] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 1 - 3, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:15:31 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: oz I have returned from three weeks in London during which I saw 21 plays, three movies and an opera. I also met with the longest term British member of IWOOC, Brian Baker, who described how he found a copy of a "Boy Fortune Hunters" volume in the window of a book shop on Charing Cross Road (he bought it). On my return I found three weeks of Ozzy Digests, and reading those was a major project, probably more brain wearying than 21 plays etc. I have not yet had time to examine the MS of Wonder City to see about the firefly fairy picture and what it may have been in the original. Sahutchi: Just what do you want to know about _Tamawaca Folks_? > > (P.S. I also saw there a Dover reprint of Dick Martin's _Cut and Assemble > the Emerald City_!!!) > > > > -- Dave > This isn't exactly a reprint, DM originally did this for Dover as well as several other Oz Titles. There is a fairly new Russian "Oz" book, this one written and illustrated by Leonid Vladimirskii, the illustrator of the six Volkov books. It is _Pinnocchio in the City of Emeralds_ in which (to judge from the illustrations Pinnocchio (made by Papa Carlo) is taken by James Goodwin (the Wizard) in a balloon to the Magic Land. Urfin Djus (or how you chose to spell it) it the villain with a mass of new wooden soldiers. I just got the book yesterday and I do not read Russian. It's good to be back. I will check _Wonder City_. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:32:52 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Many Days Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Robin - Thanks for the computerese education. It made me LOL. Regarding "Roverandom" - Wait for the paperback unless you just don't care and will buy anything JRR ever wrote. It is interesting to read for the contrast with "The Hobbit." One is a "10" the other is a "2" on "Bear's Universal Scale." Craig - I buy a lot from BOW but I haven't seen the reported flier either. Maybe Dick made it up! :) sahutchi - what is this thing you dumped on us. Why don't you offer a summary and ask if anyone really wants all this. Bell - >* How come in the book the Good Witch of the North doesn't just tell Dorothy her name is Glinda? IIRC, The Good Witch of the North (who is not Glinda by the way) thought Dorothy was a sorceress as she had managed to kill the WWE. Who knew what she was going to do next? Names have power so some practitioners conceal their real names to avoid giving an adversary power over them. Maybe GWN was just being cautious. Dave >_The Wonder City of Oz_ forcasts the election of 1996: Ozma = Clinton, This is the most monstrous and objectionable thing you have ever said on the Digest. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:04:52 -0500 (EST) From: CrNoble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-29-98 Hey folks, At the risk of sparking another political debate, I thought I'd share the following story from the Associated Press: "Heston Speaks at Blunt Fund-Raiser .c The Associated Press SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) - Charlton Heston says the Clinton White House reminds him of some characters in ``The Wizard of Oz.'' But the 75-year-old Heston told people at a fund-raiser for Rep. Roy Blunt on Saturday that ``you'll have to sort out for yourself who they are.'' Blunt, also without naming names, said some Clinton aides remind him of the Scarecrow (no brain), the Tin Man (no heart), the Lion (no courage) and the Wizard (a phony). Heston, a vice president of the National Rifle Association, said ``the fabric of our culture'' is being torn apart and that the country seems to have become ``a nation of warring gypsy camps, each with its own agenda.'' Blunt, who is seeking a second term from a conservative southwest Missouri district, also said tighter gun control laws would not have prevented the tragedy at an elementary school in Jonesboro, Ark., in which four children and their teacher were gunned down, allegedly by two young students. AP-NY-03-29-98 1336EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press. " ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:20:32 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-98 > * Why does Glinda wear that snood? She's the only adult female in the > series who does so. Is this symbolic? Does it mean that the poor dear is > repressed? > --Robin No, but if she's like my mom, her clothes are ;-). Until later, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:42:54 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz controversies and copyrights Sender: "J. L. Bell" To all who think Glinda's statement on LAND, p. 242, means that she had a notebook collecting what her spies observed about the Wizard, not a Magic Book recording all that happens in the world,... ...that would be just what Glinda wanted folks to think, isn't it? Dover may have issued MAGIC out of order because it saw two reasons this volume would be more profitable than those it skipped: 1) Dorothy and the Wizard on the front, meaning more sales 2) smaller page count, meaning less cost Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Quite true, but he does seem to have perfected a way to bring many of Oz's young men to his home to spend all their time working out. Nathan DeHoff also wrote: <> By having Kabumpo and Randy discuss the number of years he's lived at the start of SILVER PRINCESS, I think Thompson meant to prepare us to accept him as marriageable. I also sensed Randy aging somewhat, or at least emotionally maturing, over the course of the story. Thompson does much the same in KABUMPO, establishing that Pompa is not merely 18 but even older by the calendar. (I don't recall anything similar in GRAMPA, though.) Robin Olderman asked: <> He seldom calls, he never writes, he spends most of his time playing sports with his friends...what's a young teenage girl to do? Dave Hardenbrook posited: <> That explains why the only song Tik-Tok knows is, "Share and En-joy." Tyler Jones wrote: <> This was actually the only one of my deliberately provocative statements that I adhere to. Kramer carries off some nifty graphic effects, such as the meeting of Cap'n Bill and Button-Bright with their Mimic doppelgangers (MIMICS, p. 184), the reverse angle of Dorothy and the Wizard with the Hi-Los (MIMICS, pp. 92, 162), the Jones twins (SHAGGY, p.15), and the invisible barrier (SHAGGY, p. 203). Like Neill, Kramer put a lot more character into older faces (Shaggy on SHAGGY, p. 26; Wizard on MIMICS, p. 236) than into the faces of children. His Dorothy seems more changeable than Alice when she's eating mushrooms (see especially MIMICS, p. 131). I think Martin's illustrations are the most cartoony of the Oz artists, including Denslow. Three of his five Oz books, it's true, come late in his career, when many artists' ability or patience for drawing detail goes down. But even in MERRY-GO-ROUND his art looks flat to me. I admire Martin for much else, including his role in keeping up interest in Oz, his own Oz writing, and his being a better artist than Dirk, but I find Kramer a more interesting draftsman. What would be the ingredients of the ideal Oz artist? I'd blend the energy and imagination of Neill with the facial range and precision of Shanower, and add a few spoonfuls of Kramer's graphic styling. (I don't mean to denigrate Denslow, but his style is so sui generis and in many ways so 19th-century that it wouldn't blend well with others.) Bob Spark wrote: <> I read this slim volume some years ago, and found it in equal parts interesting and frustrating. Interesting because Rushdie is one of my favorite contemporary writers, because he came at the MGM movie from a non-Western culture, and because he has highly insightful things to say about the movie's opening scenes. Frustrating because over half of the book is about those opening scenes, before Dorothy meets the Scarecrow. He rushes through the rest of the movie in 15 pages. I suspect Rushdie was commissioned to write a certain number of words for BFI Film Classics, a "cookie cutter" series in which each volume may well be the same size (and each volume named after the movie it discusses). Rushdie might have had so much to say that he filled up the space he was allotted--or paid for--too quickly. That view leads me to hope that some day, in a world without homicidal fatwas, Rushdie might cast his analytical eyes on the rest of the film. Rushdie's own children's fantasy, HAROUN AND THE SEA OF STORIES, while not entirely successful, is quite good in parts. There's more than a little SKY ISLAND in its plot, though there's no indication Rushdie read that book. Indeed, he never even read WIZARD as a child--he just saw the movie. Has anyone been following the U.S. copyright bill that was passed by the House of Representatives and is soon to be debated in the Senate? After lobbying from Disney, Time Warner, and other wealthy holders of copyrights from the 1920s and '30s, Congress is on the verge of extending the term of current copyrights for twenty more years. This would, I believe, affect the ease with which Books of Wonder and other firms can reissue Thompson's earlier Oz books as they enter the public domain, and the freedom of new writers to use the characters and places she invented in those books without permission from her estate. But there's a broader philosophical issue here. Since the birth of our republic, copyright was intended to encourage the spread of ideas by giving authors a *temporary* monopoly on their expression of those ideas. The authors benefit for their lifetimes (and in most cases their children benefit as well), but copyrights were never meant to be a legacy for grandchildren and shareholders nearly a century later. Works were always supposed to enter the public domain, existing thereafter for the benefit of the public. The same thinking governs patent law. When politicians argue for a lower capital-gains tax, they insist they're not simply benefiting the already-rich, whose taxes would go down the most. Rather, those elected officials say, they want to encourage people to make new investments. The same logic should apply to copyrights. The law should be written to encourage new creativity, not reward those who live off others' creations--even if they've grown wealthy enough to lobby Congress. Otherwise, those politicians reveal that they really do mean to benefit the already-rich at the expense of the public. