Baum. R&L won, by the way. The battling philosophies here are quite similar to the ones that caused the schism between the Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims over a thousand years ago. There are a few other examples from the realm of politics, but I won't mention them here. If anyone wants to hear my tirade, e-mail me privately. Dave: _Sky Island_ seems to have petered out, let's move on to _Patchwork Girl_. --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 01:33:42 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest Lora: Glad to hear someone else is considering a venture to become more knowledgeable about the literary aspects of "Oz". I am planning a New Year's resolution to do the same thing. One thing that I wanted to share with you that may help you out a bit before you jump right into reading Baum's Oz books is to develop some insight into Baum and the concept of "Oz" itself first. I have often pondered how to get started with this ... so here's the plan that I have come up with. I would be interested in hearing from other Ozzy Digesters who are more "Oz" literate as to whether you think this is a good plan to follow and if you have any other suggestions/comments. Is there a "preferred" or "best" way to do this? 1. Read a book about LFB, e.g. L.Frank Baum : Royal Historian of Oz by Angelica Shirley Carpenter or To Please a Child by Frank Joslyn Baum. 2. Read about "Oz" itself and get some visual aids, i.e. maps of Oz to help you put places that you read about into perspective. There is a book called: The Dictionary of Imaginary Places by Alberto Manguel which has a good "overview" of what "Oz" is along with two detailed maps, one of the Land of Oz, the other of the Countries surrounding Oz. If you don't want to buy this, you should be able to borrow it from your local library and photocopy the pages. There are only five pages in all, including both text and maps. 3. In addition to getting the 14 Baum Oz books, you may also want to purchase a copy of Who's Who in Oz by Jack Snow. This book was reprinted a few years ago and is still available. It contains descriptions of the various Oz characters along with hints on the parts they play in the Oz books. You can consult this book as you are reading the Oz books. 4. You may also want to purchase the newly published book, Oz and Beyond by Michael O. Riley as it discusses Baum's original concept of Oz and its evolution. You may choose to read this after reading a book about Baum and then re-read the passages about each of Baum's Oz books as you go along. Now ... if you get through that and want more which I'm sure any die-hard Oz fan would, you can continue by doing the following ... 5. Read the remaining 26 Oz books by Baum's successors. P.S. Hold onto that Who's Who in Oz because it contains info re: the Oz characters through the remaining Oz books, except for the last one I believe. 6. Read books/articles containing interpretations about "Oz". Probably one of the best is the one published in 1983, edited by Michael Patrick Hearn. This is the one that is part of The Critical Heritage Series. I know this sounds ambitious, but I hope to stick with it. I've wallowed in MGM's film version of Oz for most of my life which I still LOVE and always will, but the Ozzy Digest has motivated me to "push on". Ruth: I think your point to Dave re: discussion of his book prior to publication was well taken. Sorry Dave! However, I was a bit perplexed with your "irritation" as this is the same thing I was trying to point out with premature discussion of The Baum Bugle prior to all IWOC members receiving it. While the two scenarios are different, they are similar in that it is a bit irritating to discuss things on the Ozzy Digest BEFORE others have the opportunity to read it themselves, especially when they know they are eventually going to receive the issue in the mail.(?). P.S. I did receive my Autumn '97 Baum Bugle yesterday! Jim Whitcomb. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:15:07 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Bob Spark: Does your Rand McNally PB copy of _Tik-Tok_ have _any_ color plates? Most post-1935 editions of Oz books (other than _Wizard_, which is a special case) didn't, until BoW started reissuing them a few years back. I'm not familiar with the Rand McNally versions, though. Mike D.: >David, it sounds like your championing the degradation of morality in >society as a blow against hypocrisy. Although I don't feel I'm any more >moral than the next fellow, I have enough sense to know that lowering >society's "moral bar" a the level based of the actions of its lowest common >denominator is nothing to be proud of. > >By your argument, because it is so wide spread, shouldn't rape and murder >also be socially acceptable? After all, those rapists and murderers are so >darn hypocritical! I don't think you understood what I was saying, which probably means I put it badly. I didn't mean that degradation in morality was desirable; I said that pretending immoral actions weren't happening was hypocritical. In other words, rape and murder shouldn't be socially acceptable, but neither should we pretend that rape and murder don't happen. Or unwed pregnancy. Jeremy: >2) Atmosphere of suppression of religious and political ideology and >dissent, location of: >THE DRATTED SOUTH!!! But there the religious and political ideologies and dissent that are being suppressed are the kind Bear disagrees with! Bear: >ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! This plate is missing from my edition. It >is also missing from the white paperback version and the Ace paperback >versions that I have. Hmmmmm. Have the overly-religious struck here???? Do you have other color plates in your edition? If so, then probably someone removed the one we're talking about (I'm assuming you bought your copy used). _Bib Oz_ doesn't list any editions with only a few color plates removed; the original had 12 and apparently so did all subsequent editions until they discontinued color plates entirely. (I checked because ISTR some of the earlier books had 16 plates in the 1st but cut down to 12 in later editions.) Ken C.: I think if offered an opportunity to stay one age I chose for all time I'd pick 23. This assumes, of course, that I can retain my memories, and that it's only my body that becomes 23 again. If I had to put everything back to where it was at that age, I'd probably pick about 45, sacrificing some vision and physical condition for the extra knowledge and wisdom I'd picked up by then. Dave: >Well, I could "ask nicely" (I did not mean to be "mean" about it), but I >know people could still see it as "censorship". The Book Contest judges >requested that I cut off debate on _That Ozzy Feeling_ until a winner >is announced, and I was merely acting on their request. This "moratorium" >on _That Ozzy Feeling_ discussion is only until the Contest has officially >concluded and a winner has been announced. So does anybody have any idea when the winner will be announced? Or are we waiting on the convenience of Payes and McGraw, whenever they feel like making a decision? >BCF: >How do folks feel about moving on to _Patchwork Girl of Oz_ fairly soon? We seem to have said about all we have to say about _Sky Island_, so why not? (Are we going to discuss the BoW editing again, or can we assume that we've all had our say on that subject in times past and stick to discussing the book itself?) David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 11:36:59 -0500 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: Ozzy Digest Hello, My message from yesterday did not go through and ended up in email purgatory (sp?) somewhere, so I'll try again! In reference to the idea of men in fairy tales (Tyler, John Bell, . . . ): The only fairy tale that I know of, well, two I suppose, in which there are only women are _Herland_ by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and _Millenium Hall_ by ?. MH is an 18th century British novel. Actually, they are considered utopian novels, but I disagree since I think a unisex society would not be utopian, it would be odd to say the least. Yes, in these books, the were the reason the women became corrupted. However, in Marchen style fairy tales, there are plenty of bad women. And, in Disney style tales, too. Look for the Wicked Step Mother, Evil Queen, Mean Stepsisters, Cruella Deville, etc. Granted these women are thwarted by mostly male adversaries, but they are still the reason the so-called fairyland is disturbed. Gordon: As for an attachment to Shel Silverstein, it's othing major. More like a connotative felling reminder. The piece is mismatched and travels around trying to find the rest of him. Their dialogue just pulled that story into my head. And, I think the reason for the Manichean note has more to do woth your last comment. However, it does seem in fairy tales that good v. evil is a major premise. I agree, too, that there seems to be third party involved. I'm still studying the Manichean philosophy, so maybe you can help: does it allow for this third party's involvement, or is this strictly only a philosophy that refers to bipolar situations? Does it allow for subarenas within the higher bipolar divisions of the world? In some sense, I find the ability of folks to think in such cut-and-dry, distinct patterns fascinating. Scary, but interesting. Scott: Are you the Digester doing the filmography of Oz? It just hit me the other day, I don't even want to attempt to figure out why :-), that the 80s television show "Fame" had an episode that was a big take-off on Oz with one of the characters (not Nia Peeples) as Dorothy, etc. I loved that show! When I was still into all of that jazz, my dream was to go to school at Juilliard. Anyway, I'm sure you probably know about that already, but just in case, . . . Nathan: Illustrations as apocryphal, mmm, that's a good one. I think they are almost another text of Oz, but if Baum didn't agree with them and the way that they visualized his fairyland they could present a problem. Can we doubt their authenticity? Keeping in mind some of the contradictions and ambiguities they present when reading them against the text, in a sense, yes they are. But it seems that to illustrate a fairy land would always have some inherent ambiguity since it's based in imagination, not tangible matter. Maybe if the illustrations, as the later apocryphal writings, are not true to Oz, the idea and heart, the essence of Oz, then maybe they can be considered as such. Now, who decides this, I don't know, but in studying the illustrations, I am beginning to realize that they do present a tale of Oz that can be read simultaneously with Baum's, RPT, etc. And regardless of one's feelings about them, they are all part of Oz, apocryphal or not. And, it raises the question of whether or not apocryphal oz texts (written and drawn) detract from Oz and its appeal. i have not reached a conclusion, but thus far i don not think so because fairy tales spark thought and imagination. If someone else's is sparked differntly than mine, does that make there vision wrong? No, I may not like it, but I can appreciate it for its own worth. Ken: I took a class on understanding the Bible as literature about five years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was hard for folks in my class to read it and separate it from faith. I would love to take a part II. it also scares me to think that some folks could not even entertain the idea that it meant something else. But, as Jeremy, I have strong feelings about this sort of thing, . . . Well, I've babbled enough for today and mom's teaching me the family secrets to lasagna in a few minutes. Wish me luck. :-) Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 13:59:57 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Aaron (re Spock/Kirk): Fascinating discussion . . . simply fascinating . . . Re Disney, questionable morality of: I watched the Lion King excerpt Mike mentioned (where he says the smoke "clearly" spells out s-e-x) and each time could not catch it. I think if one _tries_ to look for such things, they're everywhere, in everything. Of course, the VCR didn't have a pause button . . . --Jeremy Steadman http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 11:49:59 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Bubble Bursting in Oz Nathan -- > Couldn't the illustrations also be considered apocryphal, since Baum > didn't make them himself? Most illustration is only a complement to the text, unless it carries equal weight with the text, as in a comic book or graphic novel. Baum was spoiled with illustrators, and didn't appreciate what he had with Neill. Wasn't the first book that Maxfield Parrish illustrated Baum's first book? So much of what made tWWoO special was the collaborative nature of the work with Denslow, to the extent that Denslow considered himself an equal owner in the creation of the work. My impression is that Neill took on the job more along the lines of work-for-hire, so Baum had to settle for what he was given. Baum reportedly would have preferred Winsor McCay, the first great Animator and creator of the Sunday page, _Little Nemo in Slumberland_, so he clearly had taste, and an idea about the way he wanted his books presented. Neill's skills flowered as the Oz books progressed, perhaps reaching their greatest moment in _The Emerald City of Oz_. There is little to compare with the magic of text illuminated with such imagination and technical mastery, that the printer's art is pushed to a new standard of quality. As a third grader at the library, I was already comfortable with text only books, early editions particularly. And the smell of an old book! I had read The Hound of the Baskervilles and Bram Stoker's Dracula, with their quartos hand cut by some lucky first reader... (My ignorant gene donors have probably thrown the books away because "they were old." In my absence they tossed the fin de siecle Children's Encyclopedia Brittanica that I had lived in.) But to hold an old Oz book, whose words and pictures could hardly be contained by the fragile binding; such a book could be nothing other than magic. The problem with illustration, and with illustrators who approach Oz particularly, is that everybody knows what Oz doesn't look like. Today, we have all imprinted the MGM film, for good or ill. After you are equally familiar with the look of Denslow's work (which tends to predominate in the film's art direction), and Neill's, watch the MGM film again with your illustrator filters on, and you'll see that Neill's influence on the look of the film is far from absent. _Return to Oz_ at least let's Neill's vision shine. Do children learn only to process the right-brained, visual media with which they're bombarded today, with little or no guidance for learning how to generate it themselves? How do we learn to visualize when reading a book that contains only text? Those of us who read either make a mental picture or don't care about it at all. As often as not, to too many people, any pictures would just get in the way. Some cultures have even at times, forbidden the making of images through some bizarre interpretation of "scripture," though such cultures would certainly consider modern fantasy equally beyond the pale, preferring that only certified, state-sanctioned fantasies be imprinted. I think good illustration helps to develop a visual imagination, though some think that a good writer can create a far more vivid picture, with words alone, than any illustration could possibly convey. Many artists consider text to be a mere leaping off point; mere inspiration. Oz has inspired much great work. The only reason I've collected the FF is for Neill's work. Others howl when they see what he's done to the characters they can see so vividly. Yes, all illustrations are apocryphal, but don't kid yourself. EVERYTHING is apocryphal. What, you're going to believe everything you see just because it's in a book or on TV? Where discernment and taste is concerned, you're on your own. Bob S. -- > I guess what "they" say about short-term memory and the > chronologically challenged is correct. Timothy Leary frequently said he'd happily traded short-term memory loss for long-term memory gain. > ... > of some round structure, maybe a bubble, but I can't for the life of me > see anything purient about it even if if it were flesh colored. > Has my edition somehow been bowdlerized? and Bear-- > Ken - p. 211 of Tik Tok - bubble flesh? I'm beginning to think my copy has > really been eviscerated. What chapter is that? Chapter 19. When I saw the original illustration at auction, I was reminded of something most babies have seen up close. Don't worry about being completely unable to see it, according to the SBC, you're in Satan's clutches already since it's wormed it's way into your subconscious mind. So much for the claims of the SBC and those horrible Disneyites subverting our nation's youth. Mike D-- > verify it myself, I have no personal doubts as to its validity. Quite > obviously (to me), it was some animator's idea of a joke, and (in my > opinion) quite harmless, but it was also incredibly irresponsible of Disney > to allow such behavior by their artists. I personally expect better of > Disney, and I'm sure it wouldn't have happened in Walt's day. Whatever you expect of Disney, animators were under no better control in Walt's day than they are now. The best work is on the walls of the studio, not in the film. Ward Kimball told us a great story one afternoon about the first and last time Disney took his family to an off-site retreat for a few hundred of the staff at a country resort hotel in the 30's. When he made the mistake of leaving his room the first night for ice, he found himself in the midst of a naked bacchanal of Biblical proportions. Perhaps there was the inspiration for the screen-filling green Harpy nipples in Fantasia's Night on Bald Mountain sequence. Walt never stayed in the same hotel as the animators after that. When they were preparing for Snow White, Art Babbit started hosting life drawing classes in his home. Young men were drawing (gasp!) women who weren't wearing any clothes! For fear the papers would snap blackmail photos and get the wrong idea, Disney insisted that any future life drawing sessions with nude models take place at the studio, which continue to present day. Relieved that he was safe with the blue-noses for awhile longer, Walt happily chain smoked his life away, dipping his donuts in scotch for breakfast, content that his was the only studio in Hollywood not owned by Jews. That Disney's was the last studio to come into conformance with the ethical practices of every other studio in Hollywood, instead of continuing to be what the SBC thinks it ought to be, is the SBC's problem. With all of Disney's money, Eisner couldn't afford this kind of free publicity. No animator ever lost his job over something some twit thought he saw in a Disney film. We live for this kind of nonsense. There's supposed to be some line in Alladin where somebody says: "Children, take off your clothes!" What maroons. Dave H-- > I guess you have to have seen that (IMHO astronomically moronic) film > with Woody Allen to see it...Quite frankly I never at that saw the > resemblence in the _Tik-Tok_ picture until is was pointed out the other day > on the Digest...I'd say that if you can't see it, count your blessings. :) I quite agree... Did you watch ALL of _Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask_ to determine just how moronic the film was, or did you infer that from seeing just the gag I referenced? ;) -- Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com -- Look at all the nice things money can buy Every day there's more and more Do you ever stop and wonder why You're neither rich nor poor? Eine Kleine Middle Klasse Musik... --The Rutles ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 18:50:45 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 > David > No, we're talking about the color plate opposite page 108 of > _Tik-Tok_ > where Files's left hand is clearly clutching Ozga's left breast. > > ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! This plate is missing from my edition. It > is also missing from the white paperback version and the Ace paperback > versions that I have. Hmmmmm. Have the overly-religious struck here???? > Worriedly, Bear (:<) > Dear Bear, and everyone else who does not know this. All of the Oz books through WISHING HORSE except ROAD were originally published with color, two (OZMA and PATCHWORK GIRL) had the color printed on the regular pulp pages, the rest had inserted color plates. Around 1935 Reilly & Lee eliminated the color plates, and until Books of Wonder and IWOC began reprinting facsimile editions no later editions had these plates (or color pages). The suspect picture in TIK-TOK therefore will not be found in any edition between 1935 and 1996 when BoW reprinted the book with the color plates. If you cannot find a pre-1935 copy of the book, you can get the BoW edition for $15.40 from Amazon Books. BTW: On the question of the propriety of what RPT did to the Good Witch of the North. The one thing *I* object to is her name. I can not with good conscience call Baum's character "Tattypoo." I would prefer even Locasta to that, but to me she is simply the Good Witch of the North. Oh yes, March Laumer wrote a book about her life too, THE GOOD WITCH OF OZ. On the matter of romance with Glinda, Laumer had a thing going between Glinda and Button Bright. How do you like those apples? Steve T. ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 9 - 12, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 22:23:43 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 >Interesting that you should mention Reera as an eternal virgin, >considering that she was married in the recent _Red Reera the Yookoohoo >and the Enchanted Easter Eggs of Oz_. not really, since not nearly all the digesters read many non-FF books. incidentally, since we're on the topic, the author of RRTYATEEEOO makes it pretty clear that reera's hymen is history: "...Reera and Glenn seized control of the master bedroom for the night" (no pagination, end of chapter 7). chris dulabone, the book's (and my) publisher, exhibited no knowledge of this passage when i brought it up to him. seems unnecessary and unozzy to me, but i'm no stone-caster. ironically enough, the book was decorated by my late illustrator marcus mebes, who published a terribly imaginative two-page pamphlet where ozma swears and flips us the bird on the front cover. cheap shock value is so amusing. since some of us have mentioned agnosticism versus atheism, i'll recommend an interesting book that gives a good kick in the pants to classical theism (which plays a bit fast-and-loose with biblical interpretation, anyway). the book certainly touts the existence of god but argues against contradictory, poorly-conceived facets of traditional christianity. it's called _omnipotence and other theological mistakes_ by charles hartshorne. oh, and i'm glad _that ozzy feeling_ discussion has been nixed. like ruth berman said, debate is pointless until the book actually appears, and i was on the road to becoming heartily annoyed. _i_ never made a judgment and have always intended, as a completist (with the exception of ignoring laumer, _wicked_, and the like), to buy the book when it's published--unless i hear again, for the umpteenth time, that i should give the book a chance, in which case i shall boycott out of irritation. and so, i disappear for another couple of months. atticus * * * "The crash of the whole solar and stellar systems could only kill you once." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 11:50:00 +0200 (IST) From: Tzvi Harris Subject: oz digest entry from the middle east I've been following the digest with interest for a few weeks now. Very interesting guys. David Hulan: I have to sympathize with you, I tried to get my wife to read some of my Oz collection- I guess saying that she wasn't impressed describes it well. She did enjoy _Rinkitink_-but only because it had almost nothing to do with Oz. Last week on I heard on local (Israel) radio a list of events which occured this week in the past. One of the items mentioned was that the Wizard of Oz was appeared on television for the first time, this week (no specific date was mentioned) in 1956. Sky Island: While reading Sky Island I thought the theme of the Queen/ruler being the servant of the people (radically) was something I heard before in Oz lit. Off hand the only somewhat similar instance I can recall is from RPTs' Kingdom of Patch where the Patchwork girl was enlisted as a slave/queen. Anybody recall this theme appearing in other Oz books? Tzvi Harris Israel ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 13:52:51 -0500 (EST) From: JSTEADMAN@loki.berry.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-08-97 To all: Sorry for my outburst of yesterday ("The dratted South", etc.); this is something I feel very strongly about. No offense to Bear at all (I don't even know offhand where he lives). My insistence on making unnecessary puns: It's a curse, I tell you! (I should know!) Punnily yours, Jeremy Steadman ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:13:59 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz & the power of women Sender: "J. L. Bell" Ken Cope wrote: <> Maud Baum negotiated a royalty on Reilly & Lee's sales of Oz books by other authors, and was later involved in the sale of film rights. Eldest son Frank Joslyn Baum was disappointed when he returned from army service in Europe and discovered that he couldn't continue the series himself. So the Baums were financially, but not creatively, involved in the official Oz series after 1920. I haven't read DINOMONSTER, but I have read the start of Frank J. Baum's LAUGHING DRAGON and Roger S. Baum's DOROTHY IN OZ, and seen the 1925 WIZARD OF OZ movie co-written by Frank. They underscore the truth of your first statement above. The Babar books are another children's series continued by the original author's child. Dave Hardenbrook asked: <> I agree with the folks who say that Thompson did, not simply because her contract with Reilly & Lee (and its contract with Maud Baum) empowered her, but because the Good Witch of the North was such a minor character in Baum's books that changing her alters his Oz very little. I found Thompson's reason for the Scarecrow's animation in ROYAL BOOK to be much more of a deviation from how Baum wrote of Oz--and that was originally promulgated under his name! I also found Thompson's disenchantment of Sir Hokus, her own creation, less than enchanting. Dave Hulan wrote: <> Baum has the King of the Winged Monkeys say, "All [Gayelette's] magic was used to help the people, and she was never known to hurt anyone who was good....all the men were much too stupid and ugly to mate [!] with one so beautiful and wise." Thus, even if we question Gayelette's wisdom and goodness (and I agree that she's dangerously quick-tempered), she is presented to us with those qualities. Even when she enslaves the Monkeys, Gayelette intends them to serve her husband, whom she knows is "wise" and has already put in "a kind word" for them. She may, indeed, have expected the Monkeys to make up for their prank on Quelala with three tasks, or simply to fear the consequences of crossing the couple again, but the Wicked Witch of the West intervened. Gayelette is certainly an oddity in Baum's lineup of magical female rulers ("No rule is so general, which admits not some exception." --Robert Burton). Significantly, unlike the others I listed, Baum created her with a marriage in mind. And we never actually see her; we hear about her two monkey-generations later. Nathan DeHoff wrote to me: <> In discussing "Baum's concept of Oz" I didn't feel bound to consider titles like this. I'd get tired even typing it! (I do hope Reera's marriage turns out more pleasant than that of her sister Yookoohoo, Mrs. Yoop.) Steve Teller reports: <> Didn't I say the kid had "pure dumb luck"? Tyler Jones wrote to me: <> Scholars of slang trace "PC" to college campuses in the eastern US in the early 1980s. I was on one such campus when I first heard the term. It was a self-mocking joke. The closest thing to that PC in the Oz books is the Tin Woodman's tear when he steps on a bug in WIZARD. In the late 1980s right-wing provocateurs like Dinesh D'Souza seized on the term and took it seriously. Much of what critics label PC today--objecting to insults and exclusion--used to be called politeness. But that doesn't stop bigots growling "PC" whenever they miss being able to tell darkie jokes. When I come across the term now, it usually feels like hearing someone with no sense of humor try to tell a joke. So let's discard that "very PC" label, Tyler, and seriously discuss what concerned you about my postings. Perhaps you could quote me (in context, of course) because I'm at a loss to identify what led you to write, "You seem to be casting men in the role of the defilers of all that is good while women are eternally innocent and pure"? I wasn't even writing about "the nature of fairyland" or how I might cast people in it; I was writing about "Baum's concept of Oz." I pointed to a pattern that shows up in many of his fantasies: strong, beautiful, immortal, unattached female magic-workers. I've also written that for Ozma "he created close advisors" who are male but not romantic partners, and that "married couples are plentiful" in his books. For each remark I listed a few characters to back up my observations. If you care to point to other characters or stories that refute my notion of Baum's creation, please do. I myself brought up Gayelette as an exception to the rule. But please don't waste time reading your own political worries into what I wrote about Baum. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 21:23:24 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Extending what Jim said: Oz and Beyond by Michael O. Riley HMMMM. I ordered this from BOW when the last flyer came out, about two months ago. They charged my Visa in early October but I have not received it. So, I called. They told me it will not even be shipped until mid-November. So, how have the rest of you obtained copies????? And, however you have done it, could you hold on the discussion until the rest of us have a chance to read a copy? Jim - I just received my Bugle too. David Jeremy: >>2) Atmosphere of suppression of religious and political ideology and >>dissent, location of: THE DRATTED SOUTH!!! >But there the religious and political ideologies and dissent that are being >suppressed are the kind Bear disagrees with! WHOA THERE HULAN. I may disagree with your politics but I am NEVER going to agree with SUPPRESSING them or your religion if any. I will continue to be amazed that we have so much in common and yet can believe such radically different things. However, that's part of what continues to make life interesting. Tik Tok - Sigh. I guess I better go through my collection and compare it to _Bib Oz_ . As to picking an age, I have heard that soon THEY will be able to clone a new body for us and we can have our brain transplanted into the nice young body. Shades of Heinlein. Remember when he transplanted the brain of a dirty old man into the body of a beautiful young woman? I have to admit I was interested in the idea. Lisa >Does it allow for subarenas within the higher bipolar divisions of the world? I think I would prefer to go skating in your arena. :) :) Ken - I bet your Rorschach is a kick! :) :) And please sir, who are the Rutiles? Is there more?....... Stephen >On the matter of romance with Glinda, Laumer had a thing going between Glinda and Button Bright. How do you like those apples? Pretty sour apples as far as I'm concerned. Sourly, Bear (:<) P.S. Dave - Good luck with your ISP. We all need you. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 22:42:24 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Bear: Well, I'm a step below perfect, with a PC and Compuserve :-) James and Laura: Another way to really get into the spirit of Oz and get some basic understanding of it is to visit the Piglet Press. This website contains a prodigious amount of information about Oz, the people, places and other items. Piglet Press can be found at: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/ Disney: The _Wall Street Journal_ did a story a couple years back about the "SEX" in the sand thing. They traced the story back from source to source to find out its origin. It turns that a frat boy thought he saw it and mentioned it to her girlfriend, who passed it on to her dad (a minister). Eventually, it made it into some church newsletters, local papers, then the national scene. The frat boy has since recanted (he admits that he was mistaken), but it's too late now... --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:38:56 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-08-97 > (This will be the last Digest for perhaps several days...See my > special message... > -- Dave) I hope it won't be too long; in any case, I might as well respond. Bear: >My, I think this is really a reflection of the times. Aaron, I think that >Ken was kidding about Kirk and Spock. Is someone next going to suggest >Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello? The K/S fan fiction is real. I don't know if it's still being done or not; the heyday was back in the '70s, as far as I know. Melody: >Well, I seem to have much less trouble logging onto Compuserve & collecting >Ozzy Digests than the Oz folks on AOL. :-) No question that Compuserve does a better job delivering E-mail than AOL. (The AOL log-on problems seem to have largely been solved by now, or at least I haven't gotten a busy signal logging on since April or so.) >David Hulan's comparison of the >Umbrella's power to a computer was apt--but then, what *else* could an >autopilot be? All right, maybe there are autopilot devices that are not >computers...) The autopilot dates back to times before digital computers (or at least, digital computers compact enough to put on airplanes). I suppose that they could be considered analog computers of sorts, but basically they were just a few feedback loops, sensing altitude, heading, and air speed (and maybe a few other things) and moving the plane's controls to correct any deviations from the preset values. Tyler: >David: >I must have been mixing some Baum and Thompson references. Pajuka, in _Lost >King_, said that the EC now was "nothing like" what they had now. This >implies that there was some sort of settlement there, although not on as >large a scale as the modern Emerald City. Presumably there must have been some kind of settlement in the center of Oz if, as Glinda says in _Land_, Pastoria was ruler of the Emerald City before the Wizard. But, as I said before, either the original city was destroyed in the war against the Wicked Witches or it was small enough that it was largely ignored after the Wizard had the present city built. Perhaps it was just a castle with a neighboring village, but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence one way or the other. >Part of the ambiguity comes from the fact that, except for the Frogman, >there were no major characters introduced by Baum after _Scarecrow_, unless >you count the Tin Soldier, although David correctly points out that he >would have figured in the adventure in _Glinda_. No major characters who recur in other Baum books, anyhow. Rinkitink, Inga, Bilbil, Gos, Cor, Ugu, Cayke, Woot, Kiki Aru, Coo-ee-oh, and the Su-dic all seem to me to qualify as major characters introduced after _Scarecrow_, but none of them appeared in more than one book. >Reverse DST meant that we would set our clocks back when everybody else set >theirs forward and vice-versa. Ugh. If you did that you wouldn't be on Chicago time but New York time in the summer. (You're on Chicago time in the summer now.) Reminds me of an SF story from back in the late '50s (I think) where someone comes up with a drug that makes everybody who uses it really laid-back, and it becomes extremely popular. One of the things its users did when they'd become a substantial majority in the country was to put in "double Daylight Wasting Time". Jim W.: I suppose your approach is one way to become more knowledgeable about Oz. Personally, I think it would be better to just read through the FF (or as many as you can find) in order, and then go on to the critical works, but I suppose that's more a matter of taste than objective superiority. (Getting the maps so you can follow along on them would be a good idea, though I'd recommend getting the ones from the IWOC rather than the ones from the Atlas of Fantasy or the Dictionary of Imaginary Places; they're bigger and more colorful. They also include some additional sites from post-FF books published by the IWOC, for what it's worth.) Regarding not discussing _That Ozzy Feeling_ prior to publication vs. not discussing the latest _Baum Bugle_ before everyone has a copy: I think it's just that most people prefer not to have too much information about a work of fiction before they've read it, but relatively few have any strong feelings about knowing what the general contents of a non-fiction magazine are before reading it. I know you're the first person I've run across who felt that way. But if you feel that way then I can and will refrain from saying anything about the _Bugle_ before there's an indication that most people on the Digest have received theirs. No problem; it's just that it didn't occur to me that it would bother anyone. Ken C.: >I think good illustration helps to develop a visual imagination, though >some think that a good writer can create a far more vivid picture, with >words alone, than any illustration could possibly convey. There are some books that include such vivid word-pictures that people remember them as illustrated, even though they weren't. I've heard a number of people say that about Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles, for instance. Steve: >On the matter of romance with Glinda, Laumer had a thing going between >Glinda and Button Bright. How do you like those apples? That one has always seemed totally implausible to me. (I haven't read the book, but it's been discussed here at some length.) For it to work, Button-Bright would have had to grow up into a completely different sort of character than he was in Baum's books. This can happen, of course, but in that case why bother to associate the changed character with the original Button-Bright? Might as well just pick a normal Ozite. At least Zim is the sort of person who makes sense as a spouse for Glinda, should Glinda choose to marry. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:42:15 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest, if currently open, that is Nathan DeHoff: Your concern that not accepting postings on unpublished Oz mss. amounts to censorship -- actually, if the authors themselves don't post comments on them, probably no one else will, either. And the authors themselves are probably open to the request that mss. that most of us have not read not be discussed. Jim Whitcomb: You thought it odd that I object to discussion of a book I haven't read but don't object to discussion of a "Bugle" I haven't read. Well, there are several important differences. The people who have seen the "Bugle" and are discussing it are having an informed discussion, where a discussion made up of one or two people who've seen an unpublished ms. and a bunch of people reacting to their descriptions of it is not an informed discussion. For another, if I want to take part in a discussion of an issue of the "Bugle" I haven't seen, all I have to do is wait a few days until my copy arrives -- it's a short amount of time, and if I want to say something then, it will still be relevant. (If I weren't a subscriber and felt curious about it after seeing the discussion, it would not take much time for me to send in a subscription and get the issue.) Then, too, the "Bugle" is made up of articles, not fiction, and it's a lot easier to summarize an article so that someone who hasn't read it can know enough about it to contribute at least a bit to the discussion than it is to summarize a story (the plot may be easy enough to summarize, but the experience of the whole story is not). Also, articles rarely make surprising the reader an important factor in the article's effectiveness, and stories do. (I don't myself object to finding out in advance what surprises are in the plot of a story I haven't read yet, but many readers do.) You asked for suggestions about best order for reading Oz books and related material. Having a map available is a good idea. The BoW edition of "Tik-Tok" includes the endpaper maps of Oz and the surrounding countries. The IWOC sells copies of the Haff-Martin pair of maps, which include locations for the places in all the FF books. Beyond the 14 Oz books by Baum, I think it's a toss-up whether it's more fun to go on with the 26 Oz books by his successors (at least those by RPT and the one by the McGraws -- the few by Neill, Snow, and Cosgrove-Payes might be left out or delayed) or to go to Baum's other fantasy stories, particularly the "borderlands of Oz" ones. Biographies and critical books/articles could go somewhere in there, too, but since most of them assume that readers have already read all the Oz books, it might be as well to hold off on them until reading at least the majority of Baum's Oz books and at least sampling the borderlands books and the Oz books by Baum's successors. Also somewhere in the later stages some exploration into the Oz books published by the IWOC and by others could be fun. Bob Spark and David Hulan: Although the "Animal Fairy Tales" are very different from the Oz books in many ways, they do share an ability to create convincing animal characterizations. One of the elements that made Ruth Plumly Thompson such a good choice to continue the Oz books was the observant love for animals she shared with Baum. Jeremy Steadman: Then again, if you couldn't find it, maybe the "Lion King" doesn't actually have any smoke that spells out sex, or maybe the resemblance of the smoke-forms to letters is not actually all that close and making the identification depends on the-eye-of-the-beholder (Kaliko's throne maybe sort-of resembles a woman's breast, at least, if the woman stepped out of an Al Capp "Lil Abner" comic strip, but I doubt that Neill intended such a resemblance). Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:53:16 -0800 From: stlove Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-08-97 Dave Hulan wrote: >Do you have other color plates in your edition? If so, then probably >someone removed the one we're talking about (I'm assuming you bought your >copy used). _Bib Oz_ doesn't list any editions with only a few color plates >removed; the original had 12 and apparently so did all subsequent editions >until they discontinued color plates entirely. (I checked because ISTR some >of the earlier books had 16 plates in the 1st but cut down to 12 in later >editions.) All -- what does "_Bib Oz_" refer to? I have twenty or so pre-1935 Oz books and have been for years wanting to get a sense for what editions they may be. Also, "ISTR"? Thanks, -- Scott ____________________________________ Scott Love scott@tiktok.com ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:34:02 -0500 (EST) From: JOdel@aol.com Subject: Ozzy =?UNKNOWN?Q?Digest=D1Whenever...?= Oh, we're side-tripping off into the books' order of action as opposed to publication date. Fun! I have developed a MOPPeT on that particular issue. For once I've got one that comes down more heavily on the Oz as History side of the equation. First premise; Baum was a professional writer before Dorothy ever told him about her adventure in Wizard. (Not much argument there!) And he was a little slow to understand that what she told him had REALLY happened, until after he had already written the first couple of books in the series. (And who did tell him about the adventures in Land, btw? My head has somehow misplaced the consensus. Did he hold off publishing ANY of the tales that his little friend told him until after she told him the story we know as Ozma, and had backtracked to fill him in on the events of Land at the same time? Certainly, Land has a rather different feel from most of the rest of the series, possibly due to his having written "more" of it himself, filling in the skeleton of a story as Dorothy told it to him.) Even then, he would take Dorothy's bare account of what an adventure she had been having and would dress it up as a story in order to sell it. This is where a lot of the conflicts crept in, Dorothy did not really understand the mechanics of HOW a lot of the oddities in Oz worked, herself, made a few mistatements which she had to correct later, when she understood more, and the issue was further complicated by Baum messing about with it acording to his own ideas of how things "ought" to be. Second; Baum didn't really wish to write more than one book about Oz for publication in any particular year. He, and R&L didn't believe that more than that would sell well enough to justify it. Consequently, the rate at which things happened was already somewhat misrepresented through having to conform to his publication schedule. Third; once Dorothy and her family emigrated to Oz, and the interuption in the flow of information took place, there was a break in even this degree of continuity. Baum never claims to have promised to tell Dorothy's stories in the order that she told them to him! That part of the issue was left up to his own discression. And this is what I believe "may" have happened. Some time after he lost contact with Dorothy, another child, by that time a more local child, wrote to him after reading some of Dorothy's adventrues with a tale of her own, telling him how she and her friend the Captian had had an adventure with mermaids. Baum was delighted. The more so in that he had never been able to work mermaids into the Dorothy adventures. He asked the child if she would like him to write a book about the adventure, and she agreed with enthusiasm. Some time later, the same child wrote to him about another adventure, this time in the sky, acompanied by her friend the Captain, and a second child, this one a little boy. At some point about this time, another clever child wrote to Baum with the suggestion of trying to contact Dorothy by wireless radio. Baum was impressed by both letters. Over the course of the next few months, he began building his wireless reciever, and he immediately started giving serious consideration as to how he was to handle telling the story of Sky Island. At some point in the proceedings, he seems to have decided to revive the Button-Bright character which he had used in Road, rather than to introduce yet another American child, and thereby to tie the Trot stories into the same continumn as the Dorothy adventures. The first appearance of this character was a fabrication, and one who he had deliberately made as stupid as could be managed, as part of the joke. Fortunately, he had also made the character very young. Consequently, when writing Sky Island, he was able to re-use the character, this time based on a real child, and make him a bit older, and a good deal brighter without having to do too much redesigning. He was deep in the writing of Sky Island when Dorothy finally made contact. And since this contact was made after a much longer interval than ever before, given Dorothy's opportunities for adventuring, it is not unreasonable to believe that she did not simply tell him of one adventure that she had had since moving to Oz, but two. The first was of her having had to go and sort out a piece of injustice on the part of the Nome King, concerning his continuing "bad neighbor policy", such as had resulted in his enslavement of the royal house of Ev, and Glinda's role in restoring the true ruler to one of the kingdoms on the other side of the Deadly desert. This particular story was a stiring tale, but took place mostly in the islands, and among people who were strangers to Baum and his audience. It's significance in Oz was that it made it plain that Roquat was going to have to be closely monitored in the future, since it had become glaringly apparant that hwe was reverting to type, and that they could not just leave him to his own devices, or he would be mounting another attempt at invasion. The second story was the one of a backwoods Munchkin boy who had been arrested picking a six-leaved clover in an attempt to gather the ingredients for a magic charm. The boy had been accompanied on his journey to the Capital by no fewer than three freakish creatures, two of them magically generated, and had actually been brought on the last stage of their trip to the city by the Shaggy Man. Dorothy had joined the boy on the latter part of his quest and was able to tell Baum how it had all ended up. Baum, being in the middle of one novel already, set these both asside, until he was ready to tell the next year's story for the holiday market. He made a start with the story of the Nome King's latest antics, had second thoughts, set it asside, and let his own preference for freaks and an Oz story which actually took place in Oz take precedence. He may have regretted this decision, when Dorothy's next tale turned out to be the follow-up of the results of Ozma's monitoring of the Nome Kingdom, resulting in Roquat's overthrow by Tititi-Hoochoo, and the accession of Kalliko, as, essentially, a puppet king under T-H's and Ozma's supervision. And, between the reappearance of Polychrome, Tik-Tok and the Shaggy Man, and the appearance of another little American girl, this was far too exciting a tale to postpone. (Ann Soforth's absurdly hazardous attempt to conquer Oz was reworked into a more-or-less comical reprise of both Junjur's conquest of the Emerald City, and Ozma's reckless expedition to force the Nome King into good neighborliness. Clerarly the only thing more dangerous to the smooth flow of society than powerful and rash young rulers is young women who are bored with housework!) This put Baum into a pickle when it came time to write the book for the year following, for his Nome King story was now badly out of date. (He had not yet hit upon the idea of misrepresenting Kalliko, by having Roquat/Ruggedo doing his dirty under Kalliko's name.) Nor had he heard anything further from the child he had renamed Trot. Dorothy's next contact also contained two bits of news. One was the summary of Glinda's having sent the Scarecrow to intervene in the situation in Jinxland. King Crewel's proposal to freeze the Princess Gloria, his own niece's heart was the last straw, so far as Glinda was concerned. (Dorothy had so enjoyed his Trot stories (which the Magic Belt was perfectly able to bring INTO Oz, since ink, paper,cardboard and cloth were well within the capabilities of her one-wish-a-day limit) that she had asked Ozma to invite her and the Captain for a visit just before Ozma's latest birthday party, and that Trot and the Captain were now in residence. Baum grasped upon these bits of news with relief and wove them all together into a new, and very successful novel, which was far more a piece of art than one of direct reporting. Part of this particular MOPPeT is that I have some doubt that Trot and Bill's oddesy to Oz actually happened in the manner told in Scarecrow, or that the boy from Sky Island who Baum based the older Button Bright on was actually along for this adventure. His sudden appearance somehow never quite convinces me, and the strange "inability" to send Trot home also rings false. The odd islands which they encountered along the way, could have been information that Dorothy had given him two years earlier earlier, as part of the travelers' tales from the celebration at the end of the story we know as Rinkitink which he wove into the chain along with his earlier tales of Mo, other travels with the Scarecrow, and whatever else occurred to him as a good idea. As to Trot's move to Oz; it happened, certainly, but not the way it was told in the story. "Trot's" parents had separated (although not actually divorced) the year that Baum had written of Ojo's adventures, and her mother had returned to her own parents' household, taking Trot with her, inland, away from the sea, and away from Cap'n Bill. The old sailor had been left alone on shore when his friend "Captain Griffiths" returned to sea, and had taken other lodgings in the village. The Captain was not a good correspondent, and Trot was only a good one when she had something exciting to tell. They made sporatic attempts, for some time, which were, if anything, discouraged by Trot's mother. Trot, like most children, was convinced that she was to blame for whatever it was that went wrong, and her dissapearance to Sky Island for most of a week, along with her reappearance with a large pink jewel set in a circlet of gold may very well have been the incident which decided Mrs "Griffiths" that she had had enough of life alone as an absentee sea captain's wife. Writing up her account and sending it off to Baum was the last thing Trot did before her mother told her that they were moving to her grandparents' house. Cap'n Bill and Trot had not seen each other for over a year when they found themselves at Ozma's birthday party. The Captain had been very lonely, and stated that he was old, and to Trot, this claim (made before, but largely disbelieved) finally sounded like it was true, and with the daily example of her own grandparents' growing frailties, was frightened and upset by it. Trot, formerly so cheerful, had clearly been miserable since being taken away from her home, and the Captain was worried. Dorothy, Betsy and The Wizard had, to no surprise, found the Captain to be excellent company, and, to the Wizard, rather more so than the Shaggy Man, who was more often gone than in residence. Captain Bill was also a near contemporary to the old carny from Omaha, and, with Ozma's consent, was offered a home in Oz. Trot was happy for her old friend's sake, but very much otherwise concerning her own, and eventually begged to be allowed to remain as well. Ozma agreed at once. Glinda was a good deal more reluctant, but, seeing that Trot was NOT happily adjusting to her new life, despite the passage of more than a year, was eventually convinced that it was in the child's best interests to allow her to stay. The claim that she "couldn't" be sent home, as well as the discussion on the wisdom of permitting any more Americans to take up residence in Oz, as written up in the end of Scarecrow is mainly whitewash, placed there by Baum in an ambivalent effort to let Mrs Griffiths know that Trot was all right. He never heard from the lady, which was probably just as well. (Trot's mother, exaggerated into cartoon scale, later served as the model for Nimee Amee, who neither Baum nor Dorothy ever actually met.) Button-Bright may never have actually visited Oz at all. We don't know much concerning the boy who went to Sky Island, but the one who stayed at the end of Scarecrow, like the original child in Road, may well have been a fabrication. Or may have been yet a third child altogether, after all, there seems to be some sort of insider message in the statement that "any time you find a lost boy, he will turn out to be Button-Bright." (Btw, how much of BB's "I don't know" might due to his not having enough imagination to take a guess, combined with being incapable of making anything up, due to his dowsing in the Truth Pond? What, after all are the long term results on a growing child's character of being UNABLE to tell anything but the truth? Did Glinda and Ozma finally decide that it was Kindest, and probably best all round to keep him there in Oz where there were so many people other who were so much stranger that his peculiarities were not so obvious?) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:58:56 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: (fwd) Re: Wizard of Oz (fwd) > >Frank Grimes wrote in article <34624A79.4189@idt.net>... >> I hated it. >> >> But I've been thinking, is it more an anti-HItler movie (Witch >> symbolizing Hitler) or more of forcing people to do what you want to do >> but too lazy to do it (is this Capitalism, I'm not sure). >> -- >> PO`!1 ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 15:42:53 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things MY ISP: Hi everyone! I'm back after four days in the Winkie Woods! :) Maybe I'd better explain what happened -- You know that Delphi and Mindspring have merged (sort of), and now my Dial-Up Networking is done through Mindspring. One little difficulty...Mindspring doesn't have any Dial Up numbers that are local for Huntington Beach, which means that I can't log on unless I want another phone bill that looks like an estimation of the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy! So it looks like the hunt is on again for a new ISP... I'm going back through the suggestions you submitted to me the last time I contemplated changing ISPs and they are helping. In the meantime I am temporarily taking advantage of the free trial connection to Microsoft's Network that came with my PC so that I can remain online while I find a new permanent ISP. I will not stay with MSN -- There's just too much about it I don't like (No Web page hosting, no Unlimited Access Rate, red tape to access "alt." newsgroups, which they don't differentiate from the porno groups, and while they don't *force* you to use MS Exchange and MS Internet Explorer instead of Eudora and Netscape, they make it as painful as humanly possible...). BCF: As far moving the discussion on to _Patchwork Girl_, how does everyone feel about starting Monday after next? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 13 - 15, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:16:17 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-06-97 Ken: You wouldn't be interested in seeing Supes interpreted by Tim Burton? That's who's directing Cage. Cyclops and Jean Grey got married before that during a sweeps, and before that, Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson. As far as discussion of books is concerned, I'm more worried that the centenniel judges will not like the end of _Tip of Oz_. They may think that it's superficial. It is superficial, and that is the point. It is a pat ending that is a parody of itself when nothing really has been solved, and something that I intended from the very start. Some people may find this too distant from Baum, but no one wrote like this in Baum's time, anyway. Had Baum been living later in the 20th century, he might have done this. There was no way to give it a satisfying ending that was not shallow and false, and thus it cries out for a sequel, like that will solve anything. If anything is unOzzy about my Oz books, it's that. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:35:01 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-97 Mike: Didn't you hear that Michael Eisner's personal phone number was on restroom grafitti in one frame of _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_? There is the infamous Jessica scene, which could just as easily be grey underwear as anything else. Jeremy: As I have had personal religious experience (as opposed to merely social), I must say that I am certain there is a God; however, were it not for the expereince, I might very well doubt it. I, for one, would hate to see _Dorothy of Oz_ canonized because a Baum wrote it. I haven't read _Laughing Dragon_ or _Dinamonster_, so I cannot judge those. I hope _Lion of Oz and the Badge of Courage_ is better, but I haven't seen it outside of the Bugle or _The Oz Collector_. I still haven't seen the last four _Oz Kids_ videos, either. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:57:33 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-08-97 Bompi: I did see the _Fame_ episode in question, but I was only in first grade, and I don't have a copy. I hope the riff I took from it for _Tip of Oz_ ("Hamburgers, soft drinks, and fries, oh my!) doesn't prevent its winning or publication (with the line intact). In this seen Tip and Aubrey are trapped in an elevator, and force their way out. I have actually been in this situation before, at the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library. The elevator stopped between floors, so I had to step up after forcing the door open, and the library had to replace the elevator with a much nicer one. Ken: Neill's influence was also purely (if uncredited) used for Fumihiko Takayama's anime, _Ozu no Mahotsukai_ (1982) [the Aileen Quinn-Lorne Greene one, in its US version], in which the houses look exactly as Neill drew them. This fil also referenced the MGM film, including giving Dorothy red shoes. Tunc Basaran's _Aysecik ve Sihirli Cuceler Ruyalar Ulkesinde_ gave Aysecik red shoes in the beginning, which she exchanged for silver. BTW, if God created women's breasts, how can they be evil? Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:09:04 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-97 > A child certainly wouldn't recognize any of this, or so I would think. I realize I said this, but my 11-year old friend from church, Alyce, noticed sexaul innuendo in the phrase "my granddaughter would love to show you her seashell collection) in the play _The Guest a Christmas_ we are pefrforming. This is by Charles Day, our own playwright, who Alyce regards like a grandfather. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:33:12 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Oz It looks like Ralph Griffith isn't on aol anymore (Ozgrif@aol.com doesn't work). Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:10:56 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-08-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" >No, we're talking about the color plate opposite page 108 of _Tik-Tok_ > where Files's left hand is clearly clutching Ozga's left breast.< After looking at my "Tik-Tok of Oz" with color plates, it seems that the frantic Files' left hand has slid up into a position where it supports Ozga's entire bosom. Such a clutch might be forgiveable for a guy who has just met a gal he really likes, and then, when he and she suddenly take a terrible tumble down a tube, tries to protect her (and himself!) by grabbing her. She seems to have tumbled first and is nearly sliding out of his arms. Naturally if his hand originally landed on her chest or stomach it would be stopped by that particular-er-obstacle first. Ozga: He didn't mean to be fresh, kind Oz fans. In fact, I hardly noticed it when it happened. Files: Once I got over my first confusion, I noticed where (blush!) my hands were and moved them at once! Believe me, I *am* a gentleman. The plate also shows Files paying more attention to his terrible tumble than to where his hands are. So let's let the poor fellow off from harassment charges this once. :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:21:24 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Jeremy - You must not be reading the Digest regularly. I live in Palo Alto. Tyler - What is a "frat boy?" Monday after next, November 24th, sounds fine for the only "PG" Oz book. :) I am really enjoying the beautiful color in my edition. Does the BOW edition duplicate the color on the pages? Ken - Are you related to Kathleen Cope Ruoss? I know artistic talent runs in families. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:06:46 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-12-97 JOdel, Have I ever expressed my appreciation for your posts? If I have not previously done so, let me do it now. I have saved your MOPPeT on the history of Oz for further perusal, but enjoyed it very much upon cursory reading. Bear, > As to picking an age, I have heard that soon THEY will be > able to clone a new body for us and we can have our brain > transplanted into the nice young body. Shades of Heinlein. > Remember when he transplanted the brain of a dirty old man > into the body of a beautiful young woman? I have to admit I > was interested in the idea. Shades of Heinlein, also Edgar Rice Burroughs. Remember his _The Master Mind of Mars_ In which the evil Ras Thavas wants to transplant his brain into the body of Ulysses Paxton? He actually succeeds in the transplantation of several other brains into unwilling bodies. Dave Hardenbrook, > As far moving the discussion on to _Patchwork Girl_, how > does everyone feel about starting Monday after next? > I feel great about it. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:24:23 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Atticus: Holy cow! I never even noticed that Ozma was flipping us off on the cover of that oh-so-short pastiche. Tzvi: Welcome to the digest! Offhand, I can't think of any other rulers who were there to directly serve the people, but there are several places where the post of chief executive is not held in the highest of regard. For example, The High Coco-Lorum of Thi desparately pretends that nobody rules their city. In reality, he does rule, but he does not want the others to know. The king of Bunnybury is miserable in his post (until Dorothy), but he can't quit, since nobody else wants to take his place. John Bell: Your statement was that Glinda and Ozma were " beyond the grasp of men and beyond any weak desire for men?", implying that a desire for male companionship of a romantic nature was a weakness, implying that men themselves were unworthy of such feelings. Examples in Baum of good and decent men include Uncle Henry, the Wizard (after the first book), the Shaggy Man, Unc Nunkie and Cap'n Bill. I will grant, however, that the majority that appear in the Baumian Universe are exactly how you say they are, such as the Nome King, the old King of Ev, the Giant Yoop and so on. It was the blanket statement to which I was objecting. David: Correct, I meant that no major recurring characters were introduced at the end of the Baum era. ********** SPOILER FOR LAUMER ********** David again: In Laumer's tale, Button-Bright "accidentally" grows up and returns to America for several years. He "accidentally" returns, and is a much different person. ********** END OF SPOILER ********** Scott: "Bib Oz", I believe, stands for Bibliogrphia Oziana, an index of many Oz books in their various editions. ISTR is short for "I seem to recall". Many of these abbreviations can be found at Dave's Ozzy Digest FAQ. Joyce: Your MOPPeT was extremely well thought-out and brilliant. I haven't yet had a chance to go into all the details, but it looks good. --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:41:54 -0600 From: Richard_Tuerk@tamu-commerce.edu (Richard Tuerk) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-12-97 Richard "Bear" Baumann asked in the digest for 11/12, >Oz and Beyond by Michael O. Riley HMMMM. I ordered this from BOW when the >last flyer came out, about two months ago. They charged my Visa in early >October but I have not received it. So, I called. They told me it will >not even be shipped until mid-November. So, how have the rest of you >obtained copies????? And, however you have done it, could you hold on the >discussion until the rest of us have a chance to read a copy? I got mine directly from the University of Kansas Press, publisher of the book. Publication was delayed until September, but the book is now available. Rich Tuerk ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:32:52 +0000 From: Craig Noble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-12-97 Bear: I just called BoW this morning to inquire about my order. I haven't received Oz and Beyond or American Fairy Tales, both of which I ordered at prepublication prices. I was told I should receive them by the end of November. They said there was a hold-up in getting the signed copies of Riley's book. In my experience BoW sometimes delays orders if some of the items are unavailable. -- Craig Noble ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:34:23 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-12-97 Tzvi: >David Hulan: >I have to sympathize with you, I tried to get my wife to read some of my Oz >collection- I guess saying that she wasn't impressed describes it well. She >did enjoy _Rinkitink_-but only because it had almost nothing to do with Oz. The only Oz books my wife has liked have been the ones I wrote. (Only one of which has been published, but she's read the MSS of the other two.) She says I'm a much better writer than Baum or Thompson. She is, perhaps, just the least bit biased, however. :-) (I don't think she's ever tried _Rinkitink_.) >Sky Island: >While reading Sky Island I thought the theme of the Queen/ruler being the >servant of the people (radically) was something I heard before in Oz lit. >Off hand the only somewhat similar instance I can recall is from RPTs' >Kingdom of Patch where the Patchwork girl was enlisted as a slave/queen. >Anybody recall this theme appearing in other Oz books? The idea of rulership as more of a burden than a privilege is pretty common in the Oz books, though Tourmaline's situation in _Sky Island_ is extreme. In _Land_ the Scarecrow is happy not to be ruler of Oz any more; in _Rinkitink_ Rinkitink does everything he can to evade the duties of a monarch; in _Silver Princess_ Randy hates all the pomp and circumstance of being king of Regalia; and of course the queens of Patch in _Gnome King_ as you mention. There are probably other examples, but those come to mind off the top of my head. J.L.: I realize that Baum has the King of the Winged Monkeys describe Gayelette as being good and wise - but for all I know speaking well of Gayelette was another "curse" she laid on them. The one important action she took that we're shown I still consider wrong. If all she'd intended was that they perform three tasks for Quelala, she'd have made the cap a one-shot that would lose its power after the first three wishes, and not something that would make them grant three wishes to anyone who possessed it. I agree entirely with your riff to Tyler about "PC", FWIW. I've never heard the term used other than pejoratively. Bear: >Oz and Beyond by Michael O. Riley HMMMM. I ordered this from BOW when the >last flyer came out, about two months ago. They charged my Visa in early >October but I have not received it. So, I called. They told me it will >not even be shipped until mid-November. So, how have the rest of you >obtained copies????? And, however you have done it, could you hold on the >discussion until the rest of us have a chance to read a copy? I bought my copy from amazon.com, and it arrived in late September, IIRC. I've had it for well over a month, I know. BoW shouldn't have charged your Visa before they shipped it, though, unless you ordered it at a pre-publication discount - at least according to their announced policies. (And if you ordered it at a pre-pub discount then I must have failed to get an Oz Collector, because I haven't seen such an offer.) >WHOA THERE HULAN. I may disagree with your politics but I am NEVER going >to agree with SUPPRESSING them or your religion if any. I will continue to >be amazed that we have so much in common and yet can believe such radically >different things. However, that's part of what continues to make life >interesting. I was being flippant, of course. To clarify, I didn't mean that you'd support suppression of views that you disagree with, but that I've never heard you rant against their suppression the way you do against the alleged suppression of views you agree with. >And please sir, who are the Rutiles? Is there more?....... That's Rutles. They were parodies of the Beatles in a very funny TV movie in the '70s, _All You Need Is Cash_. (There was a time when I actually watched TV movies sometimes...) Scott L.: >All -- what does "_Bib Oz_" refer to? I have twenty or so pre-1935 Oz >books and have been for years wanting to get a sense for what editions >they may be. Also, "ISTR"? _Bib Oz_ is short for _Bibliographia Oziana_, published by the International Wizard of Oz Club and an indispensable source of information on the distinguishing characteristics of different editions of the Oz books (indispensable if you're interested in that sort of thing, that is). And ISTR is short for "I seem to recall." I believe that, and some other abbreviations commonly in use on the Digest, are listed in Dave's FAQ on his Web site; if you haven't looked that up I recommend it. Joyce: Interesting MOPPeT. I think the consensus (at least among those of us on the Digest who care about such things) is that the events of _Ozma_ and _DotWiz_ took place before _Land_ was written, so Dorothy could have told Baum about the events of _Land_ after she returned to Kansas. (Presumably she wouldn't have seen him between _Ozma_ and _DotWiz_, since she was in Australia most of that time and never back in Kansas.) I know my personal chronology puts even _Road_ no later than 1903, which is the year Baum probably did most of the writing on _Land_ (it's known that he sent the MS off in mid-March of 1904, and in those pre-computer days he probably took more than 10 weeks to write a book). I think that Tyler and Chris D.'s HACC expands that a little, but that it would still allow Dorothy to inform Baum before he wrote _Land_. One difficulty with your theory about _Rinkitink_, though, is that it's known that he wrote the original story - without the Ozian conclusion - in 1905. It would probably work out better to say that that original story was another that Dorothy told him on her return after the events of _DotWiz_; perhaps it would be something that Tik-Tok told her to illustrate the Nome King's character? The Ozian ending, like the change of the Nome King's name to Kaliko, would be bits that Baum added himself and not part of Dorothy's story at all. The only difficulty I see with your analysis of _Scarecrow_ is the rescue of the Scarecrow by the Orks. If the Ork didn't come to Oz in the company of Trot and Cap'n Bill, what were the Orks doing there? Or was that whole rescue an invention of Baum's? It seems unlikely, since it's one of the weakest things in that book, a pure unnecessary _deus ex machina_ like Dorothy's intervention in _Rinkitink_. Dave: Monday after next for _Patchwork Girl_ is fine with me. Hope you have good luck finding a new ISP. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:48:35 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-12-97 > Sky Island: > While reading Sky Island I thought the theme of the Queen/ruler being the > servant of the people (radically) was something I heard before in Oz lit. > Off hand the only somewhat similar instance I can recall is from RPTs' > Kingdom of Patch where the Patchwork girl was enlisted as a slave/queen. > Anybody recall this theme appearing in other Oz books? > Tzvi Harris > Israel > In TIK-TOK, Tititi-Hoochoo, the Great Jinjin, was the one and only private citizen in a realm composed of Kings and Queens. > ===================== > I haven't read DINOMONSTER, So what are you waiting for? It's probasbly the best Oz book written by a Baum descendent (which isn't saying much), and I wrote the afterword. > > J. L. Bell > Oz and Beyond by Michael O. Riley HMMMM. I ordered this from BOW when the > last flyer came out, about two months ago. They charged my Visa in early > October but I have not received it. So, I called. They told me it will > not even be shipped until mid-November. So, how have the rest of you > obtained copies????? And, however you have done it, could you hold on the > discussion until the rest of us have a chance to read a copy? > > Sourly, Bear (:<) What is wrong with BoW? I got copies directly from KU some weeks ago. (Getting > the maps so you can follow along on them would be a good idea, though I'd > recommend getting the ones from the IWOC rather than the ones from the > Atlas of Fantasy or the Dictionary of Imaginary Places; they're bigger and > more colorful. They also include some additional sites from post-FF books > published by the IWOC, for what it's worth.) > > David Hulan > The maps in the DICTIONARY OF IMAGINARY PLACES are direct rip-offs of the Haff/Martin maps published by IWOC. A quick look will reveal that they simply changed the dimensions of the Club Maps and used the same content without acknowledgement. > > All -- what does "_Bib Oz_" refer to? I have twenty or so pre-1935 Oz > books and have been for years wanting to get a sense for what editions > they may be. Also, "ISTR"? > > Thanks, > > -- Scott > BIB OZ is BIBLIOGRAPHIA OZIANA revised edition, published by IWOC and available in both paper and hardcover versions ($20 & 30 for non-club members, $13 & 20 for members) IWOC is ready to announce the winner of the centennial book contest. (How's that for a cliff hanger) Perhaps Peter Hanff has already done so. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:09:55 -0500 From: David Levitan Subject: Oz Newsgroup Failed Hi, The Oz newsgroup that I proposed failed 72:35. Although it met the requirement that 2/3 of all votes had to be yes, it did not meet the requirement that there had to be 100 more yes votes than no votes. Did anybody in the Ozzy Digest vote no for it? Please send me an e-mail telling me why so that I can fix the problem when I propose it in 6 months (May) (USENET group creation rules do not allow you to propose the group again for 6 months if it failed). -- David Levitan Oz Enthusiast wizardofoz@iname.com Netscape Supporter Designer of the Wonderful Land of Oz http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9075 Ring Master of the Oz Web Ring http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=ozsites;home ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:45:04 -0800 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: Ozzy Digest stuff Tevi: I cannot recall another instance of the ruler-as-servant-of-the-people policy being taken to extremes. In Tititi-Hoochoo's country, the only Private Citizen rules over several Kings and Queens. Could this be what you were thinking about? J. L. Bell: There's no reason for Reera's marriage to end up anything like Mrs. Yoop's. I don't think that there is any indication that all Yookoohoos make bad wives. Scott Love: Bib Oz is _Bibliographia Oziana_, a bibliographical work published by the International Wizard of Oz Club. Joyce: Your MOPPeT is interesting, although it differs quite a lot from mine. It seems that you consider Baum's letters to the children to be more canconical than the Oz stories themselves. If you go by the story given in _Road_ (which you might not, due to your slightly odd [IMHO] MOPPeT), Button-Bright's famous "don't know" could not possibly have resulted from his bath in the Truth Pond, since he started using the phrase before this bath. -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff vovat@geocities.com or lnvf@grove.iup.edu http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "I'm having a wonderful time, but I'd rather be whistling in the dark." ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:34:43 +0000 From: DAVID PARKER HISTORY Subject: a new Wizard of Oz web page Hi, Friends, I just wanted to let you all know that Chantal, my wife, has just completed my web page. It has a little on Oz, especially the two pieces I've written (Oz and Populism & theosophy), as well as some other stuff. I hope you enjot seeing it, and let me know what you think. I'm awfully proud of Chantal. We bought the computer for home (I already had one in my office) just three months ago. Before then, she had never sent an e-mail message or messed with the web. But she decided whe was going to learn HTML and put up web pages. She found a few online guides and took it from there. The address is: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6641 [I just checked it and one of the links is off--I'll tell her and let her fix it--but you can visit it anytime.] -- David Parker David B. Parker dparker@ksumail.kennesaw.edu Assistant Professor of History phone: (770) 423-6713 Kennesaw State University fax: (770) 423-6432 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591 ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 16:00:18 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ABBREVS.: Most of the abbrevtations in my FAQ are of often-used phrases. I have been thinking about standardizing abbreviations for book titles, e.g. PGOz for _Patchwork Girl of Oz_. Any thoughts? REERA: I for one wish Reera well in her marriage, and don't regard her as having displayed any "weakness"... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** OZZY DIGEST SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT! *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] (I thought this was important enought to put in a separate Digest... -- Dave) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:54:46 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Hanff Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-12-97 Hi Dave, At last we can announce the winner of the Oz Club's Centennial Oz Book Contest! I attach here my letter to the author: November 12, 1997 Virginia Wickwar 1375 E 260 N Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Gina, It is my great pleasure to confirm that your original Oz novel, The Hidden Prince of Oz, was selected by the judges as the winner of the Centennial Oz Book Contest of The International Wizard of Oz Club. I am delighted for you, and was particularly pleased to catch you so unawares when I telephoned you the other day! As you know, there are a number of steps we now must follow to move the book forward. Once those steps have been completed, Barbara Koelle will approach a professional illustrator. All in all, I am expecting these things to move forward promptly. My experience with coordinating book illustration suggests that we will need to allow perhaps a year for that process. Production of the book following completion of the illustrations might reasonably take another six months. We will be in communication with you from time to time to let you know how things are progressing. But in the meantime, I repeat my congratulations to you, and will be letting the judges know that they can now announce the winner publicly. Sincerely, Peter E. Hanff ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 16 - 17, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:22:29 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-14-97 Special Announcement: Well, now I can get on with abridging _Magic Carpet_ to a length that BoW might publish... And congratulations to Virginia Wickwar, whoever she is (a member of the IWOC, but I don't know anything further about her; she's never appeared in _Oziana_); I'll be looking forward to reading _The Hidden Prince of Oz_ when it's published. Scott H.: There were, according to Steve and Robin, quite a few excellent books entered in the contest; I doubt if the deciding factor was some one bit. Melody: I didn't intend to accuse Files of sexual harassment; I'm sure, judging by his expression, that your analysis of what happened is quite correct. I was commenting on the picture as a picture, not on Jo Files's behavior. Bear: >I am really enjoying the beautiful color in my edition. Does the BOW >edition duplicate the color on the pages? Yes. Whether it's as vivid as in your edition I don't know, but it has very nice color indeed. Bob Spark: > Shades of Heinlein, also Edgar Rice Burroughs. Remember his _The >Master Mind of Mars_ In which the evil Ras Thavas wants to transplant >his brain into the body of Ulysses Paxton? He actually succeeds in the >transplantation of several other brains into unwilling bodies. ********Spoiler for The Master Mind of Mars*********** Not strictly accurate. Ras Thavas did brain transplants routinely before Paxton ever came to Barsoom, and there was never any plan to transplant Ras Thavas's or anyone else's brain into Paxton's body. The plot of the book was that Ras Thavas trained Paxton to transplant brains so that Paxton could transplant Ras Thavas's brain into a young body that Ras Thavas had picked (and whose brain he'd destroyed). Then Paxton did a number of other brain transplants in the process of restoring the brain of Valla Dia, with whom he had fallen in love, to her proper body. Ras Thavas wasn't so much evil as amoral; as a comparison (morally, if not in other ways) to someone in the Oz books, he's more like Langwidere than Roquat. He also turns up later as a reasonably sympathetic character in _Synthetic Men of Mars_. **********End Spoiler***************** Tyler: I realize (because you've told me before, or maybe it was Steve) that Button-Bright changed greatly between the Baum books and the Laumer one - but my point was that if a change is that great, then retaining the name for the character seems rather pointless. If the Button-Bright that Glinda marries bears no resemblance to the Button-Bright we know from the books, then there's nothing more surprising about Glinda marrying Button-Bright than about her marrying anyone else. Steve: >The maps in the DICTIONARY OF IMAGINARY PLACES are direct rip-offs of >the Haff/Martin maps published by IWOC. A quick look will reveal that >they simply changed the dimensions of the Club Maps and used the same >content without acknowledgement. I've used the Oz maps from the ATLAS OF FANTASY, but they acknowledge the authorship and the Club. I don't know about the DICTIONARY OF IMAGINARY PLACES; I think I have a copy, but if so I've never opened it. David L.: It looks as if your main problem is to get people to vote at all on your Oz news group, rather than persuading those who voted "no" to change their vote. With only 107 total votes cast, it would take just four "no" votes to kill it. FWIW, I voted "yes," though after looking into some other news groups I doubt I'd do much with it. I like the Ozzy Digest approach much better. Dave: >ABBREVS.: >Most of the abbrevtations in my FAQ are of often-used phrases. I have >been thinking about standardizing abbreviations for book titles, e.g. >PGOz for _Patchwork Girl of Oz_. Any thoughts? I think most of us can pick up on any rational abbreviation of Famous Forty books without the need for a standardized set, and it's apparent from some of the questions that come in that not all Digest participants have read your FAQ. I have no objection to your coming up with a standardized set if you want to, but am cautioning that it probably won't be used by everyone. Robin Hess has a standardized set of two-letter abbreviations that uses the initials of the two main words for multi-word titles (both upper case), e.g. DW for _Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz_, and the initial of the main word and the first unique letter for one-word titles, with the second letter lower-case, e.g. Wi for "The Wizard of Oz". Most are pretty obvious, and fortunately there aren't any two books with multi-word titles and the same initials. (Nobody wrote _The Haunted Turtle of Oz_, or _The Lucky Prince of Oz_, for instance...) The only pair where a one-word title had to go beyond the second letter of the name is _The Scarecrow of Oz_ and _The Scalawagons of Oz_, which he abbreviates Sr and Sl respectively. Following this procedure the FF in sequence would be Wi, La, Oz, DW, Ro, EC, PG, TT, Sr, Ri, LP, TW, Ma, Gl, RB, Ka, CL, Gr, LK, HT, GK, GH, JP, YK, Pi, PP, Oj, Sp, WH, CS, HM, SP, OW, WC, Sl, LB, MM, SM, HV, and Me. It's efficient, though it has to be clear from context that you're referring to an Oz book, since some of the combinations can have other meanings - in particular, "Oz" could mean _Ozma of Oz_ or just Oz in general. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:13:19 -0800 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: Ozzy Digest [144.80.104.94] didn't use HELO protocol Scott: According to some religions, just because God created something doesn't mean it isn't evil. Bear: A "frat boy" is a member of a fraternity. Steve: Not only are the _Dictionary of Imaginary Places_ maps copies of the IWOC ones, but they are rather poor copies, considering the many errors made in transcribing. Note that Howzatagin is called "Howrahagin," the Kalidahs are "Kalidaks," and Baffleburg is "Battleburg." Regarding the Centennial Contest: Does that mean that people who entered but didn't win (like Dave and David) will try to find other publishers for their work? -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff vovat@geocities.com or lnvf@grove.iup.edu http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "I'm having a wonderful time, but I'd rather be whistling in the dark." ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:03:05 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-14-97 Scott: Re books that "cry out for sequels"--I like books like that. (Except when the author passes away before he/she gets a chance to follow it up, of course.) Bear: Re "Jeremy - You must not be reading the Digest regularly. I live in Palo Alto." -- I don't know what you're referring to, but I guess I must have said something about where you live . . . My apologies (I have been known to be rather scatterbrained at times--that is, at all times ;-) ). David Parker: I'm impressed! I really like your page and think it a laudable addition to Ozography. That's all for today. Oh, except for this: Visit my site. It improves almost every day. --Jeremy Steadman, Novice Web Page Designer, Recent Oz Web Ring Arrival, Longtime Oz Fan, Terrible Punster http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:56:34 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Oz gems have rutile inclusions... The "inclusion" of The Rutiles in the jewelled and be-gemmed Palace of the Emerald City of Oz is to be expected now and again... (How many gemologists heard that pun coming in response to Bear's question? http://www.pythonline.com/unoff/rutles/index.html is a tribute to the semi-legendary group who made the sixties what they are today - the Prefab Four: Dirk, Nasty, Stig and Barry. The Rutles. The videotape (even the laserdisc!) of "All You Need is Cash" should not be hard to find. Eric Idle wrote and starred in it, most of the first Saturday Night Live cast make cameos, (even Al Franken!) and Neil Innes was responsible for the music, which is brilliant. Lyrics can be found to their first album, and their most recent album, Archeology, from which I've been quoting quite a bit. The Rutles do bear some resemblance to a copycat band called the Beatles, though for the fans of Monty Python, the connection is even more arcane. Neil Innes (Ron Nasty) was one of the founding members of cult comedy-rock group The Bonzo Dog Band, which was picked by The Beatles to appear in their 1967 film Magical Mystery Tour. Neil Innes went on to become the "seventh Python", providing and performing comedic music for the troupe, and appearing with them live on stage. He was Brave Sir Robin's Minstrel in Monty Python's film, _The Holy Grail_. (BTW, I learned more than I cared to know about theology and politics from Python's _The Life of Brian_.) The Rutles can be said to be a continuation of the Bonzos, from whom The Beatles borrowed, although Paul did produce their lone hit single, The Urban Spaceman. An incredibly versatile band, ranging from their 20's style music hall trad jazz sound (ripped off and played straight in the tune _Winchester Cathedral_ by a studio band cashing in on the Bonzo's fame in England at the time) to parodies of arena rock comparable to The Who. http://www.anglia.ac.uk/~systimk/music/bonzos/index.html The Bonzos tunes were frequently very much like cartoon soundtracks, with songs like _Mickey's Son and Daughter_, _Ali Baba's Camel_ and _Tubas In The Moonlight_; even the Hungry Tiger got himself mentioned in this Bonzo tune that got airplay on FM in the sixties, and, in a desperate attempt to bring this back onto the topic of the list, here, from the album _Tadpoles_ are some of the lyrics to Hunting Tigers Out In "Indiah" With big, hungry tigers, table manners have no place. Dear dear dear, no, dear dear dear, no, dear dear, oh dear, no. After they have eaten you, they never say their Grace. Dear dear dear, no, dear dear dear, no, dear dear, oh dear, no. Hunting tigers can be ripping fun. Like three blind mice, see the hunters run. Hunting tigers out in "Indiah". Out in, out in, out in "Indiah". Yah! You all know how beastly tigers are Out in, out in, out in "Indiah". They bite, they scratch, They make an awful fuss. It's no use stroking them and saying "puss puss puss", Oh, hunting tigers out in "Indiah". Out in, out in, out in "Indiah". Yah! Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:56:03 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz and ends Sender: "J. L. Bell" JOdel mused: <> As Nathan pointed out, Button-Bright was saying, "I don't know," before he fell into the Truth Pond. The water affects him very little beyond solving his facial-hair problem. Though the Shaggy Man and Frogman change their behavior after a swim, Button-Bright never mentions experiencing problems with not being able to lie. He's old enough to have known how, but was already, as folks have pointed out, a fearless teller of the truth as he knew it. Steve Teller asked: <> The afterword is now a point in its favor. The rest of your qualified endorsement keeps it on my reading list below, say, THE HIDDEN PRINCE OF OZ. Tyler Jones replied: <> This is why I urged you to quote what I said "in context, of course." My full paragraph was, "But Ozma and Glinda are two of Baum's powerful, wise, ageless virgins, along with Maetta, Aquareine, Zixi, Reera, the Adepts, and so on. Isn't one of the foundations of his magic land, I thought, that such women are beyond the grasp of men and beyond any weak desire for men?" As you see, I was characterizing Baum's depiction of this particular group of female magic-workers, not all women. Your original question was, "why are there [men] in fairyland at all if they are nothing but poison?" For this set of females, the answer is obvious: Baum showed they *don't* need men. Glinda lives in a female household. Zixi has no consort. Aquareine rules mermaids but no mermen. These ladies take males as helpers (Ervic), students (the Wizard), counselors (Scarecrow), and in other subordinate roles. But never as political equals or romantic partners. The one member of this female elite who does marry in Baum's books--Gayelette--goes to great, magical lengths to create a man worthy of her. The powerful female virgin is an old figure in Western culture; my first post on this issue listed examples: "Mary,...Athena, Elizabeth I." Our culture also includes male counterparts, but do any such men appear in Baum's books? Did he ever create a male character endowed with all the characteristics that Ozma, Glinda, Maetta, Aquareine, and Zixi share: magical and political power, physical attractiveness, wisdom, eternal youth? I believe the closest example is Tititi-Hoochoo, who is handsome but heartless. I have two grounds for disagreeing with your statement that "the majority [of men] that appear in the Baumian Universe are exactly how you say they are, [not] good and decent." First, I didn't characterize the virtue of Baum's men as a whole--I characterized how they compared in power to a special set of female characters. Second, I think that we'd find that Baum showed most of his male characters as good (but not perfect), and most of his couples as happy (but not delirious). At some points he depicted ordinary females as stronger (LAND: "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron"); at other times he showed males as stronger (DOROTHY & THE WIZARD: "Zeb, being a boy, did not faint"). Only at the highest reaches of power do Baum's Oz books favor strong women. David Hulan argued: <> For Baum to expect his readers to discard the initial characterization of Gayelette because she might have bewitched the Monkeys into lying about her seems too much to ask. That sort of reading is more appropriate for mystery fans or deconstructionists. We should therefore categorize Gayelette in the set of "powerful sorceresses" who are "beautiful...never known to hurt anyone who was good...wise." I agree that in comparison with those others, Gayelette comes off badly. Like Zixi, she's flawed by selfish urges. And like Glinda, she's quick to interfere in other people's lives. That's a dangerous combination. It seems consistent with what little we know about Gayelette to assume that she never expected anyone to be powerful enough to take the Magic Cap from her palace, so she didn't bother to limit its charm. (Aside from Fluff's cloak, most magic tools in Baum's books continue to work after being stolen, so we can assume such a limit is hard to impose.) Gayelette's action was very bad for the Monkeys, and thus the Winkies. In their marriage, Quelala seems to have served the crucial task of tempering his wife's temper. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:34:59 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Rulers as servants: I don't think that the Tititi-Hoochoo is of the same mold as Tourmaline or Queen Cross Patch. He is the only one who is not Royalty, but he clearly rulers over the others and is not really a servant. Bear: A "frat boy" is a male college student who belongs to a fraternity. The alleged incident with "The Lion King" occurred when he was watching the movie with several of his fraternity brothers and they thought they saw that evil three-letter word in the sand. Have we started _Patchwork Girl_ yet? Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:03:06 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-14-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" >I agree entirely with your riff to Tyler about "PC", FWIW. I've never heard the term used other than pejoratively.