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 07:00:45 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - Pasta Is the palindrome true, no pasta in our favorite fairy-land? IN OZ, NO RONZONI. Earl Abbe (returning after months off-line) _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 14:23:00 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Ozzy Scrabblegram Dave L. Hardenbrook wrote: > QUESTIONS FROM ROBIN: > >* What do the Scarecrow and Scraps do all night when they're on an > > adventure together while they wait for the meat people to wake up? > > Play scrabble?? Explanatory note to Scrabblegram recepients: This is from the Ozzy Digest, another mail list I am on. Explanatory note to Ozzy digesters: about 5 times/week, I anagram all the tiles of the English language Scrabble (r) Brand Crossword Game into a topical /bon mot/. So, this comment inspired me to submit the following (parens enclose blank tiles): Jovial ingenuous Patchwork Girl and Scare(c)row of Oz arise, bide time, play text game of board and tile. I envy those unique(s)! --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 21:00:38 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Bompi >I think my connection to class and caste was somewhere along the lines of by tying the idea of leadership to animals, or nature, it made the idea of some animals being better/smarter/etc than otehrs seem inevitable and natural. For children, this could lead to false beliefs about power and ruling. You'll have to excuse me, sometimes I get a little out of control . . . Bless you, when you get out of college you will find out these beliefs are not false but "inevitable and natural." Only in school do natural things become unnatural. Some day I hope we will be able to change that. Maybe when all of the Hippies who went into teaching in the 60's are on Social Security. :) sahutchi >I haven't read _Scarecrow_ since grade 4 and need to re-read it, but I probably won't have time. Come on Scott, this is really lame. We need your insight. Read it while you are eating or performing other intimate functions. It's not that long and you have two weeks. Sheeesh. Spark - Where did you find the "Little Satan's" critique book? I have been looking for it for years. Robin - I don't know about the rest of your questions but as to the "snood," it is a real turn-on to the more mature. Put one on and check it out! Glinda is definitely not repressed. Peter - Thanks for clearing that up. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 21:41:56 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz errata Sender: "J. L. Bell" A couple of correctives to my last posting... I miscounted the number of Oz-related books Dick Martin illustrated; I should have said four of his six came later in his career. Also, as I thought I'd recalled (from having checked a copy for how it treated the Tottenhot remarks), Dover has issued RINKITINK. I saw a copy in a store this evening--color plates reproduced in black and white. So has it skipped LOST PRINCESS and TIN WOODMAN only? J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 98 15:04:41 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things PINNGARF@jkhbhrc.byu.edu raleigh@minn.net Duglor@connectnet.com Can someone E-mail the above three people and inform them that their servers are bouncing the Digest with a "Bad return address" error? If no one can get through, I will remove them from the Digest... RUSSIAN OZ: Steve T. wrote: >There is a fairly new Russian "Oz" book, this one written and >illustrated by Leonid Vladimirskii, the illustrator of the six Volkov >books... Ozma: You mean there's a parallel universe in which I never existed, the Scarecrow is still king, and everyone speaks Russian?? Wizard: And my name is J. Goodwin and not Oscar Zoraster P.I.N.H.E.A. Diggs?? POLITICS IN OZ: Craig wrote: >Blunt, also without naming names, said some Clinton aides remind him of the >Scarecrow (no brain), the Tin Man (no heart), the Lion (no courage)... Ozma: Make a note, Jellia...Another politician who has totally missed the point of _The Wizard of Oz_... TO J.L. BELL: I agree with your statements about copyright...BTW FWIW I understood that your "Topic List" was meant to be "deliberately provocative" even if some on the Digest didn't... DOVER'S MAGIC: Well, I had a chance to trot down to Borders again, and it is now Confirmed: Dover edition of _Magic of Oz_, printed 1998! IT'S A NEW BOOK!!!!!! J.L. Bell wrote: >Also, as I thought I'd recalled (from having checked a copy for how it >treated the Tottenhot remarks), Dover has issued RINKITINK. I saw a copy in >a store this evening--color plates reproduced in black and white. So has it >skipped LOST PRINCESS and TIN WOODMAN only? They also skipped Scarecrow...In fact, they published _Rinkitink_ before _Tik-Tok_! The fact they have yet to do _Scarecrow_ makes me doubt that they're going for the books for whose names or cover illos the MGM movie would have "coat-tails"...As for saving money by putting out a shorter book like _Magic_...Maybe, but why did they bother to put the money into doing the color plates in color? (They've previously reproduced the color plates in black and white in all except _Wizard_ and _Land_) ... I think they're trying to openly compete with Books of Wonder! -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 4 - 5, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 14:18:29 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-98 Robin: Live Entertainment released _The Runestone_ in 1991. I own a copy. It's not hard to find. Blockbuster probably won't have it, but I don't think I've been to a Video Update that doesn't. I'll have to go back and find my e-mail with the questions, as it dealt with characters and who they really are, and I had to return the bound Xerox copy I read. Craig: I looked, but could not find a Dover Magic of Oz at either Borders or Barnes and Noble. Too bad :( Scott ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 06:13:28 -0500 From: Richard Randolph Subject: Ozzy Digest 4-3-98 Bear - Ah, ye of little faith! :) (Thanks, Peter G, for bailing me out. Steve T. - So, what did you do for fun, while in London? :) Jno Bell - I agree with your comments regarding the illustrations of Kramer over Dick Martin. But, in your "ingredients of the ideal Oz artist", I'd also add a spoonful or two of Melody Grandy. Dick ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 07:12:01 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - Rushdie on Sale & Ads Speaking of Salman Rushdie's essay on the MGM movie, I received a film study catalog this week from Indiana University Press (www.indiana.edul~iupress or 800-842-6796). In it Rushdie's little volume is offered for $8.75 (down from $10.95). And speaking of ads, in my post in the April 1-3 Digest I see my free e-mail provider put its ad into my mailing. Sorry, I did not know that was happening. If it continues, I will find another e-mail provider. Earl Abbe _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 06:52:52 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-98 Hey Y'all, About Rushdie's "The Wizard of Oz", Bear: > Spark - Where did you find the "Little Satan's" critique > book? I have been looking for it for years. > I got it through an interlibrary loan, but Amazon.com has it for $7.96. CrNoble, I find Charleton Heston to be an odious reactionary and resent finding his blather in this civilized forum. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 18:58:49 +0200 From: Bill Wright Subject: oz digest Here is an email I received today. I'm posting it to the digest in the event anyone is interested. If so, please respond directly to Diane. Bill in Ozlo -------------------------email follows----------- Not sure you can help me but, I have two very rare editions of The Wizard of Oz I need to sell to help put kids through college. Would you be interested in considering buying them. They are in excellent condition? One Wizard of Oz Bobb Merrill Publisher 3rd printing1903 WW Denslow Illustrater One Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz 1908 John Neil Illustrater Reilly Company first edition. Diane FORSON@aol.com -------------end email----------------- ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 13:45:25 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Children of a Lesser Oz A&E Channel aired a biographic show about Marlee Matlin on Wednesday. The first acting role she had? Dorothy in a stage production of "Wizard of Oz" an a deaf performing arts school. Guess she signed OSL (Ozzian Sign Language) --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 15:14:39 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Thanks for locating and pulling out the relevant development- of-undying-Ozites quotations. // "monarchism is fundamentally a childish system" -- nicely put. Nathan DeHoff: I'd guess that painted straw would not taste good (to those with digestions set for straw), even though it worked for stuffing the Scarecrow? Robin Olderman & Dave Hardenbrook: I don't think Scrabble would do for a nighttime activity -- too hard to see the letters without lighting enough lights to wake the sleepers. (But Michael Turniansky's Scrabble-pated anagram for it is fun.) Maybe mental chess, which the Scarecrow might enjoy, although perhaps not Scraps. Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise practice acrobatics? Steve Teller: Sounds like a nicely crammed journey. Bob Spark & J.L. Bell: Yes, Rushdie's essay on the MGM "Wizard" is fascinating. J.L.'s s suggestion that it's overloaded with discussion of the opening because he was writing to a word-limit sounds plausible. He mentions in it that his portrait of Indira Gandhi in "Midnight's Children" as a green-faced witch was probably influenced by the movie. Also probably an influence was his use of winged monkeys briefly in "Haroun and the Sea of Stories." J.L. also asked if some of us are following the copyright developments. I sent a message on the topic that apparently didn't get through to Dave, so I'll repeat: The NY Times had an article Saturday about the current state of copyright debating. As was discussed here previously, the current copyright law grants copyright for a period of 75 years from the date of publication, or 50 years from the date of the author's death, whichever is longer. For works which had been copyrighted before the current law was passed (in 1976), the copyright term was extended to 75 years from the date of publication. (Previously, it had been 56 years.) The House at this point has passed a bill extending the copyright an additional 20 years (I assume that means 95 from date of publication, or 70 from date of death, whichever ditto). The Senate has not yet acted. (The 56-years-period had been in place since 1909. Previously, U.S. copyright laws had been enacted in 1831, when the term was set at 28 years plus option of renewing for 14 more; and 1790, when protection ran for two 14-year terms.) Meanwhile, it is being debated (passive tense because I can't make out from the article who is debating -- the House, a Committee of the House, or lobbyists who would like the House to take it up) that copyright should be not just extended but made perpetual. The idea of making copyright perpetual strikes me as a Bad Idea. It would grant immense benefits to the heirs of the few most-popular-properties (the Disney Corporation and the Gershwin estate would be in the catbird seat), and lower (probably small?) benefits to the heirs of the other properties. To offset those benefits, it would make the use of these properties more expensive to the general public, and would make arranging to get rights to make properties available to the gp more complicated (much more complicated? complicated enough to make some or many or most such properties unavailable?) over time, as the number of heirs to be consulted increased. Actually, even the idea of adding 20 years to the current copyright period sounds like a bad idea, on balance. (Oz fans who want to publish original Oz stories using Thompson characters, of course, have special reasons for objecting to that additional 20 years.) Do others of you have ideas about the benefits/drawbacks of the proposed changes -- and information about where comments might most usefully be sent? --- To which I'd add that I've sent letters to my senators and representative. If any of you know the names of the relevant Senate and House committees and their heads, I'd like to write them, too. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 17:41:50 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Digest: WONDERCITY PIX Before I left the question had arisen concerning the picture on pp [134-35] of THE WONDER CITY OF OZ showing a woman, persumably Jenny Jump wearing a broad brimmed hat and a cloak with wide collars speaking to a group of fairies, who have a variety of expressions on their faces. From the text of the book this would seem to be Jenny asking the Firefly Fairies to provide light to drive away the Heelers. However the Heelers and the Firefly Fairies are not in Neill's MS for the book. On page 206 there is a picture of a woman wearing the same hat and cloak speaking to two men. From the text of the book this could be Number Nine's mother and the two gnomes, except the men look nothing like the gnomes as shown on page 197 and the woman does not llok like Number Nine's mother if it is she in the back on p. 55. There is one other picture of a woman in that hat and cape and that is on the chapter head of Chapter 2 on page 25. Here it would seem to be definitely Jenny Jump. Indeed we are told "She put on a hat and a cape" on page 23. The only appearance of fairies in the MS is in chapter 1, pages 2 and 3: "She [Jenny] wouldn't go around with plain people and the thoroughbred fairies wouldn't go around with her when they fouond out that she tattled and repeated stories. For this reason she had been but out of every fairy band she had ever been connected with. Even the little Romance Club asked her to leave. The president of the club advised her to walk one way while the vice-president suggested she keep going in the opposity direcrtion to make her going as easy as possible. "This had happened before Jenny Jump had ever come to Oz, when she lived in the highlands of New Jersey under the mountains that still bear her name. Here, in abandoned mines, the fairies have built lovely little villiages connected by highways running under the stone walls. "Jenny's claim to these mountains was a very old claim and she thought the fairies should pay her rent. This was one of the biggest mistakes she made. Then she bewitched a lawyer to defend her claim. But worst of off was a large sign with her name: JENNY JUMP'S SUCCESS CO. which she put in a conspicuous place. It aroused the fairies against her so much they led her away to prison and kept her locked up for a long time and hoped she would give in, but she wouldn't. "Finally she and her sign were brought before a fairy court amd eacj of the judges put her mark on the sign, and Jenny's dream of riches was completely shattered for the fairies had proved her success was only dollars and cents-- "IT ALL EQUALLED NOTHING. "Her lawyer had been put into a deep sleep and was talking in his sleep during the trial and long after it was over. "The judgement of the court was hard on Jenny. She was banished from Jersey and forbidden ever to return. "She was an outcast." It is possible that the two page spread on [134-35] is Jenny making her claim on the fairies land or perhaps repeating stories. The picture on page 206 might be Jenny talking to her lawyer. This is only a guess, but it is the only explanation I can come up with that meets the facts of the MS. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:53:24 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest Hello Ozzy Digesters: Well, I finally got bold and put a pic of myself on my website!! So, I would like to invite you to meet me in cyberspace! The pic is a bit small because I am with some of my friends from Oz. LOL!! And, just a warning for you literary fans, this is another MGM themed Oz "thingy". In any event, I hope you will check out the page. The direct URL is: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6396/aboutme.htm I have made lots of changes to my website in the last few months and have lots of new stuff in the works! Thanks again to all of you who have sent kind emails and are regular visitors to my site! P.S. Robert Collinge: Good Luck with your 1st annual New England Oz Festival!! I will be there in "Ozzy" spirit. I would LOVE to see the Wizard of Oz on that domed ceiling! Sounds like great fun!!! And ... P.S.S. If you haven't already ... check out the Ruby Slippers Fan Club at URL: http://users.delta.com/rainbowz/rubyslipperfanclub/ ... because there you will see LOTS of interesting "stuff" about the Ruby Slippers including some pics of my Ruby Slipper's Collectibles!! Your friend from Oz, Jim Whitcomb of ... Jim's "Wizard of Oz" Website URL: http://www.geocites.com/Hollywood/Hills/6396/ ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 22:45:35 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: The Name of the Oz Sender: "J. L. Bell" Steve Teller, I'll be interested to read about whatever you unearth from the WONDER CITY manuscript. Please note Ruth Berman's link of the "firefly fairy" spread with the picture of "Number Nine's mother" with the "Nomes" elsewhere in the book. [I'd say "earlier" or "later," but with WONDER CITY it's so hard to remember.] That might be an extra clue, or an extra complication. In response to my cheeky question about the Good Witch of the North "in the book," Richard Bauman added: <> I know this is traditional in many fantasies (Susan Cooper's THE DARK IS RISING is my favorite example), but are there Baum stories in which knowing a name gives someone power over that person? A while back Ruth Berman noted how many "sketchy," unnamed characters there are in LIL WIZARD STORIES: a man, two children, a lady and her baby. She rightly saw those characters' flatness as contributing to rather flat tales. On the other hand, spare use of names distinguishes WIZARD from later Oz books, I think. In that book Baum often names characters by identity: "the Scarecrow." As in LIL WIZARD, there are creatures identified by their position within their community: Queen of the Field Mice, King of the Winged Monkeys, China Princess. There are generic crowds, like the Wizard's courtiers and the Winkies. Omby Amby and Jellia Jamb debut in WIZARD, but not by name: they're the Soldier with the Green Whiskers and the "green girl." The Guardian of the Gates also appears (and continues to guard his name tightly in later books). Even without names, however, many of the WIZARD people seem distinct: for instance, the family Dorothy meets in Chap. X, the father ill in bed and telling stories. [Remind us of any families the Baum children would have known?] Another way to measure this trend is to count how few Ozians in WIZARD have names: I think they're Oz, Boq, Nick Chopper, Gayelette, Quelala, Mr. Joker, and Glinda. That's few relative to Baum's later books. To me that pattern makes WIZARD more primal and archetypal than the other Oz books. The political struggles of Mombi, Jinjur, Glinda, and Ozma are nuanced because each is an individual. But the Good Witch of the North, the Wicked Witches of the East and West--we don't need to know anything more about them, do we? The young-child world of WIZARD becomes a bit more complex in the later books. Bompi wrote: <> As Richard Bauman says, it's "inevitable and natural" that some animals are better or smarter than others, especially in a given situation. But you're right that simple-minded extrapolations from that reality lead to the "false belief" that certain individuals should be rulers. The collective wisdom of the community is almost always better than the thoughts of even the most intelligent individual. Especially when the animals are human. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 10:38:33 -0600 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-26-98 thru 04-02-98 I'm back from Tennessee for the time being, with a few Digests to catch up with. 3/26: Mike: > Gaudapoochie? Sounds an awful lot lkike Rootie-Kazootie's dog, >Gallapoochie... If there's a connection it's Guadapoochee that inspired Gallapoochie. Guadapoochee dates back to at least the early '40s, which I'm reasonably sure Rootie Kazootie doesn't. J.L.: I can't really regard the opinions of later commentators as authoritative regarding the vegetarianism of Ozites, when the Royal Historians have described the eating of meat on several occasions. Probably the most conclusive is in _Ojo_, when Realbad kills and roasts a couple of birds and he and Ojo and Snufferbux eat them. > When she reveals her Magic Book to Dorothy, Glinda says, "it told me you >were all coming to my castle, and why" (EM CITY, p. 292). She has the same >knowledge when the Scarecrow and his party come to her in LAND--the >Scarecrow even states her reputation: "nothing that goes on in the Land of >Oz escapes her notice" (p. 238). How does Glinda come by such knowledge >without the Book? If she already has such knowledge, why would she feel the >need for the Book, and why would she be unable to track Ugu or Wutz without >it? Glinda clearly has lots of magic powers besides the GBR. In the case of Ugu, he stole not only the GBR but all her other magical equipment; there's a strong implication that once she had time to reconstruct the appropriate devices, she'd have been able to find Ozma and rescue her, but that it would take considerable time and that others might as well see if they could accelerate the rescue while she worked on new equipment. By the time of Wutz she had gotten used to relying on the GBR for her information and probably didn't have the necessary equipment or ingredients ready at hand at the time the GBR was stolen. As for the need for the book, she didn't _need_ the book any more than we need E-mail - but both reduce the amount of effort one must put into activities that are desirable, and therefore would be used when they're available. Tzvi: >I recall from one of the Oz books the Scarecrow getting wet and making a big >deal out of it (being spread out to dry etc.). I tried to remember where >this occurs, (_Tin Man_ ?) with no success. In LWS the Scarecrow comes out >of the water uneffected. It happens more than once - in _Land_ during the initial escape from Jinjur, and in _Scarecrow_ after he falls into the waterfall. There may be other occasions as well, but those are two I remember. Jeremy: >Mary Russel's book: >Personally, I never saw a moor > I never saw the sea > But know I how the heather looks > And what a wave must be . . . >(Dickinson) An amusing note on that poem: someone translated it into Spanish, and misunderstood "moor" to mean a Muslim of Spain and therefore translated it as "Moro." This led to a further mistranslation of "heather" as "pagano," since the influence of the first word caused the translator to misread "heather" as "heathen." (Something I ran across in VERBATIM once.) Dave: >_WIZARD_ PLAY: >Anyone catch the ads on American Movie Classics about the stage version >of _Wizard of Oz_ ( MGM of course :| )...Bob Dorian is obviously proud to be >in it but he doesn't say who *he* plays! (Mickey Rooney is the Wizard >and Eartha Kitt is the WWW.) My recollection is that Dorian plays the Cowardly Lion. There was a review of it in the paper yesterday (the road show is currently playing Chicago), and if it's of great interest to anyone I can dig it out - but yesterday's paper is already in the recycling bin, so I won't do it unless somebody asks. (And you need to ask before Monday night when the recycling stuff goes out to the curb.) Glinda with Jellia Jamb - or anyone, with the possible exception of Ozma - runs into the problem of strength in the opposite direction; Glinda is so much the most powerful person in Oz that she's going to dominate anytime she's onstage (which is undoubtedly why she rarely is). _Scarecrow in two weeks (or more like one, now) is fine with me. 3/29: Scott H.: In _Emerald City_ the Wizard says he gave the Sawhorse sawdust brains when he last replace his ears, and that because the sawdust was made from hard knots the Sawhorse could think out many hard and knotty problems. Since this was before LWS, we can assume that the Sawhorse was intelligent in the latter stories. (I think the brains must have run out before _Scalawagons_, though...) 3/31: Bob C.: Hope your New England Oz party goes well. (By analogy with the Oogaboos in the Northwest, should you be called the Keretarians?) Wish I could be there, but I've been traveling most of the last month and a half - or so it seems - and I want to stay home for a little while. I still have two trips to Tennessee and one to Detroit planned within the next two months. Nathan: I don't think we've ever seen Glinda's reflection in a mirror; she could be using Zixi's spell. Of course, there's the question I've raised before as to whether Zixi's spell just has the side effect of making her look old and ugly in her own eyes, although her body and face in fact retain their youth. I don't think that Zixi's apparent youth can be considered an illusion; she does too many things that would be beyond the physical abilities of a centenarian, much less someone who's lived over 600 years. It doesn't say that Randy still looks ten years old at the beginning of _Silver Princess_; Kabumpo says he must be sixteen but doesn't look it. The fact that Uncle Hoochafoo thinks he's old enough to marry - and so does he, after he meets Planetty - suggests to me that he probably looks around 14 or so. And once he's married he'll probably let himself grow another few years. Bompi: >I think my connection to class and caste was somewhere along the lines of by >tying the idea of leadership to animals, or nature, it made the idea of some >animals being better/smarter/etc than otehrs seem inevitable and natural. >For children, this could lead to false beliefs about power and ruling. Not sure what you mean. Some animals _are_ smarter than others, both within a given species and from species to species. (I mean, barring pathological cases, all dogs are smarter than all horses, and all pigs are smarter than all dogs, and all chimpanzees are smarter than all pigs, and all humans are smarter than all chimps.) "Better," of course, is a separate issue; there you're looking at a value judgment and not at an objective fact. What "false beliefs about power and ruling" did you have in mind? Robin: >* Why do Dorothy, Trot, Betsy, and Ozma never grow up? Because they don't want to. Now the question becomes, why don't they want to? For the first three the answer seems easy: who'd want to be a teen-ager if they didn't have to? Since Ozma is already a teen-ager (acto Baum), it would seem that she'd rather grow up into a twentysomething, but maybe she doesn't want to leave the other girls too far behind? (Then there's Dave's theory...) >* What do the Scarecrow and Scraps do all night when they're on an adventure together while they wait for the meat people to wake up? Talk in low voices, according to some of the books. >* How long is Gureeda s'posed to wait for Speedy to return, anyway? ILTT that Speedy returned fairly shortly after the events of his eponymous book, probably when he was about 16 or so. (I estimate him to have been about 13 at the time of the book.) We've never seen Umbrella Island or any of its inhabitants since that book (in a canonical source), so there's no reason to believe that Gureeda had to wait very long. >* Does Button Bright really get lost a lot, or is that just his excuse for escaping responsibility? I think he really gets lost a lot. >* How could owning a dishpan influence the making of cookies? Are you s'posed to bake inside the dishpan? Ugh! The dishpan is magic, and its magic permeates the kitchen it's in so that Cayke's cookies come out perfect every time. I'm sure she didn't bake the cookies in the dishpan; that's never suggested, and if she did then it would be a cookie pan and not a dishpan. * Why does Glinda wear that snood? She's the only adult female in the series who does so. Is this symbolic? Does it mean that the poor dear is repressed? Nah, it means she's an Orthodox Jew... :-) Peter G.: Thanks for the clarification on the mailing for your new Oz books. I was beginning to wonder if I'd missed an Oz Collector. Tyler: I like Martin better than Kramer too, though they're not really all that comparable. Kramer, like Neill and Shanower, was a "realistic" artist, though I don't think he was in the class of the other two. Martin, like Denslow and "Dirk," was more of a cartoonist. Either style is valid, but it's hard to compare them. I don't think Martin made Dorothy look like a Barbie doll. Like Barbie's little sister (Skipper, wasn't it?), maybe, but not like Barbie. 4/2: Craig: Heston and Blunt obviously don't understand the idea behind _The Wizard of Oz_, which was that the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Cowardly Lion _did_ have brains, heart, and courage respectively; they just thought they didn't. But it's not surprising that a pair of right-wingers would insult the Clinton administration using any metaphor they cared to. We see it often enough on the Digest, and that's even though we all make a conscious effort to avoid it. >Heston, a vice president of the National Rifle Association, said ``the fabric >of our culture'' is being torn apart and that the country seems to have become >``a nation of warring gypsy camps, each with its own agenda.'' I do find that line rather offensive. What he means is that everyone doesn't kowtow to the WASP elite any more. J.L.: Although Neill draws Tatters as quite young - he looks around 12 - there's no textual evidence that I can find that he's even a teen-ager; he could easily be twentyish. He's called the "young prince," but that could apply to any age up to thirty or so. And finding a princess to marry is one of his goals on their journey, so it must be that the other Ragbadians think of him as of marriageable age. > When politicians argue for a lower capital-gains tax, they insist they're >not simply benefiting the already-rich, whose taxes would go down the most. >Rather, those elected officials say, they want to encourage people to make >new investments. The same logic should apply to copyrights. The law should >be written to encourage new creativity, not reward those who live off >others' creations--even if they've grown wealthy enough to lobby Congress. >Otherwise, those politicians reveal that they really do mean to benefit the >already-rich at the expense of the public. Benefiting the already-rich at the expense of the public is the goal of all Republican and most Democratic politicians, since the already-rich are the ones who finance their campaigns. They'd rather not reveal that goal if they can help it, but if they have to they will. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 98 00:45:05 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things "OZ ON CHARON" UPDATE: Just thought I'd mention: Ann Druyan is apparently currently on tour, along with being preoccupied with the latest lawsuit against the Sagan estate (from Random House), so I don't know when if ever I'll get a reply from her. POLITICS: Sorry to be a spoilsport, but Ozma has requested that I ask Ozzy Digest members to move the discussion of gun control and/or Charlton Heston to private E-mail. Aujah: Who the hippikaloric *is* Charlton Heston anyway?! Aurah: He's the guy who always says, "Go ahead, make my diurnal anamoly!" Aujah: Are you sure?? I thought that was Clint Westwood! Audah: *I* thought that was Shwartzaneggar... Aurah: No, no! *He's* the guy who always says, "Au revior, baby!" GAMES STUFFED PEOPLE PLAY: Ruth wrote: >I don't think Scrabble would do for a nighttime activity... >Maybe mental chess, which the Scarecrow might enjoy, although perhaps >not Scraps. Why do you surmise that the Scarecrow would like chess but not Scraps? >Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise >practice acrobatics? Provided that they have night vision... COPYRIGHTS: Thanks, Ruth, for the info. on the new copyright legistlation. Ruth wrote: >(Oz fans who want to publish original Oz stories using >Thompson characters, of course, have special reasons for objecting >to that additional 20 years.) Or Neill's characters, especially. (Hippikaloric, if this law passes we may have colonies on the moon before Neill's characters go PD!) >To which I'd add that I've sent letters to my senators and representative. >If any of you know the names of the relevant Senate and House committees >and their heads, I'd like to write them, too. Try , search for word/phrase "copyright"... ILLUSTRATORS: Dick R. wrote: >But, in your "ingredients of the ideal Oz artist", I'd also add a spoonful >or two of Melody Grandy. Make that five rounded tablespoons! :) I'd even place Melody above Shanower! (Melody's illios are maybe not as intricately detailed, but they are IMO much more Ozzily whimsical!) GLINDA: David H. wrote: >>* Why does Glinda wear that snood? She's the only adult female in the >> series who does so. Is this symbolic? Does it mean that the poor dear >> is repressed? >Nah, it means she's an Orthodox Jew... :-) Naw! Glinda is a druid (reformed)! :) :) "THAT FAMOUS PINBALL SMILE": David H. wrote: >Since Ozma is already a teen-ager (acto Baum), it >would seem that she'd rather grow up into a twentysomething, but maybe she >doesn't want to leave the other girls too far behind? (Then there's Dave's >theory...) BTW, some of you guys think *my* ideas about Ozma are ultra-heretical...? The Adepts have just come to me with their new theory that Ozma is in fact leading a double life aboard a big red spaceship on which she has a degree in astronavigation, refers to the Sawhorse as "Trumper", has as her favorite snack a glass of Ozade with a bowl of cottage cheese with pinapple chunks in, and has contrivened fairy law and gotten emotionally involved with a guy whose favorite catch-phrase is "Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas"! :) :) :) Jellia: Geez! The things Dave writes when it's two in the morning and he's punchy! :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 6 - 8, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 23:50:13 -0500 (EST) From: ZMaund Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-98 Greetings: My wife this morning gave birth to a healthy baby girl: "Veronica Maund." In haste, Patrick ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:09:51, -0500 From: NQAE93A@prodigy.com (MR ROBERT J COLLINGE) Subject: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Jim W., David Hulan, and others: Thanks for the well wishes for the NE Oz party. We have close to 70 people registered as I write. >Hope your New England Oz party goes well. (By analogy with the Oogaboos in the Northwest, should you be called the Keretarians?)