< "Politically correct" implies putting on a hypocritical facade, with no real concern or love for people behind it. As the books of etiquette say, the best manners come from the heart. :-) On the Winged Monkeys--the dunking of Quelala may have been only the latest of a long string of foul deeds. The good and wise don't tend to tolerate the naughty and mischievous very well... :-) However, Gayelette was not wise enough and her "punishment" backfired-- when the WWW got her hands on the Cap, she ordered the Monkeys to commit worse deeds than they might have done on their own. A more far-sighted Gayelette might have included a magical clause that the Monkeys could only be compelled to do good deeds for the Cap's holder. Any wishes for bad deeds would not be honored. Of course, then the "Wizard of Oz" would have had a different plot... :-) The Wizard: Go kill the Wicked Witch of A Very Small Part of the West! WWW: Blast! With those Monkeys on my side I could've conquered more territory! On Loss of Virginity Destroying One's Magical Powers: Something in real life that's been compared to magic is creativity. Losing one's virginity does not kill creativity, but it can gradually drown under the real-life responsibilites and work that marriage and children bring. A nasty, demanding spouse will kill or suppress it even quicker. Chris D. & I have noted that male artists for the Calendar & other Oz projects last longer (usually) than female ones. My longevity as an Oz artist is unusual--but then I was single longer than most women. Creativity will last after marriage if one has an agreeable, undemanding spouse and children. :-) :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:32:18 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: TODAY'S OZ GROWLS Sender: Richard Bauman Scott >BTW, if God created women's breasts, how can they be evil? Sigh - To paraphrase Twain, God also created plague, murderers, earthquakes, AIDS, etc. It's the old story - evil is in the eye of the beholder. And Melody, I have never thought of "them" as "obstacles." Hmmmm. I guess some might. :) Craig - I guess it depends on who you talk to at BOW. They told me the delay had to do with the fact that we bought the books at pre-publication discounts. Clever us. However, why this causes a delay is beyond me? So who is Virginia Wickwar? Congratulations to all the runners-up on the Digest. Naturally, I was hoping one of you would win. FWIW "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." would seem to apply here. I went to a signing for Kenneth Pullman today. He is the author of "The Golden Compass" and "The Subtle Knife." They are really excellent. There will be a third which will tie up everything from the first two. A woman in the audience opined that the books were a little advanced for children but that was all right as the children of Yugoslavia had to watch their country being raped and pillaged for many years. What a leap. I will continue to think children need to be protected from some of the grim realities of life as long as possible so they can enjoy their all-to-brief childhoods. Sigh. Along this line, has a sympathetic character ever been killed off in Oz? I mean the famous forty. I don't mean the one who had boiling tea or some such poured down his throat or Mombi. There seems to be some increasing need in current literature to bump off "good" characters to give us a taste of "reality." If you get around to "Starship Troopers" you will get a dose of this. I saw it this week. The special effects are spectacular. See it on the big screen. The plot is ehhh. Anyway, I am not a fan of this bumping off of "good" characters. The first time I recall this in recent memory was Jonathan Carroll. I think it was his third book. We had quite an exchange about it. Sigh. What do you all think? Weekend regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:51:59 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest Thanks to everyone who gave comments about how to read/study the Oz books. I really appreciate it. I guess the rule of thumb is, and I already knew this, is not to be too rigid. I have already read much of the stuff about Oz itself and Baum, but strangely enough, I never made it past the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. However, like I said, I intend to remedy that. Ruth: I will probably do as you suggested and start with the 14 Baum books and as time allows proceed with the others. Today was a very blustery day in Columbus, so I rooted through some of my Oz stuff. I discovered, to my amazement, that I have the colorized Haff-Martin Oz maps that you mentioned. I bought these several years ago when I first joined the IWOC and forgot about them. I had always intended on having them laminated and framed, but never got around to it. I bought the Dictionary of Imaginary Places a couple weeks ago on a sale table at Barnes and Nobles because I enjoy this genre of literature. And, I own the complete set of Time-Life book series: The Enchanted World. The DofIP is a rather good quick reference to some of the places referred to in these books. Speaking of Barnes and Nobles, I noticed that they have the BOW Baum Oz reprint books for sale. A few days ago, I received the Autumn 1997 Oz Collector from BOW and they have the first 9 Oz books for sale. This is the same as was in the Autumn 1996 Oz Collector. I know I can call them myself, but I was wondering if anyone knows if BOW intends to do all 14 Baum Oz books? I would like to buy these, but don't want to until I know if they intend to do all 14. David Hulan: I don't know if you have ever seen the Del-Rey series of Oz books or not, but I noticed something rather interesting today. The cover art by Michael Herring for The Road to Oz has an illustration of Polychrome which looks VERY similar to the one in the stained-glass piece that you and I purchased from BOW. The only noticable difference is that her hand in the book illustration is behind her head, while in the stained-glass piece her hand is extended across her forehead as if to peer off into the distance and block the light. I wonder if this illustration was the source of inspiration for the stained-glass?? Richard Bauman: I, too, purchased my copy of Oz and Beyond from Amazon. In fact, I ordered it in June because it was supposed to be published in August, but the pub date got pushed back to September. If I were you I would just call BOW and explain your situation, I bet their intentions were good. They probably had x number on hand and sold them quicker than they thought. Dave H.: If my memory serves me correctly, you are an Enya fan, no? Well, I came across a terrific Enya website a couple days ago. You may already know about it, but the URL is: http://sunsite.auc.dk/enya/main.htm I was trying to find her Christmas album which includes Oíche Chiún (Silent Night) and sure enough I found it there, however, it has to be ordered as it's an import. Also, did you know that her new CD "The Best of Enya" was recently released. It's called: Paint the Sky with Stars and has a couple of new songs, also. Jim Whitcomb. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 00:52:14 -0500 (EST) From: JOdel@aol.com Subject: Ozzy stuff As to the MOPPet... Nathan; My reason for pointing out Baum's Address to the Readers comments was to point out that in them, Baum tacitly admitted to knowing more Oz stories than he had told to date, and that there is no reason to for us to depend upon his having told them to us in the same order that they were told to him. As to Button-Bright, I wasn't as clear as I needed to be concerning the conflicting views on the problem he presents. IF the BB in Road was a real child (and I am far from convinced that he is), obviously "I don't know" was well established with him before he took his swim in the Truth Pond. If the BB of Road was a fabrication whose name was later applied to a real child, then an occasional "I don't know" could have been pasted on in order to make the transition easier. I don't recall "I don't know" being used to any memorable degree in either Sky Island or Scarecrow. Conversely, if the BB of Road was a real child. What are the long term effects of being UNABLE to tell anything but what one "knows" to be the truth over the long haul? That sort of tactlessness may be expected and acceptible in a child of 4 or 5, but what about as he gets older? He does not seem to have the imagination to squirm into some creative method of kindly evasions, so perhaps by the time he reached the age he was in Scarecrowm Glinds and Ozma decided that it was much in his best interests to keep him in a fairyland where he wouldn't grow any older and get any further out of step. David; Oh, the orks rescued the Scarecrow all right. I think that either Orkland is closer to Oz than Baum understood it to be, or, more likely, that an ork's flight range is farther than he ould expect, and the Scarecrow met up with a party of orks on his way to Jinxland. The orks know who rules Oz, and they certainly know who rules the Quadling country, and so were in no confusion over who was the legitimate government. Since they ARE flying creatures, he probably asked them what they knew of the situation in Jinxland -- which they may or may not have had any information on. In any case, he might well have asked them to fly over in a couple of days in case he needed to show some kind of outside backup in facing down King Krewel. They deffinitely figured heavily in the cleaning up of the Jinxland crisis. Which is why Baum dragged in an ork to accompany Trot and Cap'n Bill on their oddessy, and why they were island-hopping by air, rather than by water, which one would have been more likely to expect. Of course, this is all just reasoning in fun. Just as good an alternate version might have been that, if we can accept that Dorothy knew that Baum was writing up her adventures and publishing them, (which I think we can) then she would probably have kept up with whatever else he was writing for friendship's sake. In that case, she would have read of Trot's adventures, and discussed them with Ozma, possibly expressing the wish to meet Trot. Ozma could have easily contacted Aquariene and let her know that if the opportunity ever arose, it would be appreciated if Trot and the Captain could have been brought as close to Oz as was possible. The occasion did arise, and when Trot was in need of rescue by water, since Aquariene had been forbidden by King Anko to bring them back to her own lands, she saved them, cast them both into a deep sleep (as she had Trot's mother) and conveyed them to a cavern under an island in the Nonectic. In this scenario, Dot and Ozma would have monitored their journey in the magic picture, as Ozma had Dot's in Road. Baum might not have chosen to talk about that since it would have seemed to much of a repetition. In this version, the Scarecrow showing up in Jinxland could have either been A> as much of a surprise to Ozma and Dorothy as it was to everyone else, or B> as a result of Ozma having recognized a SITUATION when she saw it and had let Glinda know that she needed to have something done about it quickly. But the second version does not address my own reason for developing a MOPPeT on this subject at all, which was my curiosity as to why such a confident, trusting and endlessly optimistic child as the Trot of Sea Faries, Sky Island and Scarecrow, should have become the decidedly subdued and even occasionally timid child she was after removing to Oz. One would have expected quite the opposite reaction, if anything. I postulate that what went wrong must have gone wrong before she removed to Oz, and propose that a prolonged removal from most of what she loved might have made the difference. The reason stated in my earlier post is not the only possible one. Her mother may have taken her away to her own parents' household because she needed to be there to help them in their old age and failing health. Indeed, it might well have been that the time she spent in that household included a common trauma such as the death of a grandparent, and (in that era a little more likely than in this one) the survivor going overboard into the full morbid panoply of public and private mourning rituals with bitter reproaches forthcomming should Trot f orget for a moment and behave like a normal child. Whatever it was, Trot must have had some reason to believe that it was a permanent change, or she wouldn't have fallen into what we might recognize as a clinical depression. Removal to Oz enabled her to regain her spirits, but she seems never to have forgotten that horrible things DO happen, and there may be no undoing them. The original Rinkitink was written in 1905? Bummer. The continum needs a transition point between the place where an innocent and mind-wiped Roquat is sent home and forgotten about, and the sort of meddlesome monitoring which the Ozites had on the Nome Kingdom by the beginning of Tik-Tok. My version would have served as such with hardly a strain. Do you know how the original solution went, and whether Bilbil was presented as an enchanted prince in that version? And whether he was restored at the end of it? If they all got out of the soup on their own, it is hard to see how Dorothy would have ever found out about it to tell Baum about it. On the other hand, I suppose that the whole island part of the story COULD have taken place well before Ozma's expedition on behalf of the royal Family of Ev. In that case, someone must have told the rescuers of these additional prisoners during that incident and encouraged the party to rescue them as well. Ironicaly, it's poor old Kaliko, who Baum's version blames the wickedness on, who seems to be the most likely person to have blown the whistle. This version doesn't give the Ozites much call to pose as heroes in the matter, though. And Baum might very well have edited out any mention of such so as not to lose focus on the main story, intending to tell this tale later. But there are still major problems with this version if one is trying to meld Oz as History and Oz as literature. For example; In this case, just who was it that got rescued? The King and Queen, obviously. Did the Prince choose to share his parent's fate, having sworn not to return to the island without them? What about King Rinkitink and Bilbil? Did the Nome King let them go, considering them harmless, or were they locked up as well? Didn't anyone miss any of them? And why didn't Roquat turn THEM all into ornaments, too? If Roquat DID let Rinkitink and Bilbil go, why didn't they raise a rescue expedition in Ev or one of the other neighboring countries? Or at least TELL people about the Nome King's actions. None of this plays very well. The only other way I can think of to shoehorn the rescue of Rinkitink into the pre-Road period would be for the Nome King's domain to have been a stop, probably the last stop in the DotWiz oddessy. In this case, they could have walked into the situation at pretty much the same point of the story that they did in Baum's version and (possibly pre-warned of the situation in progress by Kaliko) attempted to bluff their way into trying to make him let the captives go. Ozma would have tuned in to find Dorothy facing down the Nome King, grabbed the Belt, watched long enough to get some idea of what was happening, and yanked them all out of there, signal or no. It plays, but not well, and adds a lot of unwanted complexity. Or, as a final possiblity, Dorothy may have seen the situation building, pretty much as Baum wrote it, on the morning after Ozma's Birthday bash in Road, (you'll recall that we did not see her sent home after the party. She went up to bed. We were only left with the impression that she would be sent home the next morning) before being sent home, and did her international intervention bit as her last adventure before returning to Kansas. This seems like the least awkward version if I can't the one I posted. It segues very nicely into Roquat's fury at the beginning of City. The Wizard would have had a chance to have learnt a bit of magic by then, and would have had the information of who were the rightful rulers of the neighboring countries fresh in his head, after having to re-orient himself after some years' absence (and also to get used to the idea of an Oz that was part of an international consortium, rather than the divided and isolationist realm of his day) and Glinda would have been close at hand in case of emergencies. This interpretation also means that Dot would have been sent home to Kansas only a few short weeks, if that, before Uncle Henry and Aunt Em finally broke down and told her that they were about to lose the farm. I frankly haven't got any problem with this. We are never given any indication at the beginning of City as to how long it may have been since Dorothy's last adventure, only left to assume that the interval was reflected by the distance between the books' publication dates. As a final variant, replay this last version -- only shift it to the time she is said to have spent in the Emerald City at the end of Ozma, or after DotWiz. But in neither case would the Wizard have been sent as part of the mission. Frankly, I can not think of anyone who would reasonably have been sent in his place, so do not give either of these variants much consideration. My own timeline for the later books, assuming that any mere cameo appearance may have been Baum's set-dressing to make a characters was introduced in earlier published stories show up in ones which had actually occured before it, (Wizard through City, plus Rinkitink being stories 1-7) goes like this; 8. Patchwork Girl. 9. Tik-Tok 10. Scarecrow 11. Magic (Ozma shows no ability to do magic in this story, and Trot and Cap'n Bill react like comparitively recent arrivals to Oz. The emphasis on birthday parties also makes Ozma seem to be in a somewhat more juvenile state than in some of these other later stories) 12. Lost Princess 13. Glinda (Ozma can work enough magic to be helpful, and to keep herself and Dorothy reasonably safe and comfortable, but she is stumped at getting them out of the dome. Glinda's confidence in Ozma's abilities was also not strong enough to let them go off without giving Dorothy the alarm ring.) 14. Tin Woodman (Ozma claims to be as strong a magic worker as Glinda, and goes a long way towards proving it.) The variance in the publication dates is due to what stories Baum thought his audience tould think the more exciting. The rather slight Magic, and less physically dangerous Glinda were shifted to the back of his to-write list. ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 23:26:52 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ATLAS OF FANTASY: What is this book?? _The Dictionary of Imaginary Places_ I'm familiar with, but not this one...BTW, isn't it about time _The Dictionary of Imaginary Places_ was updated to include recently discovered lands like Xanth? "PERIODIC TABLE OF OZ BOOKS"?: :) David H. wrote: >I have no objection to your coming up with a standardized set if >you want to, but am cautioning that it probably won't be used by everyone. Well yes, that's as inevitable as Ruggedo making yet another comeback, but I can always try... :) >Robin Hess has a standardized set of two-letter abbreviations that uses the >initials of the two main words for multi-word titles (both upper case), >e.g. DW for _Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz_... With respect to Robin H., I think reducing the book titles to two words is making things too cryptic, especially for newbies... > ... fortunately there aren't any two books with multi-word titles and the >same initials. How about _Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ and _Wicked Witch of Oz_...? TO JODEL: Your theory makes sense to me...Could I save your comments as a file for the Digest file archive? A REMINDER: A week from today we start discussing PG (_Patchwork Girl of Oz_, that is). :) :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:27:06 -0600 From: Mike Denio Subject: For Ozzy Digest All: FYI: Here's what a search for +"Lion King" +"sex" produced on the WEB - four still shots from the _Lion King_ movie. (Plus an amusing Disney oriented WEB site). http://snopes.simplenet.com/disney/films/lionpics.htm ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:43:02 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-14-97 Bob: Phil Hardy's Science Fiction Overlook film Encyclopedia lists a late sixties film called _I Hate My Body_ (which was apparently soft porn by 60s standards) which had a similar plot to the one you describe. David: when I ordered _The Magic Cloak of Oz_ and _His Majesty, The Scarecrow of Oz_ from BoW, they charged my Visa bill several months before I received the items, even though this is against the listed policy. Queen Aubrey of the Quadling elves in my loser-manuscript _Tip of Oz_ (I hope _Hidden Prince_ is not about Tip, or else no one will get to read mine except friends and hardcore Oz fans, which is quite a disappointment, though I will look into getting a publisher for it. The judges probably did not like the fact that I had Woot the Wanderer get hit by a car driven by Aubrey's friend Kathe (based on a real-life friend of Aubrey Donaldson, Catherine Wells, who tried to hit me with her car, which Aubrey later informed me was not personal, but what Cathy does). Woot, by the way, did not get injured, he hit the windshiled with his distaff, and ran over the top of the car like Sailor Ripley in _Wild at Heart_. Dave: I can tell you wish to be married. :-) Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:16:46 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 _The Dictionary of Imaginary Places_ shows a "Davy Jones Island," which does not appear on the Haff/MArtin map, and I believe some others, as well. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:21:19 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ATLAS OF FANTASY: > What is this book?? _The Dictionary of Imaginary Places_ I'm familiar with, > but not this one...BTW, isn't it about time _The Dictionary of Imaginary > Places_ was updated to include recently discovered lands like Xanth? this is a kick butt book but its kinda old it has maps of places like oz and i think wodnerland even has a map of hell its a great book and was rereleased but findign one is hard pressed i only seen it once at a library about 10 years ago ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:49:57 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 David Hulan, About _The Master Mind of Mars_, you are correct of course. I was operating from memory (and a faulty one at that, obviously), but if Rav Thavis isn't evil, he'll do for me until the genuine article comes around. This all gives me an excuse to re-read the series, for which I am grateful. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:09:12 -0500 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 Bear wrote: >Along this line, has a sympathetic character ever been killed off in Oz? I >mean the famous forty. I don't mean the one who had boiling tea or some >such poured down his throat or Mombi. There seems to be some increasing >need in current literature to bump off "good" characters to give us a taste >of "reality." If you get around to "Starship Troopers" you will get a dose >of this. I saw it this week. The special effects are spectacular. See it >on the big screen. The plot is ehhh. Anyway, I am not a fan of this >bumping off of "good" characters. The first time I recall this in recent >memory was Jonathan Carroll. I think it was his third book. We had quite >an exchange about it. Sigh. What do you all think? Huh? I agree that this may be a dodgy area in children's literature, but for pity's sake, sympathetic characters are killed off in Homer, Shakespeare, Richardson, Dickens, Tolkien.... As a rule, sympathetic characters die in children's fiction only when the work is, at least temporarily, in bildungsroman territory, which Oz is not. (Once the no-death rule is established, you can't even say "Death is a part of real life," because the answer comes straight back, "Not in Oz, it isn't!") I believe, however, that Virtuous Children frequently die religiously in forgotten Victorian literature. Perhaps that put Baum off. As to "Starship Troopers", suffice it to say that Heinlein's widow _made_ them take his name off the title, which is no wonder, seeing that they removed _everything_ from the book that made it unique and/or interesting, catering entirely to what is called the "t*t's 'n' 'splosions" crowd. You'd think that "Babylon 5" would have made it clear to Hollywood that SF and brains are not mutually exclusive, but.... // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:29:03 -0500 (EST) From: Susan Perryman Subject: Oz Its Garrett I'm Back and once again I'm wandering Whats the name of the Purple land between Merryland and Scrowleogow ? Please send we locations and places not in the FF books such as Glass Cat and Invisible Inzi Garrett ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:41:28 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 Nathan: >Regarding the Centennial Contest: >Does that mean that people who entered but didn't win (like Dave and >David) will try to find other publishers for their work? I will. Books of Wonder, for preference, because they get better distribution than Buckethead or publishing it myself. But I intend to get _Magic Carpet_ in print somehow. I can't speak for the others on the Digest who wrote entries (Dave, Scott, Danny, Melody, John K., possibly others I don't know about or am forgetting). J.L.: >The afterword is now a point in its favor. The rest of your qualified >endorsement keeps it on my reading list below, say, THE HIDDEN PRINCE OF >OZ. There is, however, the advantage that _Dinamonster_ is a published book (I don't know if it's still in print, but copies are probably available), and _Hidden Prince_ won't be out for over two years yet, since it's planned publication date is the year 2000. You probably have time to read _Dinamonster_ between now and then. >For Baum to expect his readers to discard the initial characterization of >Gayelette because she might have bewitched the Monkeys into lying about her >seems too much to ask. That sort of reading is more appropriate for mystery >fans or deconstructionists. We should therefore categorize Gayelette in the >set of "powerful sorceresses" who are "beautiful...never known to hurt >anyone who was good...wise." Well, but I _am_ a mystery fan! :-) It seems to me that if Gayelette could make the charm on the cap only work three times for each user, it would have been simple enough for her to make it only work three times, period. None of the other magic tools that are stolen in Baum's books seem to have any limitation on the number of times they can be used, at least that I can think of. (The Magic Belt seems to have a once-a-day limitation on its wish-granting capacity - though that bit of information in _Lost Princess_ seems contradicted by the way it's used in other books - but that's a limitation on frequency of use, not total numbers of uses per user.) Bear: >Craig - I guess it depends on who you talk to at BOW. They told me the >delay had to do with the fact that we bought the books at pre-publication >discounts. Clever us. However, why this causes a delay is beyond me? The delay is probably not a function of the pre-publication discounts; the fact that they charged your credit card for the book before they shipped it is. The delay is probably associated with getting Michael Riley's signature. That's Philip Pullman, or at least that's how he's billed on the books. I've read _The Golden Compass_ and liked it a lot; I'm waiting now for one of the copies of _The Subtle Knife_ to appear at the local library. (They have four, but they were all checked out the last time I looked, with three people on a waiting list for them.) I don't think they're for young children, anyhow; I'd characterize them as YA. ********Mild spoilers ahead************* A sympathetic character hasn't been killed off on-stage in an Oz book as far as I can recall. There are references to good people who have been killed in the past - Ozma's grandfather (known as Ozroar by some, though there's no canonical authority for it), King Kynd, Unk Nunkie's brother - and Planetty effectively "dies" in _Silver Princess_ before Jinnicky restores her to life in a somewhat different form. But, then, hardly any evil characters are killed off on-stage in Oz books either; the two Wicked Witches and Glegg are about it, as far as I can recall. (Mombi is condemned to death on-stage, but her actual execution is off-stage. And while Mooj's transformation into a drop of water is probably the moral equivalent of death, technically it isn't. *********End spoilers******************* And personally, I don't like it when a sympathetic character is knocked off in a book, though sometimes it's pretty much inherent in the plot. (I except most mysteries, since murder is what they're all about - and usually the sympathetic characters who get offed at least have the vice of stupidity.) It is, however, hardly a modern innovation; after all, you can find it in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible and the _Iliad_, and it's practically what Greek tragedy is all about. Jim Whitcomb: Your Autumn 1996 Oz Collector shouldn't have _Scarecrow_ in it; it was only published this past spring. In any case, yes, BoW does intend to publish all 14 of the Baum books, along with the Thompsons as they go into PD. The Baums are all supposed to be in print by the year 2000. My recollection (which could easily be wrong; it was a conversation with Peter Glassman over a year ago) is that _Rinkitink_ is due out pretty soon - I'd thought maybe for the Christmas season, but I'd have expected a pre-publication announcement by now if that were the case - and _Lost Princess before the end of next year. Then _Tin Woodman_ in 1999 and _Magic_ and _Glinda_ in 2000. Meanwhile they should have _Kabumpo_ out next spring (at least, if _Royal Book_ has been selling halfway well), and _Cowardly Lion_ in the spring of 1999. The Baums are definitely scheduled, and since Morrow is co-publishing them there should be no significant probability that they won't appear. BoW is doing the Thompsons on their own, and if sales are disappointing then I suppose they might be discontinued. I've seen the cover of the Del Rey PB, but I think the Polychrome on the stained glass and the Del Rey cover are both based on the Neill illustration on page 140 (in early and BoW editions) of _Road_; I doubt if the stained glass is based on the Del Rey cover directly. Joyce: I think I like your second alternate version of what was really going on in _Scarecrow_ better than your first. Part of the difference is that I don't see Trot as being all that subdued and timid after she removes to Oz. In most of the other books when she appears at all her role is so minor that you don't get much of a sense of her personality; the only real exceptions are _Magic_ and _Giant Horse_. In _Magic_ she spends most of her on-stage time with her feet rooted on the Magic Island, which is enough to make anyone a bit depressed; I think she seems about as optimistic and cheerful about it as anyone could. In _Giant Horse_ she's rather feisty, though I'm not sure you'd want to include Thompson's characterizations. I don't think anyone knows exactly how Baum ended the original version of _Rinkitink_. Presumably, though, Inga succeeded in freeing his parents. I don't know if Bilbil was disenchanted (or enchanted in the first place; maybe he was just a talking goat that had wandered in from Oz or Mo) in that version, though it seems unlikely unless some other powerful sorcerer/ess was brought in at the end, which would have been even more of a _deus ex machina_ than the Oz intervention in the published book. As for how Dorothy would have learned of the story if Inga had gotten his parents out on their own - I suggested that she might have heard it from Tik-Tok. Probably Rinkitink himself told it to a wandering minstrel (like the one in _Zixi_), who repeated it at the court of Ev during Evoldo's reign. Tik-Tok would presumably have heard it, being a slave to Evoldo at the time. On the other hand, if the events of _Rinkitink_ took place before those of _Ozma_, why didn't the Nome King have his Magic Belt? (Of course, he may have in the original story, and references to it were cut out as his name was changed to Kaliko.) My personal time-line has the events of _Emerald City_ happening quite a short time after those of _Road_ - in fact, I believe that all four books from _Ozma_ through _Emerald City_ take place in little over a year. The one firm time we have is that _Road_ takes place in August. Barring some unknown adventure that's never mentioned in the FF, that was the earliest time Eureka could have made it back to Oz, yet she's still referred to as a "kitten," so she can't be much more than six months old at that point. (Of course, Laumer has her magically made into a kitten again after a tough life in the Outside World, but I don't like that solution.) She's old enough to be weaned (though apparently not by any great margin) at the time of _DotWiz_, so it can't take place earlier than probably May of the same year as _Road_. At the end of _Ozma_, after Dorothy has been in Oz "several weeks," she sees the hired hands bringing in the harvest in Kansas, which probably implies a September date for her return to Australia (Steve might have a better idea of when the corn and wheat harvest happens in Kansas). It's doubtful that she and Uncle Henry would have stayed in Australia for nearly two years, so that was probably the year before they returned to America just before the events of _DotWiz_. It's likely, banks being what they are, that they wouldn't have foreclosed on Henry's farm until after the harvest, to see if he could turn enough of a profit to make whatever the minimum payment was. On the other hand, once the harvest was in and he couldn't pay, they wouldn't wait around long to foreclose, since he'd have no prospect of getting any more money for another year. I'd set _Emerald City_ in October or November. Was it the same year as _Road_, or the following year? Going by Dorothy's apparent age, I'd place it the same year - we have strong evidence that she's about 11 in _Emerald City_, yet in _Ozma_ her face is apparently mature enough for Langwidere to covet her head - which makes it unlikely that she's younger than 10, or nearly so. If all you want to do is fit in the FF, this works; Tyler has the problem of fitting in a large number of apocrypha that are set for the most part between _DotWiz_ and _Emerald City_, and it's hard to do that if they're only five or six months apart. I can buy your sequence. All you have to do to put _Magic_ next after _Scarecrow_ is ignore the appearance of the Frogman and Captain Fyter at Ozma's birthday party, and those could easily have been later interpolations by Baum. On the other hand, there's no strong reason to push it forward, either; Ozma doesn't have any occasion to use magic in this book, so whether she knew how or not isn't really revealed. Dave: _An Atlas of Fantasy_, by J.B. Post, was published by Ballantine Books in 1979, ISBN 0-345-27399-0. It's probably not available any more, unless a new edition has been brought out. It includes good reproductions of the 1972 editions of the Haff-Martin maps (in b/w only, and standard letter-size format). I presume with permission of the IWOC, since there's a good deal of information about the IWOC in the book. It is, unfortunately, very poorly bound, so my copy has pages falling out of it in all the sections I refer to often. (And this will probably make it difficult to find a used copy.) But it's an extremely useful book for someone who reads a lot of fantasy and likes maps. (Has maps for Burroughs, Tolkien, Hamilton (for _Captain Future_), Robert E. Howard, and on up through Anne McCaffrey, Terry Brooks, and Stephen Donaldson - but not Xanth.) Dave: >> ... fortunately there aren't any two books with multi-word titles and the >>same initials. > >How about _Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ and _Wicked Witch of Oz_...? I meant in the FF (and thought that was clear from my context). Anyhow, I'd consider the first two books to be titled _The Wizard of Oz_ and _The Land of Oz_, omitting the adjectives; I believe most editions treat them that way. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:41:58 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Tyler - I think you missed my subtle point. I was a member of a fraternity, Sigma Chi as a matter of fact, and take exception to being called a "frat boy." In return, I never referred to independents as "GDI's." My fraternity experience was one of the best things about college. I made lifetime friends with whom I still correspond and see from time to time. Apparently your contacts with fraternities were not positive. Fraternally, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:54:02 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 Re Rutles: As to the punnability of this phrase, it depends if the designer who put the ceramic plates all around the palace later regretted his/her work. (Or we could mention that such puns are the rutiles of all evils . . .) J.L. Bell says, "I agree that in comparison with those others, Gayelette comes off badly. Like Zixi, she's flawed by selfish urges. And like Glinda, she's quick to interfere in other people's lives. That's a dangerous combination.": Is Glinda's interference a disavantage? Most of what she does is for the best, it seems to me. Of course, Baum doesn't record everything she does, and she has quite an advantage in terms of magical ability, but still . . . Bear: Your regards leave me only with questions. Why? Why? Why is it they are always "weekend" and never "strengthened"? (I know I've said that before, but it strikes me every time.) ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:57:18 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 Didn't mean to send that already; one more thing: I once made jokes about _PG_ and my sister told me to quilt it. Jeremy Steadman jsteadman@loki.berry.edu http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:57:45 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Bear: The closest thing to a good character being killed off in the FF is references of past deaths, such as Cheeriobed's father and the former king of Seebania. The death of the magician who invented the powder of life is in doubt. Possibly Dr. Nikidik is dead, or possibly he is really Dr. Pipt or maybe they're both still around. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 19, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:27:02 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Trot in Oz Sender: "J. L. Bell" In discussing alternate histories of Trot, JOdel wrote of: <> I propose one explanation that might prove rather unpopular: Dorothy. No matter how very nice the princess is, it might have been intimidating for a "little girl" like Trot to be thrust alongside this beloved adventuress, this conqueror of witches and Nomes, this indomitable embodiment of will. It would be like moving from a little school in which you were top student to a much bigger school in which there was not only a better student, but she was also captain of the basketball team, student council president, and science fair champion! Yes, Trot could call on the mermaids, and could reclaim the thrones of Sky Island--but how good are those things in land-locked Oz? Next to Dorothy I'd become a bit subdued, too. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:38:19 -0500 (EST) From: CaptainNemo Subject: "Oz" chocolates and other things Hi Ozzy Friends! Two quick comments. 1) I was at a new candy store in the local mall and saw a display of "Newman's Organic Chocolate" for 25 cents a piece, so I broke down quickly and bought a few. When I opened the wrapper, what did I see but the "OZ" logo (a big "Z" inside a bigger "O"). 2) Regarding the "Santa Socks" story - nothing proves the "small world" theory better than events like this one. I'm glad you decided to share it with us. Back with you soon... The Captain http://206.107.180.50:80/CaptainNemo/link/ozwizard.htm captainnemo@rica.net ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:10:49 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Hanff Subject: Michael Riley's Oz and Beyond Featured on His College's Web Page Dave, There's an attractive presentation on Michael Riley's new book at: http://www.csc.vsc.edu That's the Web site for Castleton State College in Vermont. Peter ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:08:11 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bear: >Anyway, I am not a fan of this bumping off of "good" characters.< Neither am I. I once lamented how Chester Gould's successors on "Dick Tracy" began killing off his "good" characters and--worse!--resurrecting "bad" ones. Yuck. :-P Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:08:11 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bear: >Anyway, I am not a fan of this bumping off of "good" characters.< Neither am I. I once lamented how Chester Gould's successors on "Dick Tracy" began killing off his "good" characters and--worse!--resurrecting "bad" ones. Yuck. :-P Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:51:25 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-18-97 Mark Anthony: >this is a kick butt book but its kinda old it has maps of places like oz >and i think wodnerland even has a map of hell its a great book and was >rereleased but findign one is hard pressed i only seen it once at a >library about 10 years ago There are those of us who don't think of something published in 1979 as "kinda old," but maybe we're in the minority here... John K.: I haven't seen the movie of _Starship Troopers_, but I did see some previews that didn't give any indication that it used anything but the War Against The Bugs from Heinlein's book. (Something like the treatment of Campbell's "Who Goes There" in _The Thing_ (1950ish version with James Arness at the giant carrot...)) And people wonder why I don't go to many movies... Garrett: E-mail me with your fax or snail-mail address and I'll send you a copy of my map showing various locations in _Glass Cat_. (Can't really do anything about any other book.) The land between Scowleyow's kingdom and Merryland isn't referred to in any FF Oz or related Baum book. I think one of our authors on the Digest - probably either Atticus or Jeremy - said he'd used it for something, and other non-FF authors may have as well. Bear: Fraternities, from what I've seen, only produce positive experiences for those who belong to them. Those who are rejected (of whom I'm one) find them among the crueler aspects of college life. (Maybe this is why you're a conservative and I'm not? Though it wouldn't explain Tyler...) Jeremy: I don't think J.L. was implying that Glinda's interventions were harmful - but that being interventionist like Glinda without her calm and dispassionate approach to the subject can be harmful. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:00:37 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission >From the 11/5 Digest (yes, I'm that far back in my reading)... Jeremy Steadman comments, But one time zone for an entire country is the norm. Most countries have only one time zone. Of course, most countries don't extend much beyond 15 degrees of longitude, also. (China is an exception; one time zone no matter how far around the planet the country extends.) Earl Abbe ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:45:52 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-18-97 > _The Dictionary of Imaginary Places_ shows a "Davy Jones Island," which > does not appear on the Haff/MArtin map, and I believe some others, as > well. > > Scott > My copy of _The Dictionary of Imaginary Places_ does show a "Davy Jones" (not "Davy Jones Island") near Menankypoo, and the thing it labels seems to be an island. I suspect that this is the editor's error for the Wooden Whale itself. > > As a rule, sympathetic characters die in children's fiction only when the > work is, at least temporarily, in bildungsroman territory, which Oz is > not. > I believe, however, that Virtuous Children frequently die religiously in > forgotten Victorian literature. Perhaps that put Baum off. > > // John W Kennedy There is one notable case of an extremely sympathetic character being killed off in a classic piece of children's literature. Beth, the nicest of the LITTLE WOMEN died of scarlet fever. In the most recent hollywood film, otherswise admirable, she recovers. > > There is, however, the advantage that _Dinamonster_ is a published book (I > don't know if it's still in print, but copies are probably available), and > _Hidden Prince_ won't be out for over two years yet, since it's planned > publication date is the year 2000. You probably have time to read > _Dinamonster_ between now and then. It is in print, indeed, I have over a hundred copies of it in my closet (Chris Dulabone sent them to me for safe-keeping. Anyone wishing a copy can get one from me for $10. It was written by a Baum son, has an appreciation by a Baum grand-daughter, is illustrated by a Baum great-grand daughter, and has an afterword by a professor of English. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:36:25 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Jim Whitcomb: Another thought about things to look forward to in Oz reading -- besides Oz books and Baum's non-Oz books, there's a good deal to be said for looking up some of the other work (particularly other children's fantasy books) by Baum's illustrators and successors. Some of it, of course, is hard to find, but some things have had recent reprints -- Thompson's "Curious Cruise of Captain Santa" illustrated by Neill and the collection of her work "Wizard of Way-up" (both reprinted by the Oz Club), Denslow "Picture Book Treasury," Frederick Richardson's editions of Mother Goose and Favorite Stories for Children, Fanny Cory's "Fairy Alphabet, and various works by Eloise McGraw. (Well, hers are recent publications, rather than recent reprints.) If convenient, try to avoid fancy characters in your postings to the Digest. Not only do they come out in a hard-to-read format themselves (you mentioned Enya's O=EDche Chi=FAn= -- which isn't a very recognizable title), but the whole Digest gets cluttered up with stray =XX signs for a good many of us (not all -- something to do with different programs). Joyce Odell: The original ending of Rinktink -- I don't think the original ms has survived, and comments about it are speculative. Michael Riley points out in "Oz and Beyond" (is this a Spoiler for those of you who haven't read it yet? -- I would guess not) that Baum apparently invented his evil (or at least naughty) Nome King (so different in temperament from his benevolent Gnome King in "Santa Claus") for "Rinkitink," and then, when "Rinkitink" got put off (and not published at all in its original, non-Oz-story form), borrowed the plot element of a royal family held captive by the naughty Nome King and rescued by small group of protagonists for re-use in "Ozma." It's occurred to me to wonder, though, if Inga in the original version might have found his parents still with their original captors among the islands. If that's the case, then the borrowing would go the other way, from "Ozma" to "Rinkitink," with the borrowing presumably made to make "Rinkitink" conform in length to the other Oz books, and to increase the number of characters-already- known-from-Oz-books showing up in the revised version. In terms of Oz-history-as-real, though, I don't think "Rinkitink" really needs a revision to explain Kaliko's unwontedly Roquatish behavior. He might have been having a bad mood, or might have been under pressure from other Nomes to be once in a while the sort of king they were used to having. There was a nice article in the "Bugle" several years back (by Barbara Koelle?) about Kaliko's development in the Oz books from sympathetic chamberlain to unreliable king. Melody Grandy: Your comment that being Politically Correct "implies putting on a hypocritical facade, with no real concern or love for people behind it" -- People's motives for behaving politely don't really matter. Genuinely believing that a group of people is less than human, or genuinely believing that the fact of belonging to some racial/sexual/ethnic group is the cause of an individual's inexcusably bad behavior is no excuse for using the offensive epithets that accuse the members of the group of being less than human. For instance, if I think a woman has told lies about me, I may reasonably call her "that liar," but my genuine anger is not reason enough for me to look around for something that conveys my anger more precisely, and call her "that lying bitch." The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant to the fact of her being a liar. The fact that she is unfaithful to her husband, if she were (but she isn't, so far as I'm aware), would be irrelevant. The idea that she is a dog-and-not-a-real-human-being is not a fact at all. Notice also, by the way, that calling a man, in the same circumstances, "a lying dog," although an insult, is not as insulting as the equivalent phrase for a woman. The fact that most of these epithets privilege some other group, who cannot be insulted as easily as the unprivileged race/sex/ethnic group, because the words don't carry the same weight, is in itself a good reason to avoid using such weighted terms as "bitch," no matter how hypocritical it is of me to avoid calling that liar something more heated. Scott Hutchins: Questioning the judges' motives for deciding on manuscripts is not a useful activity. I wish you would not discuss your unpublished Oz story. Get it published (by yourself or by someone else), and then ask people what they think of it, if you choose. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 17:02:07 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things "LOTS OF CHOCOLATE FOR ME TO EAT...": CaptainNemo wrote: >1) I was at a new candy store in the local mall and saw a display >of "Newman's Organic Chocolate" for 25 cents a piece, so I broke >down quickly and bought a few. When I opened the wrapper, what did >I see but the "OZ" logo (a big "Z" inside a bigger "O"). >my mood at the time. :-> For a second there I thought we were going to have a momentous revelation about Paul Newman being a closet Ozite! Ah well... "Organic Chocolates"...That's sounds interesting...I wonder of Willy Wonka knows anything about it... DEATHS IN ALCOTT: Steve T. wrote: >There is one notable case of an extremely sympathetic character being >killed off in a classic piece of children's literature. Beth, the >nicest of the LITTLE WOMEN died of scarlet fever. >In the most recent hollywood film, otherswise admirable, she recovers. Er, um, the Wynona Ryder film??? Beth dies in that one, as does Aunt March, which I believe was unprecidented in a movie version of _LW_ -- IIRC, the Wynona Ryder version is the only one in which Aunt March dies so that Jo inherits Plumfield, and so then starts the school with the Professor. Another killing off of a sympathetic character in Louisa May Alcott is Dan in _Jo's Boys_...True, he starts out as a "bad boy" in _Little Men_, but the TLC he receives from Jo and the bonding he forms with the other boys makes him into a good, kind young man well before the end of _Little Men_. Then in _Jo's Boys_ Alcott puts poor Dan through living hippikaloic, culminating in Amy's insisting that Dan be sent away, so as not to let him near her precious daugther. So Dan leaves and goes out to the west, where he is shot to death on the very last page of the book, almost as an afterthought. So what could have been the ultimate success story, and a shining example to disadvantaged children, ends with a brutal cop-out. Excuse me now while I go try not to be bitter... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 20, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:35:36 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-18-97 Bear: We were discussing _Starship Troopers_ in my film authorship class. Peter said that we see typical Paul Verhoeven misogyny to the point that the bug leader has a feminine orifice which is used to suck out men's brains. Dr. Bingham also noted that in _Taxi Driver_ (the final portion of the class is devoted to Martin Scorsese) Travis Bickle goes, like Dorothy, to Wizard for useless advice. Nathan: I definitely plan to send _Tip of Oz_ to a publisher. I am afraid of sending it to Books of Wonder, which would force me to bowdlerizae it, which I object to. Perhaps I can learn more in my fiction writing class. Maybe I should suggest it to the publisher of _Scarlett_. Does anyone remember what company that was? I haven't read Mitchell or her successor, but I understand _Scarlett_ was pretty bad, and a personal work like _Tip_ would really have to be superior to it. BTW, has anyone heard of a rock group called Bags? I found out they have a song called "L. Frank Baum." I got this videotape set called _Beyond Phonics_ from the library because it had an Oz segment. This lasted about a minute and was the last chapter of WWoO with a deletion of the plural on "cabbages." It was only to show the contraction "I'm" and was scrolled over an illustration of Dorothy in a yellow nightgoen barefoot, in direct violation of the text. They also credit him simply as "Frank Baum," yet don't credit any of the voices or crew. It was made in Indianapolis, and there is some live action footage of the zoo, but is otherwise terribly boring. There is a spoof of movies borrowed from book in which the Hoosiers pronounce _The Hunchback of Notre Dame_ to rhyme with "shame" in the next line. Since I was born in Indianapolis and have lived here all my life, I have a right to make fun of the Hoosier accent that I don't have. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:46:00 -0500 From: David Levitan Subject: Ozzy Digest Hi, I have been hearing bout the Ozzy Collector on the digest and am wondering how I can order them? Does it cost anything? Also, does anybody know when the application for 1998 membership to the IWOC will be out? I would like to become a member. Thanks -- David Levitan wizardofoz@iname.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:28:38 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman John >Huh? I agree that this may be a dodgy area in children's literature, but for pity's sake, sympathetic characters are killed off in Homer, Shakespeare, Richardson, Dickens, Tolkien.... First four are not "CHILDREN'S LIT." Remind me, what "sympathetic character gets killed off in LOTR? And Richardson? Dorothy, Henry, Samuel????? None of which would I lump with the famous four above? Has anyone purchased "Oz: A Video History" from BOW? At $49.95 for two hours I want to hear that it is really worth it. Jeremy, you are confusing weakened with weekend. But for your sake: Strengthened regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:43:15 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones John Bell: Your example has struck an ancient memory of mine. Back in the second grade, I was in a relatively small school. An enterprising young lad named Richard was quite the bully, enjoying picking on smaller children. For some reason, our school was clsoed and we were all moved to a bigger one. At first, Richard thought he'd roll over that school like a tank. Alas, it was not to be. There were severl bigger stronger kids there, and in a few short days, Richard was hurled from the heights of power to become one of the "nameless rabble of victims", to quote Ralphie Parker of "A Christmas story". David and Bear: In my 6 and a half year sojourn at the University, I did not find Fraternities or Sororities to any more on one side or other of the political spectrum. They often espoused flavor-of-the-month causes on both sides. He died far too soon: The only good character I can think of offhand who got killed is the Solamnic Knight, Huma, in the "Dragonlance" Chronicles. (Plus Flint, of course). --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:29:12 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Garrett: THe purple land has never been mentioned anywhere to my knowledge. IMHO, the illustrators felt that the Deadly Desert should not have any coastal or beach territory, so they threw up the mountain range to contain it. It could easily be a launching point for a story, since the mountain range is quite a bit out of the way and all kinds of interesting things could be going on there... Bear: The image of fraternity's has suffered in recent decades, although the few brothers that I knew were decent people. "frat boy" implies somebody who is in school solely for the purpose of partying and other debauchery, with education taking a back seat. No doubt, only a small fraction fits under this label, but they make quite a bit of noise. --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:37:21 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Ruth: >Genuinely believing that a group of people is less than human, or genuinely believing that the fact of belonging to some racial/sexual/ethnic group is the cause of an individual's inexcusably bad behavior is no excuse for using the offensive epithets that accuse the members of the group of being less than human.< You're preaching to the choir--I like to see people happy and enjoying life to the full regardless of sex, race, nationality, looks, etc. Someone--I think it was David--said that the term "politically correct" has negative connotations. PC can be genuine, but the contexts in which I have seen "politically correct" often imply that it can be otherwise. But I'm all for encouraging prejudiced people to be polite! In time, perhaps some of those who only *act* unprejudiced may *become* unprejudiced. :-) Heart motives do matter-- many don't care for phonies--but I agree even a show of politeness is better than going ahead and stomping on someone else's feelings. At least a show of politeness does not hurt anyone--and can show the person is trying. One nice thing about the Oz books is that Baum encourages acceptance of those who are different. It's also the nice thing about Star Trek as well--I applauded Gene Roddenbury's courage for going ahead and showing an interracial, international, interspecies crew working together as a team, treating each other with respect, and even-gasp!-genuinely *liking* each other. (Sound like the crew at the Emerald City Palace?) Yes! I thought. This is how it should be in Real Life! Boldly showing interracial romance and marriage (Chief O'Brien and his Oriental wife) was good, too. Scraps: Just like a Blue Munchkin Scarecrow falling for a gaudy multicolored gal like me! P.S. This isn't Oz, but can any Voyager fans out there tell me why Kes is gone? (E-mail me privately if you can.) I liked her sweetness and innocence, at least. (And I hope the Powers That Be on the Star Trek set aren't playing Musical Actresses again.) Dave and David: Hope your Mom and Mom-In-Law are doing okay, respectively. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:46:20 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-97 Ruth: I don't know - I think the term "bitch" has been so thoroughly dissociated from its use regarding female dogs that there's very little of that sense when applying the term to a woman. The male equivalent of a "bitch" is a "bastard," a term that's technically applicable to females as well as males but in practice never is as a term of opprobrium. And while the original use of "bitch" implied sexual immorality, that sense really only survives in the compound "son-of-a-bitch"; calling a woman a "bitch" today implies that she has a disagreeable personality and probably a talent for self-aggrandizement at the expense of others - essentially the same meaning as calling a man a "bastard." And then there are the other associated forms and meanings of the word: as a noun, a bad situation; as a verb, to complain; as the adjective "bitchy," to be prone to insulting others (both of the latter being used of males about as much as females); and for some odd reason the favorable adjective "bitchin'," which isn't as common now as it was a few years back but which you still can hear at times. Unless you're a dog-breeder or trainer, however, you're not likely to hear the word "bitch" used for a female dog even once a year. And people who do hear it used in its original sense usually do a double-take (as when someone is referred to as a "bastard" because of illegitimacy). Which is not to say that calling someone "a lying bitch" isn't way beyond the bounds of polite discourse. It's just that I don't see it as having the specific context you say it does. (All of which has nothing to do with Oz, I guess, but there wasn't anything about Oz in this Digest that sparked a comment from me.) David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:51:47 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Joyce Odell: I looked up the Kaliko article I mentioned. It's "The Curious Case of King Kaliko" by Phyllis Karr (not Barbara Koelle), Autumn 1978 "Bugle." Same issue had a nice article by Digest member Robin Olderman, "The Wizard of Oz Pop-ups and other Novelties." Dave Hardenbrook: Dan gets killed off at the end of "Jo's Boys," but that's part of the summarizing look forward at what's to become of all the characters (for Alcott to forestall requests to write still more sequels), and the implication seems to me that he has a long and admirable life in the interval between young-manhood and his death (in defense of the oppressed). Bear: I got around to reading Maguire's "Wicked," and for about the first half found it as irritating as you did. But eventually the original material built up to enough of a "world" to seem impressive. I think it would have been a better book if it had been presented as an original novel, without trying to jumble together elements from the movie, the book, and the book's sequels with each other and with the original material. (Perhaps an author's afterword could then have discussed the novel's Hamiltonian origin.) Whether a publisher would have been willing to buy a merely good original novel without getting to market it as an Oz tie-in is another question! Anyhow, I think it's good enough to recommend as an original fantasy novel, although considered as an Oz connection it's both irritatingly un-Ozzy and irritatingly unsuccessful. (I don't find it quite believable that the earnest activist Elphaba manages to pressure herself into the wicked-witch's-evildoing required, and the section where she's acquiring her props -- the towered castle and the broomstick from the movie, the winged monkeys from both the movie and the book, the wolves and bees from the book, and so on -- feels arbitrary taken out its context(s) and gets tedious. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 12:17:10 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things DIVERSITY: Melody: >One nice thing about the Oz books is that Baum encourages acceptance of >those who are different... This is a major reason I love Oz...And it's a major reason I hate things like _Power Rangers_...Besides the violence, someone once explained to me that one of the appeals of _Power Rangers_ is that the kids are in thier "mild-mannered Clark Kent" modes they are diverse ethnically and by gender, as the Power Rangers they're all *exactly alike*, which is what kids want. With shows like that, we're sending the message to our children that buttresses their pre-existing view that "Conformity Is Cool". Wogglebug: I'm trying to learn not to be prejudiced against Madam Scraps just because her face is different colors than mine... >Hope your Mom and Mom-In-Law are doing okay, respectively. Thanks...My mom is still struggling but she's doing better... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 21, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:01:17 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-97 Dave L. Hardenbrook wrote: > > DEATHS IN ALCOTT: > Steve T. wrote: > >There is one notable case of an extremely sympathetic character being > >killed off in a classic piece of children's literature. Beth, the > >nicest of the LITTLE WOMEN died of scarlet fever. > >In the most recent hollywood film, otherswise admirable, she recovers. > > Er, um, the Wynona Ryder film??? Beth dies in that one, as does Aunt > March, which I believe was unprecidented in a movie version of _LW_ -- > IIRC, the Wynona Ryder version is the only one in which Aunt March dies so > that Jo inherits Plumfield, and so then starts the school with the Professor. I must confess, I only saw the film once, and that was some time ago, and my memory may have been wrong. If, indeed Beth died, then the otherwise admirable film is fully admirable. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:42:37 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-97 Scott: Good luck at getting _Tip of Oz_ published. If it succeeds it would no doubt open up the market for Oz-related books that are based on something other than _Wizard_ by other authors as well. I don't think having _The Hunchback of Notre Dame_ rhyme with "shame" is really an example of a Hoosier accent; I think it's just playing with the fact that the name of the famous university is spelled the same as the name of the famous cathedral (give or take a circumflex), but pronounced differently. David L.: >I have been hearing bout the Ozzy Collector on the digest and am >wondering how I can order them? Does it cost anything? Call Books of Wonder Customer Service at 800-207-6968 and ask to be put on the Oz Collector mailing list. I don't know if they charge for a sample copy (if they do, I'm sure it's nominal), but if you buy from them on a reasonably regular basis you'll keep getting it. >Also, does anybody know when the application for 1998 membership to the >IWOC will be out? I would like to become a member. It's out now; it was in the last general mailing from the IWOC. Write the IWOC at P.O. Box 266, Kalamazoo, MI 49004-0266 to get an application (include a SASE). Or you could just send $15 (if, as I believe is the case, you're under 18; $25 if you're 18 or over) to that address with a note that it's for 1998 dues and sub to the _Bugle_. (There are higher levels of membership that get you a few additional bennies; for $40 you get 1st class delivery of the _Bugle_ and other regular publications, and for $60 you get that plus the Oz Calendar and Oziana.) It might be you could get an application from the IWOC Web page as well; I don't have its URL handy, but I think there's a link from Dave's Web page and that URL is at the end of every Digest. Speaking of which, I should probably send my 1998 dues in myself... BearL >First four are not "CHILDREN'S LIT." Remind me, what "sympathetic >character gets killed off in LOTR? John said that it wasn't common in children's lit, but you didn't specify children's lit in your original post. As for sympathetic characters getting killed off in LotR, I consider Boromir, Denethor, and wossname, the king of the Rohirrim, all to be sympathetic characters who get killed off, and I think there were others. (It's been quite a while since I read it last.) Gandalf and Frodo seem to get it at the ends of the first two books respectively, though they both return later, so if (unlike most people) you were reading the books as they were published - the way, say, you're now reading Robert Jordan - you'd have thought those sympathetic characters had been killed off for at least a year. >Has anyone purchased "Oz: A Video History" from BOW? At $49.95 for two >hours I want to hear that it is really worth it. I bought it from Swann directly at Ozmopolitan. It's a very well-done video with a lot of excellent material in it; whether it's worth $49.95 depends on a couple of things, including how big a chunk of your budget that amounts to. If you routinely spend that or more for copies of old FF books with color plates when you already have a copy without them, then I'd say it's worth it. But that's just my opinion, and we know that my opinion is frequently different from yours. :-) Tyler: >In my 6 and a half year sojourn at the University, I did not find >Fraternities or Sororities to any more on one side or other of the >political spectrum. They often espoused flavor-of-the-month causes on both >sides. I wasn't meaning to imply that during their college years those who belong to fraternities are any more conservative or liberal than those who don't. My point (and it's a fairly weak one, admittedly) is that the formative experience of being rejected by the elite groups on campus may induce more sympathy for the rejects of society, hence a liberal leaning. (Those who didn't join a fraternity because they weren't really interested - which may include you - wouldn't have that same experience.) Melody: > Dave and David: > Hope your Mom and Mom-In-Law are doing okay, respectively. Thanks for your good wishes, but unfortunately, in the case of my mother-in-law, no. When the doctor explained to her that the chemotherapy that he'd prescribed as a "last ditch" effort wouldn't kill the cancer, but might slow its progress enough that she'd live another six months or so, she opted to stop it and let things take their course. (It was having very unpleasant side effects.) As things look now she'll be lucky to see the new year. And my own mother's Alzheimer's has entered a new phase where she doesn't want to get out of bed or eat; she's adamant about not wanting to go into a nursing home, but I don't think the 24-hour caregiver service I have for her now is going to be able to cope with her much longer. The combination of these things does not have the Hulan household in a very cheerful mood these days; I hope it isn't reflected too much in my posts on the Digest. Ruth: Your reaction to _Wicked_ was much like mine. If nobody had ever written books and made movies about a place called Oz before, this would have been a decent medium-grade fantasy novel. Not in the class of Middle Earth or Earthsea or even Prydain, but probably up with Witch World or the world of de Camp's Unbeheaded King series. The Oz connection makes it harder to judge on its own merits (and, as you point out, twisting the story around to make it fit with the book and the movie caused some improbabilities in the plot). Dave: Glad to hear that your mom is doing better, at least. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:02:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-97 <> I think being anything without a calm and dispassionate approach can be harmful . . . (So what am I doing going on like this? Beats me.) <>: ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:13:20 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-97 I am having trouble with my e-mailer lately! I did NOT mean to send off that message so soon, unfinished. The 19th: <> I think being anything without a calm and dispassionate approach can be harmful . . . (So what am I doing going on like this? Beats me.) <>: Another example of the problems in Hollywood today! The 20th: Bear: So, you never find yourself weakened by a long weekend? ;-) --Jeremy Steadman http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:25:59 +0000 From: Kelly Mortimer Subject: Winged Monkeys... Dear Dave, Recently I was in a group of people discussing the Wizard of Oz. We came up with a question that nobody could answer! Did the Winged Monkeys have another name or did they strictly go by "Winged Monkeys"? We could all picture them in the movie but couldn't come up with a name! Help if you can, it's driving us all nuts!!!! Thanks, Kelly [Kelly is not a member of the Digest, so please respond privately... Is "Nikko" the name she's looking for? -- Dave] ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:04:41 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman David - I still remember how good "Who Goes There?" was. However, the movie was one of the better early "sci fi" movies IMO, along with "Forbidden Planet." I assume you know they made a new version which was more in line with Campbell in some respects. However, it had a 90's yuky ending. Sigh. Ruth - How cognitive. However, if you are really mad I don't think you are going to say to yourself, "Hmmm, should I call this woman a liar or a lying bitch? Ooops, the latter just wouldn't be appropriate." I think you would just blast her and repent your PC failure later. :) By the way, "Voyager" had a somewhat interesting plot last night surrounding angry thoughts. In re killing off characters, the worst I have seen lately was "The Mill on the Floss." Real downer. Scott >the bug leader has a feminine orifice which is used to suck out men's brains. Go see the movie and tell me you still think this. If anything the bug has "things" which resemble both sex organs. Tyler >The image of fraternity's has suffered in recent decades, although the few brothers that I knew were decent people. "frat boy" implies somebody who is in school solely for the purpose of partying and other debauchery, with education taking a back seat. No doubt, only a small fraction fits under this label, but they make quite a bit of noise. Never mistake sound for substance. It sure wasn't that way in my house. David - It is hard to get through life without experiencing being excluded or rejected. Fortunately I got mine in high school and managed to learn from it. I shared this history with my children, when they were old enough, in an attempt to help them deal with the inevitable. I think it worked. Melody - I heard Kes got a better offer elsewhere. Ruth - Dittoes on Wicked. :) Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:18:47 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz Digested Sender: "J. L. Bell" Folks keep mentioning that Books of Wonder insists that the new Oz books it publishes (presumably under the Emerald City imprint) be cut below the Club's length or even "bowdlerized." What are its length or content guidelines? Is it simply a cost/copyright issue, or does it exercise editorial control? Scott wrote to me: <<_Hidden Prince_ won't be out for over two years yet, since it's planned publication date is the year 2000. You probably have time to read _Dinamonster_ between now and then.>> You obviously haven't seen the piles of stuff-to-read I live amongst! It's their house; I just sleep here. David Hulan made a good point: <> Unlike Dr. Nikidik's wishing pills, the Magic Cap isn't consumed when one uses it. It's a tool, and it takes more work to make a tool *stop* working. Consider the add-ons to disable stolen cars, or copy-protected software. Gayelette could probably have given Quelala something that granted him three wishes and vanished. But that would have required her to show her love in a less ostentatious way than a jeweled cap. She could probably have limited the cap so it didn't work after being stolen (like the fairies' cloak). But that would have required her to be more calm and humble than the little we know of her implies; she would have had to consider the possibility that her beloved could lose control of the cap. (Just as police departments are now considering steps to limit damage when an officer loses control of his or her gun.) We agree that Gayelette was short-sighted to create such a powerful tool--but I don't think that negates her attempts to do good. Another possibility: Gayelette and Quelala never existed at all. Instead, the King of the Flying Monkeys made up the whole story to excuse his years of service for the Wicked Witch of the West. "We had no choice about enslaving the Winkies! We were just following orders!" We readers never see the happy couple, do we? They never affect another Oz story [yes, yes, I'm talking about the official books here]. And isn't there something suspicious about a ruby castle in the middle of the Gillikin Country? Mind you, I don't endorse that theory; it doesn't square with the straightforward tone of WIZARD. Jeremy Steadman asked: <> Now that we're reading PATCHWORK GIRL, we can see if the Wise Donkey feels that it was for the best to be trapped in Oz when Glinda, without consulting anyone else, cut off the country from Mo. Then we'll move on to TIK-TOK, where she blithely sends the Oogabooans *out* of Oz. Yes, she's Glinda the Good, and her deeds are always well intended; they certainly protect Oz. But what if Glinda had the tiniest flaw--for instance, needing to know what everyone else in the world was up to? What might that desire lead her to do? J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:37:25 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Non-Ozzy: Like Melody, I am also curious as to why Jennifer Lien (Kes) left "Voyager". If anybody has any insights, I'd like to know them. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:04:15 +0200 (IST) From: Tzvi Harris Subject: oz digest I asked a few days ago if anyone remembered situations in Oz books in which the ruler is servant of people. All of the replies were more or less what I had in mind, even if few were as radical as the Queen of Patch and Tourmaline. Two questions: 1. I found quite a few Oz books on line. What are the chances of more books being placed on the net? 2. I'm going to be in NY next week- does anyone know where I can find (in the Brookyn-Manhattan area) Oz books? I have all of Baums, and most of RPTs' so I'm interested mainly in the works of the other authors. thanks Tzvi Harris Talmon Israel ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:00:59 -0500 From: Dennis Anfuso Subject: Oz talk X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Dennis Anfuso dennis@stonemarche.org I was told you were the person to talk to concerning a Wizard of Oz chat type group. I am interested in finding a forum for literary discussion, and some fun Oz talk. Could you send me the details, thanks ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:27:09 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission In the 11/7 Digest, Nathan asks, This was discussed here a few months ago and many (but not all) Digesters did think the illustrations non-canonical. Also, Mike Denio says on the matter of naughty frames in cartoons that he's Ken Cope can undoubtedly comment on the Disney animators in particular. However, it is my understanding that animators were far more likely then, to introduce these unauthorized additions to cartoons, than they are now. Of course, prior to movies videos and VCRs with the Pause feature, very few people had the technical ability to see these pranks. Even now, unless ones knows such a shot is there and wants to find it, almost no one would step through a cartoon frame by frame. Earl Abbe ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:40:32 -0500 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-97 Richard Bauman wrote: >John >Huh? I agree that this may be a dodgy area in children's literature, >>but for pity's sake, sympathetic characters are killed off in Homer, >>Shakespeare, Richardson, Dickens, Tolkien.... >First four are not "CHILDREN'S LIT." The message I was replying to seemed to make no restriction to children's literature. >Remind me, what "sympathetic >character gets killed off in LOTR? Boromir, Theoden and Denethor, among others -- not to mention (in the case of children's literature) Thorin and his nephews in "The Hobbit". >And Richardson? Dorothy, Henry, Samuel????? None of which would I >lump with the famous four above? Samuel, of course, who defined the English novel as we know it. (Don't let professorial dismissal fool you. Going from pre-Richardson novels to "Pamela" is like Dorothy stepping into Technicolor, and Fielding, despite his brilliance, is sterile as far as tradition goes. The great stream flows from "Pamela", "Clarissa", and "Sir Charles Grandison", not "Tom Jones".) Melody G. Keller wrote: >It's also the nice thing about Star Trek as >well--I applauded Gene Roddenbury's courage for going ahead and showing an >interracial, international, interspecies crew working together as a team, >treating each other with respect, and even-gasp!-genuinely *liking* each >other. Except, of course, that all the racism is sublimated by projecting it onto the aliens. To do him justice, though, Roddenbury was less guilty of this than his successors. (Notice how Roddenbury's original evil capitalist "Yankee" Ferengi have mutated into comic-relief might-as-well-be-Jews Ferengi.) Feh! I'll take "Babylon 5" any day. It is extraordinary, though, how very free Oz is of that junk, with the sole exception of the Tottenhots, and even they aren't very effectual as negative stereotypes go: if you eliminate the name and the obvious visual aspects, there's nothing about them that says "darkie"; they're just silly for its own sake. And it's not as though Baum, himself, was clean; there is much in his minor writings that is truly objectionable, though not remarkably so for the time. Yet somehow Oz seems to repel it, like oilcloth. >P.S. This isn't Oz, but can any Voyager fans out there tell me why Kes is >gone? (E-mail me privately if you can.) I liked her sweetness and >innocence, at least. The actress felt the part (like the show and the ship) was going nowhere. Thence we got the bimBorg. (By the way, it is a measure of the hysteria and madness of our times that there is a widespread belief that 7-of-9 is "really" a lesbian, with an organized campaign in the gay community to put pressure on Paramount to "out" her, as though a fictional character can "really" be anything outside the text. In re: the word "bitch". "Bitch", as applied to a woman, originally meant what we would mean now by "slut". (That is, "bitch" was understood to be short for "bitch in heat".) At some point in the last 50 years, it came to mean any woman intensely disliked. It _may_ have been partly under the influence of Yiddish "burch", "to complain excessively". // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:35:42 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-97 Melody:<> Actually, that's a major theme in the Oz books. Think how the authors poke fun at the ridiculous communities that insist on changing outsiders to be just like they, themselves, are. They insist upon assimilation. (The Scoodlers took that a bit far...). What's good satire about most of the situations is that each community so often assumes that the stranger *want* to be assimilated. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:58:56 -0500 (EST) From: GMAN62881@aol.com Subject: Wizard of Oz Hello, I was told to write to you about a project im doing for college. i have to take a movie or albun and tell about the parallel meaning of it. i picked the wiz of oz. i know that the movie simbolizes the industrial revolution and that the tinman resembles machinery and oz means ounces and emerald city means money. but i know that there is alot more to this than i know. i hope you can help me out! please write me with any info you may have, thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tim [I've sent him the "Populism" essays from my file archive...But if someone wants to mail him privately and tell him that the "populism" theory of Oz is widely considered to be a bunch of hippikaloric, they may. :) -- Dave] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:15:30 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Laumer I just had forwarded to me a message from March Laumer: "The too long deloyed, 2-novels-in-one-volume: BEENIE IN OZ / THE CLOUD KING OF OZ bt Keith Laumer and other authors in at last available: 231 pages, spiral-bound, in a variety of colors, at $20.00 post paid, by check to: " March LAUMER 1029 B 10th Street N.W. Largo, FL 33770 I will order a copy, and anyone interested should reply promptly. Keith Laumer was March Laumer's brother who died in 1993, and wrote many published sf books, most notably the Retief series. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 14:28:54 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things SOON TO BE A MAJOR MOTION HERESY: Speaking of _Wicked_, did I mention that one of the rumors at the South Winkie Convention this year was that there will be a movie version of _Wicked_, thus solidifying his mangled view of Oz in the minds of the general public (AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!). And who is rumored to be playing the Witch of the West? Cher!!! Jellia: Well, that's a little better...I heard it was to be Demi Moore! DEMOS EX MACHINA??: I agree with Bear about _Mill On the Floss_...This this the first story I've ever encountered in which a _Deux ex machina_ is invoked in order to ensure that the story has an *un*happy ending! DISNEY PRANKSTERS: Aren't these pranks in frames of movies tantamount to "subliminal messages", which is against the law? But anyway this all reminds me of on the _Mary Tyler Moore Show_ Lou Grant's story about the newspaper reporter who would hide within the text in very tiny type a dirty word in Latin. Unfortunately a doctor with keen eyesight spotted the stealth dead-language profanity and narked on him. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 22 - 23, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:15:07 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-21-97 TYLER: >THe purple land has never been mentioned anywhere to my knowledge. IMHO, >the illustrators felt that the Deadly Desert should not have any coastal or >beach territory, so they threw up the mountain range to contain it. > >It could easily be a launching point for a story, since the mountain range >is quite a bit out of the way and all kinds of interesting things could be >going on there... one of my better, later manuscripts, _the amazing ozosphere in oz_, contains incidents occurring (and caused by!) this mountainous region. stay tuned. atticus * * * "The crash of the whole solar and stellar systems could only kill you once." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:49:54 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman I thought it was interesting how much Tim KNOWS about Oz. So kind Dave sends him the "populism" theory. I hope you also sent him your opinion of it. Did you ask him for a copy of his paper? Any bets on the slant? >And who is rumored to be playing the Witch of the West? Cher!!! Hey, Dave, it could have been Roseanne! Someone else with witch experience. Robin and other LOTR fans - I just found a really interesting book at my favorite used book store. It is "The Tolkien Family Album." Houghton Mifflin 1992. It was written by John & Priscilla Tolkien, two of his children. The thing that really caught my eye was the picture on the cover. It is a collage of pictures. In the bottom corner is an early picture of JRR. He is a dead ringer for my father. Now my father was adopted and I have never been able to break through "the wall of silence." It does make me wonder if they could have been related. Musing, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:57:20 -0500 From: David Levitan Subject: Ozzy Digest A few things about Baum: 1. Was he going to make Oz a country with out money when he started the Wizard of Oz? There are a few places in Ozma of Oz which mention money ("And he owed me six weeks back pay", "It is very expensive to hold so many offices," said the private, hesitating. "I have no money with which to buy uniforms." "You shall be supplied from the royal treasury," said Ozma.). However in Road, the Tin Woodman says to the Shaggy MAn that there is no money in Oz. 2. Baum refers to the King of the Quadlings in Ozma. However, Glinda does not have a husband (in the FF) and it is said in Wizard that Glinda rules over the Quadlings. Any comments on these? Also, I am making a quiz on Oz (http:/www.bendov.net/dblhockey-asp/quiz/default.asp). Only the Easy (and I do mean very easy) Quiz (of a total of 3) is complete. Anybody have any comments on the quiz? -- David Levitan wizardofoz@iname.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:51:38 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-21-97 I realize that comments on posts of this nature are probably unfair, inflammatory, and not politically correct but dammit, > Hello, > I was told to write to you about a project im doing for college. i have > to take a movie or albun and tell about the parallel meaning of it. i picked > the wiz of oz. i know that the movie simbolizes the industrial revolution > and that the tinman resembles machinery and oz means ounces and emerald city > means money. but i know that there is alot more to this than i know. i hope > you can help me out! please write me with any info you may have, thank you > for your time. Sincerely, Tim irritates me beyond all measure. College? Are not spelling, punctuation, proper capitalization, etc. required in institutions of higher learning anymore? To say nothing about proceeding on asinine assumptions. Am I sounding too much like Bear? Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:38:20 -0500 (EST) From: JOdel@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-21-97 Just to nitpick In Little Women, Beth DOES recover from the scarlet fever. She was about 13-14 at the time, and she did recover. In Good Wives (the second book about the March family) It is plain that her health was never strong afterwards, and she dies at the age of about 19-20 of what is probably TB. She DOES die during the course of THAT book. These two books are commonly bound together in one volume under the title Little Women, and most readers have long forgotten that they are two books. For that matter, I am not certain that they have ever been issued sepatately during this century, although I believe that they were originally. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:54:11 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-97 Steve: I think your mistaken about Beth if you are referring to Gillian Armstrong's version of _Little Women_ with Winona Ryder. She died in that film. Deaths of sympathetic characters was extremely common in the work of Andersen, again with religious overtones, making it difficult for me to appreciate Andersen's work when I was a child. Ruth: I'm sorry for talking about my novel. I'm just depressed about the difficulty I am sure to have getting it published so anyone can read it. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:52:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-21-97 David Hulan: Many wishes on the imminent, miraculous recoveries of both your mother and mother-in-law. (People have told me for years that the worst doesn't _always_ happen--let's hope they're right.) More on cartoons & "naughty frames": I read somewhere once about a cartoon that was made in Hong Kong or Japan, I think, in which somebody noticed a blip once and went through frame by frame until he/she discovered a statue of liberty and the word "America". (I think I read about that in Ann Landers around 8-10 years ago.) So not all "insertions" are malicious. Unmaliciously yours, Jeremy Steadman ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:35:20 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-97 David: I believe you are referring to _The Oz Collector_. This is a catalog put out by Books of Wonder. I assumed the club sent them my name and I ended up on their mailing list, where my occasional orders have kept me. Bear: Oz: The American Fairyland is worth the money. It offers you glimpses of Oz films and memorabilia you're unlikely to see as well as talking head interviews with MPH, BS, JS, Ozma Baum Mantele, RCP, and more. For more information go to: http://us.imdb.com/cache/title-exact?Oz:+The+American+Fairyland+(1997)+(V) Melody: Dr. Kristine Karnick, in my Television Criticism and Aesthetics course, when covering semiotics, was telling us about a dog show on TV, in which one of the announcers was clearly uncomfortable saying the word "bitch" because of how prolific the modern sense of the word is. I did know a guy (who was in second grade at the time) who would announce to everyone that he was a bastard, which got him in trouble mnore times than it should have had to. Dave" Aside from their ethnic/gender appearances, the Power Rangers characters are essentially interchangable. That's why they could be shuffled artound so much and not hurt the series. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:39:35 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-21-97 Jeremy: >I think being anything without a calm and dispassionate approach can >be harmful . . . Oh, I don't know - one can be frantic and passionate without harming anyone except possibly oneself if one is a hermit. And a calm and dispassionate approach to love and romance isn't very satisfying. J.L.: >Folks keep mentioning that Books of Wonder insists that the new Oz books it >publishes (presumably under the Emerald City imprint) be cut below the >Club's length or even "bowdlerized." What are its length or content >guidelines? Is it simply a cost/copyright issue, or does it exercise >editorial control? Books of Wonder, like any publisher, exercises editorial control over the books it publishes. Nothing wrong with that, and it's not "bowdlerizing" to say that you're not going to publish something that you don't regard as a suitable addition to the Oz series, even if other people might disagree. Words like "bowdlerize" and "censorship" get tossed around a lot too loosely these days. Bowdlerizing properly applies to publishing new editions of already-published works that have been altered to reflect changes in public sensibilities in the interim. (It's named for a chap named Bowdler who produced an edition of Shakespeare in the 18th century with all the sexy parts edited out.) BoW did this with their edition of _Patchwork Girl_ (though it amounted to changing about a dozen words and omitting one illustration, so it's hardly major); there was enough flak about it that in subsequent cases where it would have been equally appropriate they've let it go with a disclaimer that the book was written when people's thoughts about race were different. (Or at least, different from what most people profess today.) Saying that you want changes made in a MS before you'll publish it isn't bowdlerizing; it's what editing is all about. If you want your MS published exactly as you wrote it, you can (a) publish it yourself, or (b) make such a track record of selling well that publishers will accept any conditions you lay down to have the chance to publish your work. I doubt if any author ever got his first book published by a professional publisher exactly the way he wrote it. As for the length constraints, they're not rigid, but BoW is a lot more likely to publish a 15-25,000 word book than a 40-50,000 word book, other things being equal. This is a cost issue; the cost of producing a book is more or less directly related to its length, but the amount it can be sold for is much less directly related. The longest original book ECP has published is Shanower's _Giant Garden of Oz_, which I'd guess to be around 40,000 words. My own _Glass Cat_ is probably the second longest, and it ended up about 33,000. _Queen Ann_ was about 28,000, and most if not all of the rest are under 25,000. I'm hoping that since I now have a track record, and _Glass Cat_ has sold reasonably well and drawn a couple of favorable reviews, he'll take a chance on publishing _Magic Carpet_ if I can get it down to around the length of _Giant Garden_. And I intend to send a copy of the full-up MS as well, just in case he decides to take a chance on publishing a 52,000 word book. As far as I can see, there's no difference between making a magic tool that works only three times for a given user and one that works only three times and is done. The analogy to theft-prevention hardware for cars or copy-protection for software is a false one, I think; cars and software can be used an unlimited number of times by their legitimate owners (or at least, there's no built-in limitation). Can you think of anything in our world that can be used by one person only a limited number of times, but then can be used by another person that same limited number of times, etc.? >And isn't there something >suspicious about a ruby castle in the middle of the Gillikin Country? Well, as of the time of _Wizard_ the color of the Gillikin Country hadn't been specified. Also, it's not really specified that Gayelette lived in the Gillikin Country, or even in Oz - just "far to the North." Possibly Gayelette lived in the Corumbia-Corabia-Samandra section of the Winkie Country, which is along the northern border of Oz (though a ruby palace would be equally inappropriate there). Or possibly she even lived in Ev - Jinnicky has a red glass palace, as I recall. Or possibly they were purple rubies; I've seen some that were almost lavender, and in Oz who knows what might happen? Tzvi: I believe that all the Oz books that are Public Domain are now available on the Net. Those that are still under copyright probably won't be placed there, since anyone who did so could be sued for it. (This means that you won't find any of the Thompsons from _Cowardly Lion_ through _Speedy_, nor the Neill, Cosgrove, or McGraw titles on the Net in the next year. _Kabumpo_ shouldn't be yet, but should be shortly after the first of the year.) >2. I'm going to be in NY next week- does anyone know where I can find (in >the Brookyn-Manhattan area) Oz books? I have all of Baums, and most of >RPTs' so I'm interested mainly in the works of the other authors. Definitely Books of Wonder, 16 W. 18th Street in Manhattan. They have the best selection of new Oz books anywhere, not only the Famous Forty but most of the better apocryphal books as well (including the magnificent _Glass Cat of Oz_, by some guy named Human or something like that... ). They also have a good selection of used Oz books, though there are better places for that (I don't know about in NYC, though). But you can buy all of the post-Thompson FF books there, I believe (not quite positive about _Hidden Valley_), in new editions that are very well-produced. John K.: >It is extraordinary, though, how very free Oz is of that junk, with >the sole exception of the Tottenhots, and even they aren't very effectual >as negative stereotypes go: if you eliminate the name and the obvious >visual aspects, there's nothing about them that says "darkie"; they're >just silly for its own sake. And it's not as though Baum, himself, >was clean; there is much in his minor writings that is truly objectionable, >though not remarkably so for the time. Yet somehow Oz seems to repel >it, like oilcloth. Baum's Oz, yes. Thompson, not so much so. There's quite a bit of racist stuff (not flagrant, but things many moderns would find offensive) in her books, from the Silver Islanders in _Royal Book_ to the black slaves in _Silver Princess_. Dave: I don't think _Wicked_ as a motion picture is going to have much effect on people's perception of Oz, which is already almost entirely based on the movie except in the hearts of a few (we happy few, we band of brothers - and sisters). While the book includes quite a few references to the later Baum books, I'm willing to bet that a _Wicked_ movie, if it comes off, will be entirely based on countering the MGM movie and won't have any references to the books at all. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:57:37 -0500 (EST) From: JOdel@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-97 To: DaveH47@delphi.com On "Political Correctness"; In the Digest dated 11/20, Melody wrote: >but I agree even a show of politeness >is better than going ahead and stomping on someone else's feelings. At >least a show of politeness does not hurt anyone--and can show the person is >trying. From where I'm standing, what the practice of "political correctness" boils down to is a moritorium on the unchallenged use of cheap shots as a grounds for exclusion. About the only excuse for exclusion not covered under some form of "politically correct" enlightenment appears to be "We don't want him because we don't like him." The forces of manditory enlightenment haven't quite managed to work their way around that one yet. ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 24, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:18:49 -0600 From: International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: RE: screen savers shareware Cc: 'Dave Hardenbrook' Brad, I'm sure there are some, and I know there are "Write your own screensaver" shareware products. Have you asked the Ozzy Digest yet? I'm going to forward your question to Dave Hardenbrook so he can circulate it to the digest readers. Sincerely, Jim Vander Noot Webmaster The International Wizard of Oz Club -----Original Message----- From: Aylettb@aol.com [SMTP:Aylettb@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 10:17 PM Subject: screen savers shareware Hello, Do you know of any sites where I can download a good oz screensaver? Any info would be nice. Thank You, Brad Aylett, Winston-Salem, NC ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:39:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Green Munchkins of Oz? A few days ago I got around to starting to read the copy of _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ which Barry sent me for my birthday, a BOW reproduction of the original. It's a beautiful book, but the illustrations for while Dorothy is in Munchkinland are DULL GREEN! I'm slightly color-blind, not being able to distinguish between certain shades of red and green, but this would be the first time I have trouble with blue. Is it just me, or is their something wrong with my book? Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide. Also, on the _Wicked_ movie: It could be worse. Someone could make a movie out of one of the truly transterrible heresies, such as _The Silly Ozbuls of Oz_. _Wicked_, for all its faults, at least tries to be half-way intelligent. Many things which purport to be histories of Oz are unfortunately not even at this level. Aaron Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@ymail.yu.edu North Antozian Systems and The Martian Empire ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:48:32 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-23-97 Atticus: Nice page! David L.: Could it be that the King and Queen of the Quadling Country aren't married...? Or might it be that the K&Q don't really have any jurisdiction over the QC, whereas Glinda does? Bob S.: Re capitalization, spelling, etc., being required in colleges anymore--yes, and most people in college have a handle on them ... most ... but not all ... (that's called being on an elliptical orbit). Re poor choices of words: They are, after all, only words--and they have only what meaning we give them. (This is in reference to Scott H's message about a second grader whose accurate words often got him into trouble.) With only the best of words, Jeremy Steadman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:28:14 -0800 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: Ozzy Digest [144.80.104.94] didn't use HELO protocol Dave Levitan: Yes, the first few Baum books do contain references to money. The most likely explanation is that Ozma abolished the use of money sometime between _Ozma_ and _Road_. What are the answers to your Quiz questions, anyway? I've tried taking it, and I can only get nine out of ten correct. -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff vovat@geocities.com or lnvf@grove.iup.edu http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "I'm having a wonderful time, but I'd rather be whistling in the dark." ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:41:19 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-23-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bob: > (Tim's letter) irritates me beyond all measure. College? Are not spelling, punctuation, proper capitalization, etc. required in institutions of higher learning anymore? To say nothing about proceeding on asinine assumptions.< One does wonder if Tim's letter was meant as a gag... Of course, not all colleges are difficult to get into--some folks in the commercial art course I was enrolled in had to be taught how to use a ruler! This one was a not-hard-to-get-into state college. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:42:42 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-21-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" David: >And my own mother's Alzheimer's has entered a new phase where she doesn't want to get out of bed or eat; she's adamant about not wanting to go into a nursing home, but I don't think the 24-hour caregiver service I have for her now is going to be able to cope with her much longer.< You have my sympathies--my grandfather went through multiple ministrokes which gradually incapacitated him mentally, then physically. It was awful. Basically similar to what's happening to your mother, only the cause is different. I don't know what I would have done without my aunt, who always came up and took care of things when my grandmother broke her hip, then had to have surgery due to intestinal blockage, then lost both her legs because of diabetes. Hope you have somebody like that in your family to help you out. And my sympathies for your mother-in-law, too. As one slogan reads: "Reality is a major source of stress." No wonder some of us would rather live in Oz. Your posts read like you're bearing up so far. Keep up the good work. Bear: BimBorg, eh? Seven of Nine plus Janeway makes for two characters who need to learn to lighten up. (Two male Star Trek equivalents were Data & Spock. In the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, meeting the completely cold and logical V'ger, which is everything Spock aspires to be, makes Spock realize it is good to have feelings. It's a shame this point was not as emphasized in the movie itself and was later dropped. In later Star Trek appearances Spock goes back to eschewing emotion.) Spock: I do not want my emotions! Data: I'll take them! How much do you want for them? Nick Chopper: Whatever he offers you, I'll double it! Melody Grandy ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 25 - 29, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:42:03 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-23-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Jodel: >About the only excuse for exclusion not covered under some form of "politically correct" enlightenment appears to be "We don't want him because we don't like him." The forces of manditory enlightenment haven't quite managed to work their way around that one yet.< They could ask, "Why? What's he done wrong?" And don't take "Duuhh..." for an answer. :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:33:27 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-23-97 David L.: >1. Was he going to make Oz a country with out money when he started the >Wizard of Oz? Clearly not. In _Wizard_ he refers to children buying green lemonade with green pennies; in _Land_ the ferryman refused to take Tip, Jack, and the Sawhorse over a river because they don't have money; and you mention some references to money in _Ozma_. It was only with _Road_ and _Emerald City_ that Oz had become a moneyless society - and that doesn't seem to have lasted long, since certainly by _Lost King_ (and possibly earlier; I don't remember any earlier references, though) there was again a money economy in Oz. >2. Baum refers to the King of the Quadlings in Ozma. However, Glinda >does not have a husband (in the FF) and it is said in Wizard that Glinda >rules over the Quadlings. I don't remember a king of the Quadlings in _Ozma_ - there's a king of the Munchkins who meets the party as they return, but if there's a king of the Quadlings I've forgotten reference. In _Road_, though, the parade near the end includes the Monarch of the Munchkins, the King of the Quadlings, and the Sovereign of the Gillikins, none of whom ever appear again in the FF. Glinda and the Good Witch of the North march elsewhere in the parade, even though in general they are described as the rulers of the Quadlings and Gillikins respectively. We had quite a discussion of this on the Digest a while back (maybe when _Road_ was the BCF) and I think the consensus was that these "rulers" were really just the bearers of honorary titles who exerted no real power; the Tin Woodman, as Emperor of the Winkies, was the only regional "ruler" who exerted any authority at all, and he didn't have much. Someone suggested that the Monarch of the Munchkins might have been Boq, from _Wizard_. I'll try to check out your quiz and comment to you when I've done so. Bob Spark: >College? Are not spelling, >punctuation, proper capitalization, etc. required in institutions of >higher learning anymore? To say nothing about proceeding on asinine >assumptions. From what I've read on the subject (and I'm happy to defer to any of the several college professors who read and sometimes contribute to the Digest), colleges generally still require spelling, punctuation, and proper capitalization, but high schools don't, and a lot of college students have to take remedial English until their writing is up to standard. Plus a great many people have the attitude that E-mail isn't worth observing standards and use very careless technique in writing it - sometimes deliberately, like mark anthony donajkowski, who refuses to use capitals or punctuation at all and who therefore is usually unread, at least by me, or Atticus Gannaway, who just eschews capitalization and is therefore readable enough but whose writing appears idiosyncratic thereby. More commonly, people don't bother to proofread their E-mail (some mail programs apparently don't make it convenient), so it comes out with lots of typos even though the person in question is entirely capable of writing "correctly." (Steve Teller is a good example of this.) I don't know if "Tim" can write properly and just didn't bother for E-mail, or if he's really that illiterate. Jeremy: Thanks for the good wishes. In the case of my mother-in-law a miraculous remission of the cancer might happen - it's rare, but it does happen for reasons nobody currently understands - but I've never heard of anyone with Alzheimer's actually recovering from it. It goes faster and slower with different people, but once it starts the decline is never arrested. If anybody knows differently I'd love to hear about it. Scott H.: The IWOC wouldn't have sent BoW your name, but the IWOC Directory can be bought by members and is probably used periodically by BoW as a mailing list for speculative copies of the Oz Collector. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:03:07 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: TODAY'S OZ GROWLS Sender: Richard Bauman Sparky - It is really nice to have company. You sounded really good to me. :) I am really tempted to contribute to the "PC" discussion, but will bravely resist. Anyone who thinks it isn't real hasn't been in or around an "institute of higher learning" in the past ten years. And now, on to PG. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:25:42 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-23-97 Jeremy: That cartoon with the subliminals was Ralph Bakshi's _Mighty Mouse_, but he was eventually forced to stop doing that to keep the show on the air. Dave: At 66,000+ words, it doesn't seem like anything of substance would be left after such deletion. I know certain parts they would definitely make me cut, whihc I would not have put there without good reason, though some might regard the as IEs. It was definitely not padded to have to guys in a bar discussing movie Ozmas. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:20:42 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz pennies for your thoughts Sender: "J. L. Bell" David Levitan asked: <> See the start of WIZARD, Chapter XI, in which Baum described "green pennies" in the Emerald City. And: <<2. Baum refers to the King of the Quadlings in Ozma.>> He also wrote that the conquering heroes stopped with the King of the Munchkins after returning from Ev--which he later placed to the *west* of Oz. JOdel wrote: <> They were indeed published a year apart, in 1868 and 1869. The Puffin Classics edition contains only the first volume. It ends with Alcott's invitation to readers to demand a sequel. They must have! When I read the books together (or, more accurately, listened to them on the car stereo), I was struck by how much less unified in time and space the second volume is. It seems like a much less planned novel. Like WIZARD and its successors, there's a different, more complex swirl of events in the later work. David Hulan wrote: <> I'd made the unwarranted assumption that BoW shared costs with the authors of its Emerald City Press volumes. As a book editor myself, I know how much input a regular publisher demands in return for its investment. And I know how much of a struggle it will be to cut a book by a third. My best wishes to you! You say Shanower's GIANT GARDEN was ECP's longest, at about 40,000 words. It actually felt too short to me. I wished for one strange-little-town adventure for Dorothy about 40% of the way through to make it feel real. And more humor. David also wrote: <> I look forward with interest to how Books of Wonder/Morrow handles RINKITINK's statement that a Tottenhot is much more different from a (Caucasian) Boboland prince than a Mifket is, and Neill's accompanying parody of evolution diagrams. To me that, more than the use of "dusky" in PATCHWORK GIRL, is evidence that the Tottenhots are a racist joke. And: <> More than half of Thompson's villains seem to be Arabs, which reflects the source of her plots in medieval European romances and fairy tales. But my favorite lesson in the harm festering under casually racist statements is how at the end of OJO she exiles all the stereotypical gypsies to southern Europe--just in time for the Final Solution. <> No, except for Dr. Kevorkian's suicide machine. But besides the Magic Cap (and Fluff's magic cloak), is there any tool in Baum's Oz that stops working after a certain number of times but isn't used up like a powder or pill? If not, doesn't that rarity imply that limiting a magic tool is more difficult than simply creating it? And thus, wouldn't limiting the tool in two ways (number of uses, number of users) be doubly difficult for Gayelette? I sense that you would say it should be easier to limit the number of uses absolutely than for the counter to reset for a second user. All I can reply is that magic tools may not work like ours. And finally: <> In Chapter XVIII, the Winged Monkeys say they belong in Oz, so Gayelette must have lived there. You're right that she could have lived in the northern Winkie Country--but there a ruby castle would be even more out of place! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:11:15 -0600 From: Mike Denio Subject: For Ozzy Digest >====================================================================== >From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >Subject: The Green Munchkins of Oz? > >A few days ago I got around to starting to read the copy of _The Wonderful >Wizard of Oz_ which Barry sent me for my birthday, a BOW reproduction of >the original. It's a beautiful book, but the illustrations for while >Dorothy is in Munchkinland are DULL GREEN! I onced asked Peter Glassman the same question. Here's the text of the message (June 1, 1996): MY QUESTION: Why did you decide to use the second state text in your edition? PETER'S REPLY: Because it included textual corrections. The book was co-produced with a British packager and they were the ones who acquired the shooting copy of the Wizard from which the majority of the book was reproduced. We provided copies of other pages for those which were defective in their copy. MY QUESTION: The Hill version of the book used light blue in the Munchkin section of the text, while subsequent editions (Bobbs-Merril on) used a more greenish color. Why did you use the latter color (which is more green than blue) in your edition? PETER'S REPLY: Actually, this varies in different copies of the Hill edition. Don't forget there were at least five printings of the Hill book and probably over a dozen. The copy that the UK publisher acquired had a more greenish shade and thus our edition does as well. This may be revised in a future printing. Mike ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:49:56 -0600 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-24-97 I've been having some problems with my computer and E-mail, so although I commented on the 11/23 Digest I wasn't able to get my post sent in time for inclusion in the 11/24 installment. You should have two today. Aaron: The pictures in the Munchkin Country in my copy of the BoW _Wizard_ are on the greenish side of blue, but I'd call it what my old Crayola sets called "Prussian Blue," not green. I don't know if the colors in the 1st edition are bluer than in the BoW version or not; someone who has a 1st (or at least has seen the interior of one) will have to tell you that. Nathan: After considerable experimentation with David Levitan's quiz I determined that the problem (I too only got 9 out of 10 at first) is that his automated checking device has "Gillikin" misspelled "Gilikin," so giving the right name for the north country is marked as an error. I've E-mailed him directly about this. Melody: I have an aunt who lives near my mother and is at least able to look in on her once or twice a day to make sure she's getting good care. And I've arranged 24-hour caregivers for her who seem to be doing as good a job as one could ask. It's very fortunate that my mother can afford the 24-hour caregivers, so at least that's not a problem. But it's approaching the point where she's going to have to have trained medical care available 24 hours, which pretty much means a nursing home, and she hates the idea of that. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:20:20 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Jane Albright: It was fun getting together with you this past weekend for Oz discussioning. (Steve Teller: Sorry your weekend schedule didn't allow joining in. I phoned, but evidently you were out when I tried.) Garrett: As Tyler Jones and David Hulan commented this time around (and Tyler the other time you asked, in August), the purple land south of Merryland doesn't have a name and came about because Haff-and Martin wanted to make Hiland/Loland an island, as it had been in the text of "John Dough," instead of being part of the mainland, as it was on the "Tik-Tok" map, and they evidently didn't want to have the Deadly Desert run up against the ocean directly. To which I'll again add: if that un-named strip of purple land belongs to anyone, it is continental Loland and belongs to the Hiland/Loland island just across the inlet, having been formed for the purposes of the Haff/Martin map out of Loland territory in the first place. David Levitan: Michael Riley's "Beyond Oz" book a good discussion of how Baum's conception of Oz changed over time. As you noticed, Baum didn't originally think of Oz as being without money. (As Nathan DeHoff commented, it's generally assumed in terms of Oz-as-if-real that Ozma did away with use of money in the early years of her reign.) Baum may simply have forgotten what he'd said earlier about the rulers, but he may have meant -- and it's also generally assumed in terms of Oz-as-if-real -- that although Glinda held the actual power, there was also some Quadling monarch who held the title of king of the Quadlings (same with the Good Witch of the North and the Gillikens). Do you have a copy of my article, "Those Elusive Rulers of Oz," distributed through the Oz Research Group several months back? (Andrea Yussman, who currently runs the ORG, has been making a practice of sending a selection of the contributions to each of the Oz conventions, and I was tickled to discover this summer that I had won first prize for an Oz article at the Munchkin convention with this essay.) Bob Spark: Tim Gman can't really be blamed for thinking that the "political allegory" interpretation of "The Wizard" is correct. It's been so widely reported that way that he could hardly help getting that impression. I hope Dave Hardenbrook included some articles refuting the idea in what he sent him? The youngster's bad spelling, capitalization, and punctuation (also childlike syntax and vocabulary) -- as Melody commented, his college might have low standards for entering students. And that isn't necessarily the same thing as having low standards for their (graduable) students -- they might be letting in students who have a lot of catching up to do. Some students who get in on that basis turn out to be well worth it. Aaron Adelman: I'm not sure without my copy to hand to look at, but I think the blue in the BoW "Wizard" Munchkinland illos is not a dull green, but a clear, slightly greenish blue. Perhaps the green cast is one of the shades you don't register? Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:40:46 -0500 (EST) From: Ozmama@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-23-97 Bear: Thanks for Tolkien tip. Almost time for me to go through my annual read. The concept of you're possibly being a Tolkien is mind-boggling. Wow! Grammar in college?: Ha. If it were required, there wouldn't be a large enough student body to support the football teams. Spelling? Another depressing topic. David: All best wishes about your relatives. About "Bitch": for some reason, it's losing its gender connection nowadays. Teenage boys call each other this. Still shakes me up when I hear it that way. Don't like it the traditional way, either. Bookshops in NYC: Try Griffin Books on upper Broadway. Try the Strand. Have a good time! Racism in Oz: I do not agree that RPT was more offensive than Baum. Neither was free of it, but RPT certainly was no more guilty than L.Frank. The Silver Islanders are certainly Asian, but not really in the offensive stereotypic sense. Contrast to the Hottentots. Or the Lulu lyrics. Jinnicky's slaves, by virtue of being negroid and slaves, I do find offensive, but at least Ginger is given good sense. Can't type more. Finally get the time to respond (Thanksgiving break) to a DIGEST, and my hand's all messed up. Had carpal tunnel surgery yesterday. At least I won't have to wear a brace this summer! --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:35:57 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-24-97 JEREMY: >Atticus: >Nice page! thanks. i added my james dean look-a-like picture on sunday and am wondering if you dropped by before or after i did so. if not, it's worth checking out; i strove for great authenticity in recreating the publicity still from _rebel without a cause_, and everyone who's seen it agrees i did an excellent job. i look like james dean! :) cancer-stick and all. RE: RECENT DISCUSSION ABOUT TECHNICALLY POOR WRITERS distressing, but commonplace to me. in a related vein, i remember certain people i knew in high school amazed by the "big words" i used. i'm talking about words like "appropriate." i won't even get started on high school peer editing. some of those papers dismayed me. egads. regards, atticus * * * "The crash of the whole solar and stellar systems could only kill you once." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:46:20 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones David: (Prepare for an ego trip here) Actually, I was invited to join a fraternity in Freshman year and I rejected them. Good thing, too, since their charter was revoked the next year. Of course, rejection of any kind hurts, so I suppose those who get turned down may not like it all that much. Sorry to hear about the medical situation in your family. Be strong. Tzvi: The Gutenberg Project is putting some of the Baum 14 on line. It's a slow process. Since most Oz books are copyrighted, don't expect too many more in the future. Dave: Is Dennis Anfuso now a member of the Ozzy Digest? If so, then I'd like to convey my appreciation of _The WInged Monkeys of Oz_. It was a good Oz story. John Kennedy: I'm not sure what those hysterical people are thinking, since 7 of 9 offered to have children with Harry Kim (a male). Dave L: When Baum wrote _THe Wizard of Oz_, it was only intended to be a one-shot. As it became a series, Baum made it progressively more Utopian. Eventually, he phased out the use of money despite the fact that he had mentioned it earlier. YOu are actually speaking of the procession in _Road_, where Baum mentions that Monarch of the Munchkins, the Emperor of the WInkies, the King of the Quadlings and the Sovereign of the Gilikins. Three of the quadrant rulers were already mentioned marching elsewhere in the parade (TIn Woodman, Glinda and the Good Witch of the North). IMHO, these four were probably stand-ins, representing the unity of Oz, or perhaps they were the official lisaons between Ozma and the four quadrants. Bob Spark: I too am disturbed about the strange and distorted views of Oz which are still out there despite our best efforts. All we can do is continue to educate these people as to the nature of the REAL Oz. Also, yes, you are sounding more like Bear. Based on your opposition to the "creative spelling" movement, I hereby declare you to be a conservative. :-) --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:14:58 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Melody - I don't remember callin Jerry a "Bimborg!" I did see her on TV and she commented that the suit she wears is plastic and really hot. I didn't think that could all be her! I thought the point of the character was to let us watch her slowly make the transition from Borg to Human. After several years we will see her being coquetish with Ensign Somebody. Hmmm. Nelix needs a new love interest now that Kes is gone. :) Well, it is Wednesday and we aren't discussing PG yet. Thus, p.15 I am really put off by this "Oz telegraph" bit. This is Mr. Fantasy time, not Mr. Science time. It just sounds so dumb to anyone who has a smattering of scientific knowledge. The intro out of the way, I thought this was a good story and the plentiful art work made it even better. p. 48 "Unc Nunkie, the descendant of the former kings of the Munchkins, before this country became a part of the Land of Oz. Now there is a lead for someone to write a whole story. p. 144 Dorothy's Pink Kitten? It seems like we have discussed this fairly recently. Eureka is a great favorite at the palace? Last I recall she was in trouble for being a cat and lusting for a piggy. p. 156 Speaking of people in trouble, we have Chiss, the porcupine. "Every animal must do what Nature intends it to do." I even know humans who try to excuse their bad behavior with this argument. p. 159 Who is the mystery girl behind the gate? They didn't have a girl with them. p. 200 Baum's ideas of what to do with criminals. This must be the origin of the Liberal approach to crime and punishment. I have never heard them give him any credit. This nutty idea has been tried for the last 30 years or so and has been an absolute failure. p. 229 And here we have the explanation for laws, "...but no law is ever made without some purpose, and that purpose is usually to protect all the people and guard their welfare." Right! We have so many laws now that you almost need a lawyer to tell you if it is safe to step out of the house. The best idea I ever heard was anytime we pass a law, we have to get rid of ten old ones. At that rate we might get down to a reasonable number of useful laws in two or three hundred years. Anyway.....to get the ball rolling.... Happy T-day to all, Bear (:<) P.S. My BOW books, "American Fairy Tales" and "Oz and Beyond" arrived today. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 18:30:19 +0100 From: Bill Wright Subject: Oz Digest I have been offered a first edition Father Goose that has an authenticated signature by LFB. It was a gift to one of his relatives. Could anyone give me a clue as to what this might be worth? bill in Ozlo ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 18:59:20 +0100 From: Bill Wright Subject: Oz Digest Ref the question regarding the availability of the Oz books on the web. From the library section at the Piglet Press website all the online books are linked. Go the page on each book and the link will be found there. Also, I will soon be posting a new online book, Queen Zixi of Ix, using a frame based format. You will find it on the page I refer to as Baum's Oz-related books. http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/books2.htm Will try to get it up today. Would like comments/feedback from those who view it if the format works for you, or if there are any changes you would like to see make to make it better for the online reader. Bill in Ozlo ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:49:25 -0500 (EST) From: JoelHarris Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-24-97 The following items were offered to me this week. I told the sellers that I would summarize them on the digest to see if there is any interest: 1. Pictures From the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Minor tears on several pages, significant tears on the center two pages, which have been repaired with old scotch tape (yellowed). Still a "delightful copy". Available from Ed Herny at edphemra@pacbell.net or call 510-428-2500. 2. 1904 Wizard of Oz Musical playbill. Special 50th anniversary of the opening of the Boston Theatre edition. Stiff wrappers and silk. Very Fine. $450. Sounds interesting. Available from Wyatt Day at whdbook@erols.com 3. Ozma 1st edition, 4th state. Fine condition. email me for details at JoelHarris@aol.com Thanks everyone - hope you all had a great Thanksgiving! Joel Harris ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:15:36 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: PATCHWORK GIRL OF OZ In rereading PATCHWORK GIRL, I was struck by the theme of frustration. It's most obvious in the stories of Ojo, who gathers four spell ingredients only to be blocked on the fifth, and Dr. Pipt, who after stirring pots for six years must return to the task a day later. But it's also visible in little things. Twice Ojo thinks he's making progress on his journey, only to find himself moving backward (on the road, on the river). He sleeps and eats in a cottage but finds himself as tired and hungry as before. Connected to frustration is the theme of cages. Two characters, the Woozy and Mr. Yoop, have been penned up by the populace because of their appetites. Ojo finds fences blocking his way four times, including the Woozy's pen; in earlier travels through Oz most obstacles have been natural, not manmade. And, of course, Ojo is put in the gilded cage of the Emerald City jail. Frustration, confinement--do these themes hint at L. Frank Baum's state of mind as he returned to writing Oz books? Ojo is unusual among Baum's protagonists in that he grows psychologically. He doesn't just return home, like Dorothy, or change magically, like Tip/Ozma. With continual prodding, he learns to discard the notion that he's unlucky. I find just as interesting the parts of his character that don't change. Ojo and Dorothy reverse some stereotypical gender traits. Ojo's emotions are close to the surface; he sobs and weeps several times. (I can't 'member Dorothy crying, and Trot does so only after the battle in SEA FAIRIES and when Cap'n Bill disappears in SCARECROW.) Dorothy is a conqueror who can greet a stranger with the words, "Do you surrender?" (p. 272). In their fight with the Tottenhots, Dorothy and Toto wreak havoc while Ojo is quickly overpowered. But Ojo is also quite a disobedient boy. He sneaks extra brains into the patchwork girl's head. He picks the clover after he's not only been warned not to, but promised that if he asks nicely Ozma will give him one. He snatches oil from Nick Chopper's "veins" without asking. (Ruth Plumly Thompson may have picked up on this in the first chapter of OJO; there Ojo disobeys Unc Nunkie and goes out to the gypsies.) Yet another interesting contrast is how Ozma's justice system has evolved since DOROTHY & THE WIZARD. Then no one could find the missing piglet in a vase; now it takes less than a day for the Wizard to produce the clover from the vase [!] where Scraps hid it. "Nothing can be hidden from our powerful Ruler's Magic Picture--nor from the watchful eyes of the humble [!] Wizard of Oz!" (p. 228). "Nothing that happens in the Land of Oz escapes the notice of...Glinda the Good" (p. 332). So be good, for goodness' sake! On page 34 there's a curious picture. Though labeled "Ojo," it doesn't look like Neill's other drawings of him, even the face-on sketch on p. 264. I wonder if this was Neill's first try at a "Munchkin boy," patterned after Denslow's fat-cheeked Munchkins in WIZARD. Perhaps he discarded that characterization for a standard Neill face, but when the time came to fill PATCHWORK GIRL with art he used his first sketch along with the many duplicates and cribs from LITTLE WIZARD STORIES. The sketch of the Woozy on p. 114 may be another early stab at a character. Compare the beast's ears, nose, knees, tail, and corners to the other drawings. Happy [American] Thanksgiving! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:57:30 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: "Wizard of Oz in Concert" Happy Thanksgiving, I just finished watching a thoroughly delightful "Wizard of Oz in Concert" on VH-1. Joel Grey, Natalie Cole, Phoebe Snow, the Harlem Boys Choir and a host of other talent. Natalie Cole playing Glinda had a lot more class than Billie Burke. I highly recommend it if it is repeated. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:30:33 +0100 From: Bill Wright Subject: Oz Digest Scott, Where can The Wizard of Oz in concert (1995) video be purchased? Bill in Ozlo ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Nov 97 18:15:32 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things TURKEY DAY: I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving! Everyone is feasting in Oz as well, although not turkey of course since all the meat in Oz grows on trees. Also, Oz really has no reason to celebrate an American holiday, but you know Ozma, any excuse to throw a party... :) BCF: Sorry everyone! I forgot to announce it again on Monday -- We *are* officially discussing _Patchwork Girl of Oz_ now... THOUGHTS ON _PATCHWORK_: Bear wrote: >p.15 I am really put off by this "Oz telegraph" bit. This is Mr. Fantasy >time, not Mr. Science time. It just sounds so dumb to anyone who has a >smattering of scientific knowledge. Can you elaborate? Why do you find communication with Oz by wireless telegraph implausible? >p. 200 Baum's ideas of what to do with criminals. This must be the origin >of the Liberal approach to crime and punishment. I have never heard them >give him any credit. This nutty idea has been tried for the last 30 years >or so and has been an absolute failure. Well, what punishment would you reccommend for Ojo? Flogging in the public square? Ducking in the ducking stool? Jellia: I suppose next we'll see TV ads paid for by the "Jenny Jump For Queen" committee that say, "Ozma's revolving door prison policy gave weekend furloughs to first-degree six-leaf-clover-pickers not eligble for parole..." >Eureka is a great favorite at the palace? Well, Baum says that about everyone, doesn't he? If the newly reformed (on account of temporary amnesia) Ruggedo had appeared, Baum would probably have described *him* as "a great favorite"... >Last I recall she was ... lusting for a piggy. Yes, but only in the heart! :) MOVIE REVIEWS: Wednesday was my birthday, and what did I receive as a present from my parents but a video set of the silent Oz movies! I've been watching them this Thanksgiving, and now I'd like to give a "review" of them... THE WIZARD OF OZ (1925): I have to admit that I couldn't sit through this one...The Kansas sequence went on and on with a lot of slapstick (talk about an IE!), and the deviation from the original story was phenominal, with Oz demoted from fairyland to an ordinary kingdom, King Krewel now King of all Oz, the Wizard one of his stooges, and the Scarecrow and Tin Man just the farmhands in disguise...I just couldn't bear to sit all the way through the thing. HIS MAJESTY, THE SCARECROW OF OZ: IIRC, this was the first of Baum's films. It is fairly faithful to the book _The Scarecrow of Oz_...Or more accurately, the book was fairly faithful to the movie...But the Ork, the Bumpy man, etc. were added later, and of course in the book Trot and Cap'n Bill replace Dorothy and the Wizard, and Mombi is replaced by Blinkie. (Both Blinkie and the movie Mombi are dead ringers for Denslow's Wicked Witch of the West). I think Baum could have been more generous with the subtitles. A lot of the time Mombi is ranting and shaking her finger at people and you don't know what the Hippikaloric she's saying. Also, while her heart is frozen Gloria wanders around Oz aimlessly in a rather unnerving manner. The movie gives a previously unrevealed account of the animation of the Scarecrow (by magical Native Americans), and Dorothy is in Oz at the outset for no particular reason. Some of "effects" seem ineffective, even giving the modest resources that Baum probably had access to, for instance when the Tin Man beheads Mombi it is very obvious that she has her head wrapped in a black cloth. Nevertheless I found this a very entertaining little movie version of the book that Baum would later hearld as his personal favorite of the Oz series. THE MAGIC CLOAK OF OZ: This is actually a movie version of _Queen Zixi of Ix_, although Zixi doesn't come into it until towards the end. No Oz characters appear unless you count that creature in the Noland forest that is a dead ringer for the Woozy. I never thought of Zixi as a brunette before, and her reflection seemed fairly spry for 683. Otherwise I found this an enjoyable film. THE PATCHWORK GIRL OF OZ: This is my favorite of the four films (not surprising since PGOz is my favorite Canonical Oz book). Sadly it appears that some footage is missing, notably the actual coming to life of Scraps and the accident, which makes things very confusing for a viewer who doesn't know the story. Otherwise the movie follows the story fairly well, though Baum has taken some liberties for the sake of cinematic plot simplification. Ojo and Scraps' party only follow the route from Pipt's to the Emerald City, while Dr. Pipt (later joined by Scraps) follows much of the itinerary of the latter part of the book, including the Hoppers, the Horners, and the politically incorrect Tottenhots. Everyone then meets at the EC where Ozma pardons Ojo for stealing the six-leaved clover, and Pipt -- not the Wizard -- reverses the petrification spell (The movie omits the yellow butterfly, so Ojo's quest is 100% successful). A couple of new twists: There is a Munckin couple who are in love -- the boy is likewise turned to marble, and the Munchkin girl accompanies Ojo and Scraps (and also, for some reason, about half the population of Munchkinland!) on the quest. The Munchkin girl carries the statue of her beau (miniaturized by Pipt) in her basket, and Jinjur causes trouble by repeatedly trying to steal it, she being in love with the fellow herself. But in the end everyone is restored and lovingly embrace, including Scraps and the Scarecrow who have been extremely flirtatous through much of the film. A very fun film. THE TAPES OVERALL: Considering that these films were made over 70 years ago, long before the advent of talking pictures, they are very enjoyable. I just wish Baum had been more generous with dialogue subtitles, since there are some times when people are speaking and there is no indication of what they're saying. Also, I didn't find the weird electronic music particularly Ozzy, and the advertised "narration" was little more than a straight reading of the subtitles. So while watching much of the films I turned on the mute on my set and added my own accompaniment by putting Vangelis' albums _Direct_ and _Oceanic_ on the CD player. :) But I'm very happy to own these Ozzy movies at last! :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 30, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:56:44 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, Thanksgiving Edition Hi everyone, David Hulan, > Melody: I have an aunt who lives near my mother and is at > least able to look in on her once or twice a day to make > sure she's getting good care. And I've arranged 24-hour > caregivers for her who seem to be doing as good a job as one > could ask. It's very fortunate that my mother can afford the > 24-hour caregivers, so at least that's not a problem. But > it's approaching the point where she's going to have to have > trained medical care available 24 hours, which pretty much > means a nursing home, and she hates the idea of that. You have my sympathy. My mother is going through the same process [although she is further advanced (more impaired) than yours]. At the present time she is in a group care home, one that is licensed for 6 women, and is getting exceptional care. She is approaching the state, however, that the home will no longer be the best place for her. Such homes are not cheap. We are paying $1900 per month with no state aid available. When her problems progress further she will have to move to a full fledged nursing home and state aid will kick in. There is no way to go through this process without feeling a tremendous amount of guilt. No older person voluntarily moves to one of these care facilities. They always want to remain at their home. They also view these procedures as a loss of control and resent it. They are likely to become very hurt and secretive about their affairs just when you have the need to take over. I can't emphasize enough the value of limited powers of attorney, both general and medical. This can also get to be a problem convincing the older person to sign them. Good luck! Dave Hardenbrook, Thanks for your review of the silent Oz videos. I too started with "The Wizard of Oz" and couldn't get through it. At that point I didn't go on to the others, but now I will. Tyler, > Also, yes, you are sounding more like Bear. Based on your > opposition to the "creative spelling" movement, I hereby > declare you to be a conservative. :-) Thanks, I guess... Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:59:40 -0500 From: David Levitan Subject: Ozzy Digest Tyler: > YOu are actually speaking of the procession in _Road_, where Baum mentions > that Monarch of the Munchkins, the Emperor of the WInkies, the King of the > Quadlings and the Sovereign of the Gilikins. Three of the quadrant rulers > were already mentioned marching elsewhere in the parade (TIn Woodman, > Glinda and the Good Witch of the North). IMHO, these four were probably > stand-ins, representing the unity of Oz, or perhaps they were the official > lisaons between Ozma and the four quadrants. I looked at Road and it does not mention the Tin Woodman during the parade. I think that Baum did mean that the Tin Woodman was the Empreror of the Winkies, but I do not know about the others. Ruth: > Do you have a copy of my article, "Those Elusive Rulers of Oz," distributed > through the Oz Research Group several months back? No I don't, Is there any place where I can get it? PS: For those of you who are waiting for my next quiz to be complete, I hope that I can make it for next weekend. I am finishing a major report for school this weekend, so I hope to get some free time next week. -- David Levitan wizardofoz@iname.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:40:20 -0600 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, Thanksgiving Edition Bear: >I am really tempted to contribute to the "PC" discussion, but will bravely >resist. Anyone who thinks it isn't real hasn't been in or around an >"institute of higher learning" in the past ten years. Undoubtedly true, but that's about the only place in our society where it's real. Conversely, the real physical fear one has of expressing a mildly liberal opinion in places like Orange County and much of the South is much more universal. J.L.: Books of Wonder is a fully professional publisher, and pays advances and royalties to their authors. (Nobody could make a living off of them, but they do pay.) And thus have every right to exercise editorial control. And I'm thinking of cutting my book by about a fifth, not a third. I can do that without affecting either of the two major subplots by skimming out some IEs - but as has been said by various people on the Digest, frequently the IEs are the most fun part of the books, and I think that's true of _Magic Carpet_ as well. >I look forward with interest to how Books of Wonder/Morrow handles >RINKITINK's statement that a Tottenhot is much more different from a >(Caucasian) Boboland prince than a Mifket is, and Neill's accompanying >parody of evolution diagrams. To me that, more than the use of "dusky" in >PATCHWORK GIRL, is evidence that the Tottenhots are a racist joke. So do I. >...besides the Magic Cap >(and Fluff's magic cloak), is there any tool in Baum's Oz that stops >working after a certain number of times but isn't used up like a powder or >pill? There's the limitation on the Magic Belt in _Lost Princess_, that it can only be used for one wish per day. (This isn't really consistent with its apparent powers in other books, though.) That's not a permanent "stop working," but it indicates that limitations on the uses of magic tools can exist. And there aren't that many other magic tools described in any detail in Baum's books; besides the Magic Picture and Glinda's Great Book of Records, I can only think of the axe, saw, and tweezers that the Wizard uses (or offers to use) in _Magic_ and a couple mentioned in _Glinda_ - and nothing is said one way or the other about whether they might have a limited number of uses. >In Chapter XVIII, the Winged Monkeys say they belong in Oz, so Gayelette >must have lived there. You're right that she could have lived in the >northern Winkie Country--but there a ruby castle would be even more out of >place! Actually the Winged Monkeys say they belong in "this country," which could include all of Baumgea. But their king also says they can't cross the desert, which does seem to restrict them to Oz proper. Robin: >Racism in Oz: I do not agree that RPT was more offensive than Baum. Neither >was free of it, but RPT certainly was no more guilty than L.Frank. The Silver >Islanders are certainly Asian, but not really in the offensive stereotypic >sense. Contrast to the Hottentots. Or the Lulu lyrics. Jinnicky's slaves, >by virtue of being negroid and slaves, I do find offensive, but at least >Ginger is given good sense. I'd have to get the reaction of an Asian to the Silver Islanders to be sure one way or the other, but I think there's a good bit of the offensive stereotype there, myself. As for the relative racism of the two, Baum's was pretty well confined to two books - _Patchwork Girl_ and _Rinkitink_ - while Thompson's was evident in many more of hers. Chinese in _Royal Book_, Arabs in _Hungry Tiger_, _Yellow Knight_, and _Wishing Horse_, blacks in _Jack Pumpkinhead_, _Purple Prince_, and _Silver Princess_, gypsies in _Ojo_ - and I may be forgetting some. Sorry your hand's messed up, but I hope the surgery has corrected the problem and you won't need the brace from now on! Tyler: The Tin Woodman doesn't march elsewhere in the parade in _Road_; he is the Emperor of the Winkies there. The rulers of the other three quadrants, though, don't appear elsewhere in the books that I can recall (except for the king of the Munchkins in _Ozma_), and never speak or are named. >Also, yes, you are sounding more like Bear. Based on your opposition to the >"creative spelling" movement, I hereby declare you to be a conservative. >:-) The "creative spelling" movement doesn't have anything to do with liberal-vs-conservative. It's true that most of its advocates are on the liberal side of the political fence, just as it's true that most racists and "creation scientists" and the like are on the conservative side, but the great majority of liberals aren't in favor of low standards in education any more than the great majority of conservatives are in favor of racism or "creation science". Bear: >p.15 I am really put off by this "Oz telegraph" bit. This is Mr. Fantasy >time, not Mr. Science time. It just sounds so dumb to anyone who has a >smattering of scientific knowledge. Yes, but wireless telegraphy was quite new at the time, and not many people knew much about it. Like the racism in the book, one needs to make allowances for the times. >p. 48 "Unc Nunkie, the descendant of the former kings of the Munchkins, >before this country became a part of the Land of Oz. > >Now there is a lead for someone to write a whole story. RPT did. It's called _Ojo in Oz_. (She modifies what Baum said somewhat, but basically works off that line.) >p. 159 Who is the mystery girl behind the gate? They didn't have a girl >with them. The girl behind the gate is obviously Dorothy. Neill must have forgotten that she hadn't joined the party yet. >p. 200 Baum's ideas of what to do with criminals. This must be the origin >of the Liberal approach to crime and punishment. I have never heard them >give him any credit. This nutty idea has been tried for the last 30 years >or so and has been an absolute failure. See my comment to Tyler. This is not "the Liberal approach to crime and punishment." Unless you want to agree that "creation science" is "the Conservative approach to geology and biology." J.L.: Interesting observations on the theme of frustration and confinement in PG. I think it may well have to do with his distaste for having to write more Oz books for financial reasons when that's not what he wanted to write. >Ojo is unusual among Baum's protagonists in that he grows psychologically. >He doesn't just return home, like Dorothy, or change magically, like >Tip/Ozma. With continual prodding, he learns to discard the notion that >he's unlucky. This brings up an interesting question. Ojo didn't know he was called "Ojo the Unlucky" until Margalotte told him so, and after that nobody explained to him why - yet he told the Tin Woodman a series of things about himself that he thought justified the appellation. Unc Nunkie didn't speak enough to have told him about them, as far as I can tell, so how did he know that it was supposed to be unlucky to be born on Friday the 13th, or to be left-handed, or to have a wart under one's arm? Dave: >TURKEY DAY: >I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving! Everyone is feasting in Oz as >well, although not turkey of course since all the meat in Oz grows on trees. >Also, Oz really has no reason to celebrate an American holiday, but >you know Ozma, any excuse to throw a party... :) We had a pleasant one, though we always violate tradition and have something other than turkey. We had sauteed duck breasts for the entree Thursday... Enjoyed your movie reviews. I have HM THE SCARECROW and MAGIC CLOAK, but haven't watched them yet. One of these days... (I've had PG a good bit longer and have watched it a couple of times. I think my version includes the coming-to-life scene, but I'm not sure; I'd have to check it again.) Some comments on _Patchwork Girl_ (the book): I was somewhat struck on this rereading with the large number of IEs, considering that this book is a Quest rather than a Tour. Both encounters with Victor Columbia Edison; the cottage where Ojo sleeps and eats but is tired and hungry afterward; the Wise Owl and the Foolish Donkey; the man-eating plants; Chiss; the backwards road and illusionary gate; the Tottenhots; Mr. Yoop; the lazy Quadling; the Trick River - none of these advances the plot at all. (And I may have left out one or two more, as far as that goes.) They do, however, play into J.L.'s theme of frustration and confinement; I don't know if Baum intended this consciously, but somehow they do seem, irrelevant as they are to the primary quest, to integrate into the story better than the various IEs in _DotWiz_ and _Road_. It was only when I really thought about the story that I realized how much of it was thrown in without any real significance. The Foolish Owl-Wise Donkey episode is the only one that actually feels out of place. I think the trial of Ojo is another episode that doesn't play well. Unlike Bear, who apparently thinks it's an example of coddling criminals, I find it simply incoherent. Obviously Ozma, or someone, actually saw Ojo pick the clover, and knew exactly what he had done with it. That being the case, what was the point of an elaborate Show Trial? Why not just bring Ojo before Ozma immediately (rather than jailing him overnight) and ask him why he knowingly broke a law? And then there's the fact that neither Ozma nor the Wizard bothered to ask Ojo for the complete list of what he needed for the charm. If they had, they'd have known that the left wing of a yellow butterfly was as unacceptable as, say, the left arm of a fat baby, and Ojo (and Dorothy and Scraps and the Scarecrow) would have been spared a long and dangerous trip. Despite all these nits, this is one of my favorites of the Oz books - not my very favorite, but well in the top five. Baum didn't plot it as well as some of the others, but he paced it better than most and the characters stand out more than usual. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:50:31 -0800 (PST) From: "W. H. Baldwin" Subject: Oz Digest X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Bob Spark: It's okay to sound like Bear; just don't start to think that you *are* Bear! ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:06:54 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Golly, first Spark sounded like me and now Hulan. Maybe I'm infectious! :) Tyler >The Gutenberg Project is putting some of the Baum 14 on line. It's a slow process. Since most Oz books are copyrighted, don't expect too many more in the future. There is a member of the Digest who has gone to the trouble of putting "many" Oz books into his computer. I would think that, when it becomes legal, he might be willing to share them. I am not at liberty to reveal who this is however. The main value of this would seem to be research. I just can't imagine snuggling in bed with my computer. Bed is where I do all of my reading. Where do the rest of you read? Dave - >Can you elaborate? Why do you find communication with Oz by wireless telegraph implausible? Leaving aside the location of Oz, which some of us think is in another dimension, through a worm hole, on another planet, etc., it is not the communication that is implausible. It is getting ready to do it. First both ends need receivers, transmitters, and antennas, no small undertaking. The transmitters have to have enough power and the antennas enough gain, and be pointed in the right direction, to get from here to there and the receivers have to have enough sensitivity to pick out the signal. Then you have to have the right frequency. Next you have to be on at the right time. Finally, have you ever learned Morse Code? We have a data rate problem here. Sending a whole book by Morse would probably take Shaggy a year. Baum makes it sound like picking up a telephone. I think Baum was simply getting in on the new radio fad. However, I hope his radio bit raised questions in some of the bright young minds reading his book. Maybe they built crystal sets and tried to hear the latest bulletin from Oz. >Well, what punishment would you reccommend for Ojo? Flogging in the public square? Ducking in the ducking stool? I wouldn't RECOMMEND any punishment for Ojo. I thought Ozma handled the matter perfectly. It was Baum's philosophy? coming through the jailer to which I objected. Thanks for the review of the movies. I bought the set, watched the first one and never had the stomach to watch the rest. I'm encouraged to give the rest a try now. Yesterday I got into a Trivial Pursuit game. What question should I get but, "What message did the witch write in the sky?" I finally pulled it out of my tired old brain, but not before perspiration began to form on my forehead. Do you all remember? Off to "Aliens 4", Bear ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:31:37 -0800 From: MALCOLM D BARKER Subject: video The silent videos are commercially available as a set? Aw, dave, any idea where I could get such a thing? Thanks, Malcolm ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:37:29 -0500 (EST) From: ZMaund@aol.com Subject: Please post -- thanks! Greetings. The next Bibliographia Baumiana article will describe _The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus_. I would appreciate hearing form anyone with access to copies of this title published by M.A. Donohue & Company, as well as any copies in dust jacket. Please reply to : ZMaund@AOL.com Many thanks in advance. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:42:43 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, Thanksgiving Edition Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bear: >p. 229 And here we have the explanation for laws, "...but no law is ever made without some purpose, and that purpose is usually to protect all the people and guard their welfare."< Ozma: Zim, have you ever picked any six-leafed clovers? Zim: Tippetarius. Have we ever picked....any....*trifolium.....duplex?* Tip: Er--I'm afraid we've picked a few.... Seems the zealously botanical Zim has hybridized & raised plants that yield nothing *but* six-leaf clovers.... :-) Tip: Aw, have a heart, Ozma. He used 'em for good magic. Zim: And they are very nice in salads... Tip: He doesn't deserve two thousand years in jail... Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:43:06 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, Thanksgiving Edition Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Message text written by "Dave L. Hardenbrook" >Also, while her heart is frozen Gloria wanders around Oz aimlessly in a rather unnerving manner. < Without her emotions, she cannot care about anything--even where she's going. :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:43:43 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest Sender: "Melody G. Keller" On "Patchwork Girl," the more-mature-writer Baum seems to have put more thought into the mechanics of an artificially created being--he has Margolotte give Scraps cloth lips, pearl teeth, a plush tongue in a mouth cavity--nearly all the equipment required for speech except throat, larynx and lungs. Her predecessor, the Scarecrow, with a mere painted mouth, has no logical way to speak. I think Baum mentions the Scarecrow's face wrinkling into various expressions, but is silent as to whether his painted lips move like an animated cartoon or not. On the meeting of Scarecrow and Scraps. Both of them brag about having brains but no heart yet at first sight--Bang!--they're in love. They even brag about their heartlessness and their attraction to each other in the *same* conversation. Is this ironic or what? :-) Think Baum's trying to tell us love comes from one's brain? Or even "Love conquers all"? :-) Interesting that the Scarecrow gets a girlfriend, but none of the canonical authors do the same for the Tin Woodman.... Tin Woodman: And *me* the one who asked for a heart! As counterpoint to the Scarecrow/Scraps encounter, in "Tin Woodman," Nick Chopper says his heart cannot love--and his later search for Nimmee Amee is obviously motivated by duty, not love. Tin Woodman: I have a heart but cannot love. Scarecrow: I don't have a heart, but I apparently love Scraps.... Tin Woodman: Didn't Baum say I was capable of love in an earlier Ozzy history? Scarecrow: Our beloved creator apparently liked to keep folks guessing.... Phyllis Karr thought of a clever solution to the "left wing of a yellow butterfly" problem--in one original story of hers, Dr. Pipt says the Potion of Unpetrifaction called for the yellow butterfly to flutter its left wing to cool the potion, not have its wing pulled off and used as an ingredient. The Tin Woodman's willingness to sacrifice two people to save a mere bug from dismemberment seems unbalanced--'til one recalls that the Tin Woodman himself well knows what it's like to be cruelly cut apart. That is likely why he cannot stand the thought of dismembering another living thing even in a good cause. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:44:34 -0500 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, Thanksgiving Edition Ozmama@aol.com wrote: >About "Bitch": for some reason, it's losing its gender connection nowadays. >Teenage boys call each other this. Hmmm.... This is traditionally a gay usage.... >Or the Lulu lyrics After considering the description of the voice on the record and the meter of the verse (such as it is), I am now convinced that what Baum is actually describing (and any contemporary reader would have known this) is a white singer (possibly Irish) performing an instance of the then-fashionable genre known as the "coon song", which, to my mind, considerably exonerates him. Dave Hardenbrook writes: >Sadly it appears that some footage is >missing, notably the actual coming to life of Scraps and the accident, It is extant, but was discovered separately, and is not in all modern versions. I don't recall the details, but I've seen it. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:01:04 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, Thanksgiving Edition Bill: I have been trying for some time to obtain _The Wizard of Oz in Concert_ video, as I only have the CD. Turner says they turned over the rights to PBS after it was first broadcast. I e-mailed PBS sometime before that to try to obtain it, and never got a response. I'll try again. About _Kamillions_, I rewatched some scenes from JBTO and the thing with the chair in Mombi's hut was blatantly referenced in this obscure film. Worth seeing if you can find it. (Not rated, seems like a PG-13). Dave: _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_ was the first film Baum made, under the direction of J. Farrell MacDonald, who also directed MC. All three of the Baum films are missing footage (_The Last Egyptian_, the second film Baum directed himself after MacDonald took to acting, is missing completely, not known to survive.) His Majesty, the Scarecrow was the third, and Baum's directorial debut, despite what it says on the box. As an auteur critic, I thought there seemed a bit of a shift in style with this third film, which I thought the best. _Wizard of Oz_ (no "the" in the on-screen title, as a matter of fact) was clearly influenced by this film, with its use of Kynd and Krewel, etc. Dorothy Dwan was a popular female comic in the 20s, but her films mostly survive because of Oliver Hardy cameos, though they're really worth preserving because of hers. Dr, Karnick saw a great film with her as a detective at UCLA saved sfor that very reason. She is working on a book of female comedians of the 20s. They were extremely popular, at times more popular than Chaplin or Keaton. We don't know much about them because predominantly male film historians did not canonize them. Her e-mail address is KKARNICK@iupui.edu, in case anyone is interested in this. She showed a few to me, Katherine, Dr. Bingham, her two kids, and, I think three other people, but not the Dwan film. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:18:27 -0500 (EST) From: ZMaund@aol.com Subject: Please post in Ozzy Digest Gretings: I would appreciate hearing from anyone with access to copies of the M. A. Donohue company's printings of Baum's _The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus_, as well as ~any~ copy of this book in dust jacket. The information will be used for Bibliographia Baumiana, and contributor's names are always spelled correctly in the credits. (!) Thanks in advance, Patrick Maund (ZMaund@AOL.com) ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Nov 97 13:50:41 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things THE "L"-WORD: For the record, Liberals spell just the same way Conservatives do. It's just "in" these days to blame Liberals for everything from inner city crime to the Battle of Hastings... _PATCHWORK GIRL OF OZ_: At least the IEs in _Patchwork_ are a lot of fun and not strictly the mundane "Get the visitors to be just like us" formula. Bear wrote: >Leaving aside the location of Oz, which some of us think is in another >dimension, through a worm hole, on another planet, etc., it is not the >communication that is implausible. It is getting ready to do it. First >both ends need receivers, transmitters, and antennas, no small undertaking. > The transmitters have to have enough power and the antennas enough gain, >and be pointed in the right direction, to get from here to there and the >receivers have to have enough sensitivity to pick out the signal. Then you >have to have the right frequency. Next you have to be on at the right >time. I believe that Glinda's great sorcery found a way to correctly calibrate the wireless at their end, so that it would receive from the correct time, place, dimension, etc. >Finally, have you ever learned Morse Code? We have a data rate >problem here. Sending a whole book by Morse would probably take Shaggy a >year. I assume Shaggy sent Baum an outline of the events that transpired, not a full narrative that Baum just copied verbatim on his typewriter (Baum may have been Royal Historian, but I do credit him with being a writer too). Besides, perhaps Shaggy used a ZIP file or some Huffman Compression technique. :) MOVIES (OZ AND OTHERWISE): Bear wrote: >Thanks for the review of the movies. I bought the set, watched the first >one and never had the stomach to watch the rest. I'm encouraged to give >the rest a try now. Actually, my feeling is that including _Wizard_ in this set of otherwise great Baumian Oz silents makes as much sense as a set of videos of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas that includes _The Pirate Movie_. Dorothy: BTW, anyone here wanna get really depressed? Then watch _Zelly and Me_...A *real* downer... Mombi: And you should have seen Dave's reaction to seeing one of his adolescent heart-throbs Glynis Johns playing a crone who acts like *ME*! HAHAHAHAHA! Jellia: And then we watched _An Affair to Remember_, and now the song _Tomorrowland_ is running interminably through my head! GRRRR!!! -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************