< We thought of doing this but could not come up with anything. Which book are the Keretarians in? I checked the northeast corner of the Oz maps, and didn't see anything we thought we could use. There is always next year. For those of you interested in the National tour of "The Wizard of Oz", you should check out www.ozontour.com . It gives bios of all the actors. Bob C. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:27:05 -0400 (EDT) From: CrNoble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Bob Spark, My intention was not to invoke your resentment. I doubt you disagree with Charleton Heston's philosophy any more than I do. I usually post Oz-related stories to the Ozzy Digest when I see them. I do this in the same spirit as I performed my former career as a journalist - to inform and educate about current events, in this case a story with an angle relevant to members of this forum. Again, sorry to offend. Craig Noble >I find Charleton Heston to be an odious reactionary and resent finding his blather in this civilized forum. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 13:44:08 -0700 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: Ozzy Digest John Bell: The Tin Woodman's name is not mentioned in _Wizard_. I believe that it was used in the stage play, but it was not mentioned in the books until _Land_. Since Dorothy knew Nick's name in _Ozma_, I suppose we can assume that he told her sometime during the story, but Baum did not reveal this to us. Copyrights: I do not really have anything to add, but I am also against the extension of copyrights. My initial reaction was that it would hinder my ability to use copyrighted Oz characters in my own writings, but, on a less selfish level, the arguments that other Digest-ers have come up with are quite valid, IMHO. David: >I think the brains must have run out before _Scalawagons_, though... Along with Ozma's, Glinda's, Dorothy's, Besty's, Kabumpo's, etc. IMHO, Neill wasn't that effective at portraying already established characters, but he was pretty good with his own. Dave: >>Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise >>practice acrobatics? > >Provided that they have night vision... I believe that the Scarecrow can see in the dark in _Wizard_. Scraps probably doesn't have very good night vision, though, since she has to rely on Bungle's in _Patchwork Girl_. -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff vovat@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "All I know could be defaced by the facts in the life of Chess Piece Face." ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 14:53:50 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-98 Bear: I'm in trhe last month of a semester with fifteen credit hours, that's why I can't read as much (unrelated to school) as I would like. I've never figured out why someone would want to make himself look like an ignoramus by saying the Scarecrow has no brain, etc... Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:34:33 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 James: From that picture you look like you could be Patrick Maund's brother! ;) On the Road to Wizdom... Against all Oz (1989) 1989 Directed by Mike Mallare Written by L. Frank Baum (books) Produced by Debbie Marzulli for On the Road to Wizdom... Against all Oz (1989) (1=awful, 10=excellent) Wiz, The (1978/II) 1978 Color Genre/keyword: Musical / Documentary / fantasy / still-photography / photography Directed by Susan Simmons Cast (in alphabetical order) Hinton Battle .... Scarecrow Dee Dee Bridgewater .... Glinda, the Good Witch of the South Andr5 De Shields .... The Wiz Tiger Haynes .... Tin Man Mabel King .... Evillene, the Wicked Witch of the West Stephanie Mills .... Dorothy Nancy .... Toto Phylicia Rashad .... Munchkin/Field Mouse (as Phylicia Ayres Allen) Ted Ross .... Lion Otis Sallid .... Chorus Clarice Taylor .... Addaperle, the Good Witch of the North Tasha Thomas .... Aunt Em Written by L. Frank Baum (novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz) William F. Brown (play) Donna Cribari Cinematography by Martha Swope Music by Charlie Smalls Luther Vandross (song "Everybody Rejoice") Film Editing by Donna Cribari Links with other titles Those of you impressed with Rana Haugen's Jellia portrayal will be happy to see that she was in an independent film in 1996, _Disturbing the Peace_/American Dream_, by Thomas Patrick Smith. Hopefully, this last one might irritate some people: Hollywood Road to Oz, The (1990) (TV) 1990 Language: English Cast (in credits order) Charlton Heston .... Host Written by L. Frank Baum (novels) Links with other titles features Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The (1910) His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz (1914) Magic Cloak of Oz, The (1914) Patchwork Girl of Oz, The (1914) Wizard of Oz (1925) Wizard of Oz, The (1933) Wizard of Oz, The (1939) Wiz, The (1978/I) Return to Oz (1985) Dreamer of Oz, The (1990) (TV) BTW, what's great about _The Runestone_ is not its simple horror plot, which it does well. It is its satire in its treatment of the rest of the elements, views on art and relationships, etc. Great filmmaking from IWOC's own Willard Carroll (of the Oz Kids fame, in his live action debut). I think he might have a cameo in the film. I know Tom Wilhite does. He's shown smashing into a mural with a sledgehammer as part of an art museum's fundraiser gimmick. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 21:34:45 +0000 From: Christopher Straughn Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Comments: Authenticated sender is Vegetarianism in Oz: I personally like Maguire's idea in _Wicked_ that there are the talking, human Animals and the dumb animals. C.S. Lewis used the same idea in the Narnia stories. The idea of meat growing on trees is also very interesting but the whole incident with Realbad and the birds sort of disproves the idea. Maybe he had to shoot to get the meat out of the dead-bird trees. Chris Straughn Bonan Tagon! ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 22:58:56 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Pasttime for the Scarecrow and Scraps: Doing the Twist, perhaps? Copyright Eternal: Yikes! No more fan writing for us--at least not overtly . . . Until later, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:50:05 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Bob - Thanks for the tip on the Rushdie item. I'll order it. Now Bob, you recently gave us a load of socialist blather (on which I bearfully resisted commenting) so you can't object to a little bit of "odious reactionary" blather.:) Ruth - I just don't understand your objection? If you create something it should be yours to dispose of as you wish. If you leave it to someone and they try to sell it for too much, no one will buy it. Let the market take care of the problem. If Thompson's heirs don't want anyone using her characters, fine, let's make up some new characters. We need new ideas, not retreads of old ones. If the dog owns the manger, he has a perfect right to sit in it. However, dogs can't eat straw. Steve - Why are we having a discussion of "Wonder City" when we are currently on Scarecrow? JL Bell - Just call me Bear. Hmmmm, are you making an argument for government by opinion poll or just for Democracy? David - I don't think you understood the comment about "gypsy camps' but I'll let that pass. And so no one feels unoffended, Dave, it seems a bit disingenuous of you to ban comments after so many have already been made from one pole of the politcal spectrum. Sigh. Conservatively, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 11:54:34 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Interesting point that many of the characters in "Wizard" are presented by titles or descriptions rather than names. It seems to me, though, that titles like "Queen of the Field Mice" and descriptions like "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" are closer to names (being distinctive identifiers) than they are to the kind of namelessness represented by the "Little Wizard Stories" with "a woman" or "a man" or "a Winkie child." (In some books, Baum moved from a descriptive identifier to using the description as a name, as when a shaggy man becomes the Shaggy Man, and is addressed as Shaggy Man, or Shaggy for short, by his friends.) Steve Teller: Thanks for the added Jenny Jump information. I'll have to take a look at that chapter heading. David Hulan & Mike Turner: The resemblance of Guadapoochee and Gallapoochie isn't as close as it looks if you leave off the "poochie," which is just a diminutive for "pooch" in the sense of "dog." Checking a dictionary, I see that "pooch" in that sense dates from 1924 and is of "origin unknown". Dave Hardenbrook: I have a feeling that Scraps doesn't have enough patience to enjoy chess. Needing night-vision for activities like night- climbing -- I don't think night-vision would be needed. It's not as if Scraps or the Scarecrow would be injured if they missed a branch and fell. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 09:43:44 -0700 From: "Peter E. Hanff" Subject: Help requested for a colleague Dave and Ozzy Digest readers: A colleague in Massachusetts has asked for help in identifying the book described as follows: Hey, Peter. My sister is trying to remember a book she read about six or seven years ago. Can you help her out? A high-school aged attendant discovers that one of the patients is in fact Dorothy, and traces her family history. Figures out that Baum had been a school teacher in Kansas and had Dorothy as a student. The book also brings in Judy Garland's family life and the filming of the movie; also a segment about AIDS. Sound familiar? I must confess to being not-well-read in modern Oz-related tales, and this rings no bells with me. Can someone help me provide an identification? Thanks, Peter Hanff ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 17:32:58 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Ruth: >Do others of you have ideas about the benefits/drawbacks of the proposed >changes [in copyright law]-- and information about where comments might >most usefully be sent? The benefits, it seems to me, are entirely to people who had nothing to do with the creative process that brought the work about, but are fortunate enough to be either corporately or genetically descended from those who did. The drawbacks are to everyone else who'd like to be able to experience the copyrighted work unhindered. Steve: Thanks for the quotes from the _Wonder City_ MS. It does sound as if it doesn't resemble the published book very much... J.L.: I don't recall Baum ever implying that knowing someone's name gave someone else power over him/her. But it's a pretty common concept in European (and probably other) mythologies, so he might have had it in the back of his mind even if he never made it explicit. Dave: >GAMES STUFFED PEOPLE PLAY: >Ruth wrote: >>I don't think Scrabble would do for a nighttime activity... >>Maybe mental chess, which the Scarecrow might enjoy, although perhaps >>not Scraps. > >Why do you surmise that the Scarecrow would like chess but not Scraps? Ruth can answer for herself, but the Scarecrow has generally seemed more interested in purely intellectual pursuits than Scraps - who's clever, but who doesn't seem to have a very long attention span. >>Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise >>practice acrobatics? > >Provided that they have night vision... We know Scraps has good night vision (it's mentioned in both PG and LP), and considering his long night-and-day walk in _Royal Book_, the Scarecrow probably does as well. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:47:26 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz copyrights Sender: "J. L. Bell" Today I received the Dover new books catalogue listing MAGIC. The entry is illustrated not with the cover but with a picture of Prof. Wogglebug dancing with a ruler (not Ozma, a yardstick). I've never seen this art before; it must be one of the book's color plates. That implies the press is highlighting color for $7.95 as a selling point--a likely reflection of Books of Wonder's impact. The copy, incidentally, says the book "introduces a host of new characters, including the Glass Cat, the Hungry Tiger, little Trot, Cap'n Bill, and others." Oops. Beside the new book Dover features its editions of WIZARD, OZMA, EMERALD CITY, DOROTHY & WIZARD, ROAD, and ZIXI--I can't fathom a reason for that assortment if the press has other Baum titles in stock. The same catalogue lists a $1.00 abridged edition of WIZARD and a $2.95 FAVORITE STORYBOOK CHARACTERS PAPER DOLLS featuring Dorothy and Toto (after, but not by, Denslow). Dick Randolph wrote me: <> I realized after I'd posted my recipe that I'd unwittingly confined myself to the artists who illustrated canonical authors: Denslow, Neill, Morgan, Kramer, Dirk, and Martin. I meant no slight to Melody, whose drawings I've admired since they first appeared in OZIANA. Steve Teller, thank you for delving into Neill's original WONDER CITY manuscript once more. After reading the extract you returned with, I feel that we should stop asking you to do such research except in emergencies--reading too much of that draft must be painful. I can too well imagine the despair at Reilly & Lee as that manuscript came in and the holiday season rolled closer and closer! Passages like, "But worst of all was a large sign with her name: JENNY JUMP'S SUCCESS CO. which she put in a conspicuous place. It aroused the fairies against her so much they led her away to prison and kept her locked up for a long time and hoped she would give in, but she wouldn't. . . ," sound like a strained inside reference to Neill's neighbors. One observation on our original query: Whether the picture on WONDER CITY, pp. 134-5, of the young woman in the cloak was originally meant to show Jenny. Neill's statement, "she [Jenny] and her sign were brought before a fairy court and each of the judges put her mark on the sign," tells us that Neill saw all the fairy judges as female--which implies [but by no means requires] the entire fairy band was female, like Baum's fairies of Burzee. The winged crowd in the double-page spread seems to include males. Another hint that the two mysterious illustrations came from an unknown project. As for Glinda and her snood, one of the seminal images for my centennial Oz manuscript was the thought of the sorceress so upset that locks of her hair were actually falling out of her hairnets--oh, the horror! Dave Hulan wrote: <> All politicians in democracies, regardless of party, want votes. Votes can be bought with expensive campaigning, but only when we voters are willing to sell. Jenny Jump bargained for Ozians' votes, but she at least gave each person a new outfit in return (presumably an outfit with only one shoe). Today too many of us let our votes be sold by broadcasters because we: a) let thirty-second ads make up our minds instead of researching candidates and developing reasonably coherent political philosophies. b) don't hold those broadcasters to fulfill public responsibilities in return for exploiting the public airwaves. Nevertheless, politicians do respond to blocs of voters. Which brings us to the copyright bill now being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Apologies to the non-American readers of this digest.] The bill has two parts. The latter relates to musical performance (remember last year's flap about royalties for campfire songs?). The first part is what affects the publication of Oz books new and old: the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. (Before his death Rep. Bono, a copyright holder, proposed a similar bill.) The bill "extends the duration of copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, to the life of the author and 70 (currently, 50) years after the author's death," and "the duration of copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works or works made for hire [i.e., for organizations] on or after such date to 95 (currently, 75) years from the year of the first publication, or 120 (currently, 100) years from the year of creation, whichever expires first." That means that any new Oz books--Gini Wickwar's, for instance, or Dave Hulan's or Melody Grandy's, or for that matter my unpublished manuscript--would probably enjoy copyright protection twice as long as WIZARD did. The bill also "extends the duration of copyrights in their renewal term at the time of the effective date of this Act to 95 years from the date such copyrights were originally secured." This affects the Thompson and Neill copyrights whose clocks are running out. GIANT HORSE, for instance, was supposed to enter the public domain in 2003; under the bill, that becomes 2028. Bucky and Davy Jones wouldn't be public-domain characters until 2037. These extensions are of course supported by such entities as Disney (first Mickey Mouse cartoon would otherwise go into the public domain in 2004); the Hemingway heirs and his publisher, now Viacom (SUN ALSO RISES in 2001); the Gershwin estate ("American in Paris" in 2003); and others. Unfortunately, Europe has already extended its copyrights by 20 years. That makes it much harder for the US Congress not to give works created here the same protection. If you have opinions about this bill, to whom can you write? All congressmen have the same vote, but certain of them are likely to have more influence on this issue, and if they represent you they should know your opinion. The House bill was introduced by Rep. Coble, and cosponsored by Reps. Frank, Conyers, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Cannon, McCollum, Canady, Berman, Boucher, Lofgren, and Delahunt. Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the corresponding bill in the Senate. It has cosponsors in Leahy, D'Amato, Thompson, Abraham, Feinstein, Mack, DeWine, Torricelli, and Hagel. The bill will first be debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here are its members (note that the chairman and the ranking Democratic member are both sponsors of the bill): Republicans Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, Chairman Strom Thurmond, South Carolina Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Fred Thompson, Tennessee Jon Kyl, Arizona Mike DeWine, Ohio John Ashcroft, Missouri Spencer Abraham, Michigan Jeff Sessions, Alabama Democrats Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Delaware Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Dianne Feinstein, California Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Richard Durbin, Illinois Robert Torricelli, New Jersey As I said above, politicians listen to voters in their districts--if enough of them are talking. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 00:26:56 -0400 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: Ozzy Digest X-Sender: bompi@mail.microserve.net To: DaveH47@delphi.com Hello, I'm sorry that my posts have withered again, but I stabbed myself in the hand (yes, I did) while trying to fix the sink over the weekend. No, I wasn't being careless, but the utility knife, the pipe, and I were not getting along. Alas, the plumber had to come to the rescue and typing is rather painful. However, I wanted to respond to a few points. Dave Hulan: >Not sure what you mean. Some animals _are_ smarter than others, both within >a given species and from species to species. (I mean, barring pathological >cases, all dogs are smarter than all horses, and all pigs are smarter than >all dogs, and all chimpanzees are smarter than all pigs, and all humans are >smarter than all chimps.) "Better," of course, is a separate issue; there >you're looking at a value judgment and not at an objective fact. What >"false beliefs about power and ruling" did you have in mind? Yes, some animals are smarter, . . . I recognize that and that as Bear said the inevitability and naturalness of some people ruling and others beign ruled, but I think that the repetition of this ruler/ruled motif in stories which do not deal with the more judgemental (sp) aspects of the issue can lead to the development of false or skewed beliefs concerning who should or should not possess power. Well, off to bed. I hope to offer more next time. Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 98 12:23:05 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things SCRAPS, CHESS AND COPYRIGHTS: I accept everyone's reasoning at why Scraps is probably no Judith Polgar... I'm just relieved that no one tried to assert that "Girls don't play chess", because they do. Thanks J.L. Bell, for the info about the members of the Senate and the Copyright Bill... LETTER TO THREE OZ AUTHORS: Did anyone else who submitted a manuscript to the Oz Book Contest receive a letter from a Jay Delkin in Canada to the effect that he wants us to send him excerpts from our manuscripts for a compilation to be displayed at future Oz conventions? I don't mean to sound like a suspicious paranoid, but does anyone know who he is? Is he indeed a member of the IWOC? What does everyone think about his proposition? BTW, speaking of the conventions, when is the deadline for signing up for the Winkie Convention? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 8 - 9, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:49:44 -0700 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 > > Steve - Why are we having a discussion of "Wonder City" when we are > currently on Scarecrow? > This was in response to a query that was on the Digest before my trip, and was continued during March. I was not trying to open a "Wonder City" discussion. > Hey, Peter. My sister is trying to remember a book she read about six or > seven years ago. Can you help her out? > > A high-school aged attendant discovers that one of the patients is in > fact Dorothy, and traces her family history. Figures out that Baum had > been a school teacher in Kansas and had Dorothy as a student. The book > also brings in Judy Garland's family life and the filming of the movie; > also a segment about AIDS. > > Sound familiar? > > I must confess to being not-well-read in modern Oz-related tales, and this > rings no bells with me. Can someone help me provide an identification? > > Thanks, > > Peter Hanff > The book is WAS by Geoff Ryman. It was published in 1993. > Steve: > Thanks for the quotes from the _Wonder City_ MS. It does sound as if it > doesn't resemble the published book very much... > > David Hulan > The text was greatly changed between the MS and the published version. Actually there is a lot in common. > From: "J. L. Bell" > One observation on our original query: Whether the picture on WONDER > CITY, pp. 134-5, of the young woman in the cloak was originally meant to > show Jenny. Neill's statement, "she [Jenny] and her sign were brought > before a fairy court and each of the judges put her mark on the sign," > tells us that Neill saw all the fairy judges as female--which implies [but > by no means requires] the entire fairy band was female, like Baum's fairies > of Burzee. The winged crowd in the double-page spread seems to include > males. Another hint that the two mysterious illustrations came from an > unknown project. > The "her" may not imply that the entire band was female, but that Neill was not a very good writer and did not have a solution to the indefinite pronoun problem. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > > LETTER TO THREE OZ AUTHORS: > Did anyone else who submitted a manuscript to the Oz Book Contest receive > a letter from a Jay Delkin in Canada to the effect that he wants us to send > him excerpts from our manuscripts for a compilation to be displayed at future > Oz conventions? I don't mean to sound like a suspicious paranoid, but > does anyone know who he is? Is he indeed a member of the IWOC? What > does everyone think about his proposition? Jay Delkin is a long time member of IWOOC and was a member of the Board of Directors for many years. He also submitted an MS for the Centenniel Book Contest, which did not win. He was a professor of Mathamatics at London, Ontario but is now retired. He is probably quite sincere in wanting to have a compilation of contest submissions. He has attended, I believe almost every Ozmapolitan convention since I have been going (1966). He is a very nice person who loves finding contradictions in Oz books. He is also, lioke me, fond of bad jokes. (I had first written "He is fond of bad jokes, like me" but decided that was ambiguous. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 06:56:24 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Craig Noble and Bear, You both are absolutely correct. My comments were ill advised. I should practice "biting my tongue". It was one of those instances where I immediately wished I could have reached out into the ether and pulled my message back but, alas, such things are not possible. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 07:59:17 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Howdy, > descriptions like "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" are > closer to names (being distinctive identifiers) Am I confused? For some reason I equate the "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" with Oomby Amby (sp?). > I stabbed myself in the hand (yes, I did) while trying to > fix the sink over the weekend. Bompi, you have my sympathy, but how does one fix a sink with a utility knife? Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 11:50:28 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Patrick Maund: Congratulations on Veronica! Bear: You think copyright should be perpetual? Seriously? If you're consistent enough to think that patents should also be perpetual, we can just call it a disagreement and leave it at that. If you think patents should be limited (as they are), then the same arguments apply to copyright. Peter Hanff: The book about Dorothy as mental patient was "Was" by Geoff Ryman (1992). Lisa Bompiani: Sympathies on the hand injury! J.L. Bell: Much thanks for the information about the appropriate committee. The information that Europe has added 20 years to their copyright, though, makes me suspect that the U.S. might as well go ahead and do it, too. There are some advantages to trying to keep in step with world copyrights -- I'm not sure they're enough to offset the extra costs to the general public in paying for the royalties to go the estates of dead authors, but it would at least offset them partially. If Peter Glassman has time to put in an opinion, it would be interesting to know if he thinks that it would be possible for him to go on reprinting Thompson's books if they stay in copyright. The relevant questions would be: would Dorothy Maryott be willing to have them reprinted in return for some reasonable royalty payment (I'd imagine she would); and would adding the cost for a reasonable royalty payment make the books expensive enough to drive away enough customers to make the project too expensive for a publisher to take on (that sort of question can't be answered without trying, but Peter probably has enough experience to make a likely guess). In terms of people who want to write stories using RPT's characters, of course, the 20 years of extra copyright protection means an extra 20 years before any such stories could be published. Which wouldn't particularly matter if Bear is right in thinking that all such stories would be artistically worthless, but the example of, say, David Hulan's and Melody Grandy's Oz retreads suggests that some of the stories involved might be well worth reading. Of course, there's a small ethical problem in going against an author's wishes, in this case, RPT's wish, which Dorothy Maryott is following, not to have her characters written by other authors. But author's wishes are routinely ignored when enough readers disagree with them: sometimes the heirs side with readers (or are willing to if given enough financial incentive), and sometimes the readers just wait it out till the copyright lapses. Biographies of the poet Matthew Arnold (who didn't want any done) have been published illustrated with relevant quotations from his works, most readers of Henry James read the early, less wordy editions and not the re-writes James did late in life, and various unfinished or unpolished last works their authors didn't want published have been published. Getting at unpublished works, of course, can't be done without cooperation from the heirs -- although I notice in J.L.'s summary an interesting detail that I haven't seen in the newspapers, putting a cap of 120 years on the protection for unpublished works. (I think that's the first time a limit has been put on that.) Dave Hardenbrook: Jay Delkin is a long-time IWWOC member, has had work published in the "Bugle" and for a while was an editor of it. Displaying excerpts from private Oz mss. at Oz cons sounds like a nice idea. (Jay would probably be trustworthy even if it might be possible to abuse having or displaying such a set of excerpts, but I can't offhand think of any likely abuses. Publishing the set without the authors' permissions is an obvious possible abuse, but it doesn't sound like a likely one.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:19:37 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest p.s. On second thought, Jay Delkin wasn't past "Bugle" editor, but past "Oziana" editor. Dave, if you're writing him, you might ask if he has comments on benefits of having U.S. copyright in step with other parts of world. He had to ask the authors of the Great Detective in Oz stories to refer to the character by title only, and not use the name Sherlock Holmes, as I recall. Holmes as a character at that time had come into public domain in the US, as the earliest Holmes stories came into US public domain (publication plus 56 years), but the character and the stories were still under copyright in the British Commonwealth, including Canada. (By contrast, my "Sherlock Holmes in Oz" appeared in the first "Oziana" without problems, under a US editor.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 14:48:20 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Patrick: *Congratulations!* Bob C.: The Keretarians are in HANDY MANDY. It's the northeasternmost identifiable kingdom in the Munchkin Country on the Haff-Martin map, although Melody's Seven Blue Mountains are even nearer the northeastern corner. Nathan: >>I think the brains must have run out before _Scalawagons_, though... > >Along with Ozma's, Glinda's, Dorothy's, Besty's, Kabumpo's, etc. IMHO, >Neill wasn't that effective at portraying already established >characters, but he was pretty good with his own. Agreed, especially regarding Kabumpo, whose character didn't even resemble Thompson's version. Ozma, Glinda, Dorothy, and Betsy didn't seem particularly stupid in Neill's books (where they appeared, which wasn't all that much, except for Ozma), but they didn't follow Baum or Thompson's versions very closely. Jenny and Number Nine and Bucky and Davy were definitely Neill's best characters, though, and I'd like to use them myself if they go PD before I'm beyond writing. (However, if this copyright extension goes through there's not much chance of that; 95 years from _Wonder City_ I'll be 99 years old, should I live so long...) Bear: >David - I don't think you understood the comment about "gypsy camps' but >I'll let that pass. I think I did, but if you want to discuss the matter let's do it in private E-mail. J.L.: >I realized after I'd posted my recipe that I'd unwittingly confined myself >to the artists who illustrated canonical authors: Denslow, Neill, Morgan, >Kramer, Dirk, and Martin. I meant no slight to Melody, whose drawings I've >admired since they first appeared in OZIANA. Morgan? Who he? (Or she?) Also, you had Shanower in your original list but omitted him from this one, though he's illustrated non-canonical works by canonical authors Neill and Payes. I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that the entire fairy band in Burzee was female. While the fairies all seem to have female form most of the time, Areol takes on male form before giving the cloak to Fluff. ILTT that fairies don't actually have a gender as we know it, but that their forms are under their control at all times. They usually manifest themselves in female form in Baum's books because that's how most people thought of them around 1900, but it isn't inherent in their natures. (Which may explain why it was so easy for Mombi to turn Ozma into a boy. OTOH, this would shoot a big hole in Dave's book where Ozma gets married...) Pity; neither of my senators is on the Judiciary Committee of their respective houses. Still, I'll write them and my congressman, who isn't a bad sort as Republicans go. Bompi: Ouch! Sympathies, and I hope your hand heals quickly. Dave: Yes, I got a copy of that letter from Jay Delkin. He's a long-time IWOC member, and was editor of OZIANA for several years before Robin took it over. His offer is legitimate enough, I'm sure, though I don't know whether I'll act on it or not. If I send anything it'll be a part that I'm going to cut from it in the process of revising it for BoW, since I don't want any potential copyright problems. The flyers with info on the deadlines for the various conventions this summer haven't appeared yet, so I can't give you an exact date, but the deadline for signing up for Winkies is usually around the end of the first week of June. It isn't imminent, anyhow. (Have you checked the IWOC Web site? It might be listed there.) David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 16:34:47 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Nathan: The Tin Woodman was called Niccolo` Chopper (accent grave in Unix). This means Steven Alquist screwed up by calling him "Nicholas" in _Oz Squad_, but Alquist also had Dorothy say "I'm pregnant" on the last page of what he foreworded would be the last issue, at least for the time being, which has not resumed at present. I remember seeing Jay Delkin's name on ballots for representatives, and I think I met him at the convention last year, but I haven't gotten a notice from him yet. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 19:31:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: oz news TBS will premiere THE WIZARD OF OZ on its network on November 21st, 1999, the year of the film's 60th anniversary. CBS will air the film for their final time on May 8th. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 20:06:39 -0400 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Ruth Berman wrote: > David Hulan & Mike Turner: The resemblance of Guadapoochee and > Gallapoochie isn't as close as it looks if you leave off the "poochie," > which is just a diminutive for "pooch" in the sense of "dog." Checking > a dictionary, I see that "pooch" in that sense dates from 1924 and is > of "origin unknown". > (Assuming she meant me....) Well, of course I know, and I'm sure Dave knows that poochie means dog. But that doesn't just mean you can leave it off. It is significant in the fact that both choose to use it, and not some other "dog word" (like fido, canid, woofwoof, etc.). In other words, do use your example, "antidisestablishmentarianism" and "disestablishmentarianism" also don't look very much alike, if you leave off the "establishmentarianism", which of course, just means the doctrine of the establishment. See my point? I think in these particular cases, "Guadapoochee" was trying to sound Amerindian, and "Gallapoochie" was trying to be the same kind of Seussian that "Rootie Kazootie" and his girlfriend (whose name escapes me at the moment) were. On copyright extension: as I mentioned a long time ago when the subject first came up, the great story "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson (I believe) in the book of the same name, addresses this very issue of congress trying to extend copyrights into perpetuity, and the protagonist (an artist) trying to convince her congressperson why this is a bad idea. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky Oz sighting: a bumper sticker for a stay at home mom's group had "'There's no place like home' -- Dorothy had the right idea" ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 20:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: CrNoble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Patrick Maund: Congratulations on the birth of Veronica! Craig Noble ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:01:15 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Sure Peter, that sounds like "Was" a really ugly book. Geoff Ryman used Oz to demonstrate his considerable pathology. You are way ahead having missed it. Bell >As for Glinda and her snood, one of the seminal images for my centennial Oz manuscript was the thought of the sorceress so upset that locks of her hair were actually falling out of her hairnets--oh, the horror! This is a joke, right? This is followed by some really gratuitous political comments. I thought we had agreed to avoid this type of thing. I don't think we can ever break Hulan of this, but I have hopes for you. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 22:01:39 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz, WAS, and what will be Sender: "J. L. Bell" Peter Hanff's colleague's sister wondered about this plot: <> This is WAS, by Geoff Ryman, or a reasonable facsimile of it. I just finished reading it for the first time. Thanks, Nathan DeHoff, for the reminder that <> That cuts the number of Ozians named in WIZARD down by one, and a major one at that. On that topic, Ruth Berman wrote: <> We can make a useful distinction between names (Tattypoo), definite-article designations (the Good Witch of the North), and indefinite-article designations (a good witch). Most Oz books operate at the first level; WIZARD at the second; LIL WIZARD at the third. After his first Oz book, Baum moved several characters from the second level to the first by making their designations into names (Shaggy, as you point out, and Wizard) or giving them names (Nick, Omby Amby). I think that creates a friendlier Oz, but a less archetypal one. Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Is it too early to point out that in SCARECROW he needs Glinda to provide a light for him on his walk to Jinxland? I think our discussion of what Scraps and the Scarecrow do when the lights go out is missing an important element: not all nights are equally dark. In our electrified world, we often forget that the darkness varies by the Moon's size, the cloud cover, and trees. On some nights we can read; on others we can't see where we put our feet. And a rural society like Oz, or like Roselawn, would be quite aware of those differences. Farmers would plan to harvest on nights with a full Moon. Lovers would dance by its silvery light. And, with any almanac, the Scarecrow could conceivably schedule a chess game. Richard Bauman wrote: <> I suppose this is in response to my statement. "The collective wisdom of the community is almost always better than the thoughts of even the most intelligent individual." I had no idea that opposing autocracy would cause comment. But for the record let me repeat my support for government through the all-important opinion polls of regular popular elections. The closest we have to <> in the U.S. is the popular referenda instituted by states in the West during the Populist era, and now more popular there than ever. In the discussion of copyright term extensions, Bear also wrote: <> What exactly do copyright holders create? It's not a "thing," like a clay pot or a better mousetrap. It's the expression of an idea in reproducible form--a form most often meant to be sold to other people. Why should those others, having obtained the expression of your idea, not reproduce it, change it, and/or sell it again? After all, many would say, "If you *buy* something it should be yours to dispose of as you wish." The reason is because that unauthorized reproduction--which, we mustn't forget, is market-driven--would quickly make publication unrewarding. That, in turn, would cut down on the spread of ideas and information, weakening society. Therefore, the drafters of our Constitution instituted the copyright. Our society thus created an *artificial* right (no copyright exists in nature); it skews the market for publishing rights to benefit the creator. Our society also protects each author's copyright by providing courts of law to punish transgressors. No individual action nor market could do that. Because society created and preserves the copyright, it can define that copyright within time for maximum benefit. In striking the balance of individual reward and public gain, protection for one full generation after the author's death is long enough. Extending the copyright term (i.e., the artificial right to prevent peers of the creator's *grandchildren* from reproducing a work) doesn't spur new creativity or spread information--it brings no benefit to society at all. These are not new ideas. The question of copyright was widely debated throughout the Enlightenment. The libertarians were then *opposed* to the notion. Thomas Jefferson wrote against the Constitution's principle of intellectual property in both patents and copyrights. (There are two mighty ironies there. First, of course, Jefferson's livelihood depended on land property, which he didn't create, and human property, which meant taking the creations of others. Second, he ended up running the U.S. patents office as Washington's Secretary of State.) J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 23:06:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Orange5193 Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest/ submission. To the question of Nick Chopper's name: >The Tin Woodman's name is not mentioned in _Wizard_. I believe that it >was used in the stage play, but it was not mentioned in the books until >_Land_ "Nick Chopper" did indeed occur first in the Baum/ Tietjens/ Sloane musical, actually first as "Niccolo Chopper" (as part of Cynthia Cynch's dialogue intro to "Niccolo's Piccolo") and then later by Nick himself. While I'm at it, being new to the group, I'll introduce myself. I'm James Doyle of Houston, an Oz fan now for 32 of my 41 years who has recently returned to Oz after a long absence. I'm a proofreader by trade and a composer as well, having recently finished a full-length music score for "His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz". I'm currently re-reading the Baum books in order (up to Emerald City at this point) and have been over the last 2 years been assembling a revised performing version of Baum's 1902 Wizard musical (if nothing else, the pantomime music which opens the show really needs to be preserved). It's a pleasure joining the group. James "But on the piercing piccolo, my highly gifted Niccolo Could charm with much celerity, a melody divine Defying fell malaria, he'd execute his aria With marvelous dexterity, each night at half past nine" (1902 Macdonough/ Sloane) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 05:47:13 +0000 From: Scott Olsen Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Anyone catch Jeopardy the other night? I seldem watch it, but I was channel surfing and managed to see the "final Jeopardy" answer. When I saw that the category was "Children's Books and Authors", I said "Baum". As fate would have it, the "answer was "This author also created another two-lettered land called 'Ix'". One person answered Baum, another Dr. Seuss, and the other C.S. Lewis.... Re: Copyrights At first I supported the extension, which I understand is mostly being pushed by Disney to protect its early films. (By the way, it's my understanding that the situation as it exists now does NOT give others the right to make "Mickey Mouse" films, etc., only the right to issue prints of "Steamboat Willie" without paying Disney.) Anyway, like I was saying, I supported this at first, until it was pointed out to me that Disney made a lot of money (and, in fact, was able to prosper and become very successful) because they made motion pictures from stories and subjects that were in the public domain (i.e Snow White, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, etc.) In fact, I remember reading that that was the main reason Maud Baum refused to deal with Disney in the 1930's. Another way to put it: How much longer will we be unable to sing "Happy Birthday" without paying a royality? All for now, Scott Olsen ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:20:58 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest pps Some further musings on copyright. I said that the 120 years "since creation" would put a cap on the copyright protection for unpublished works, but looking again I see that it doesn't apply to unpublished works generally, but to anonymous/pseudonymous/works-for-hire. It occurs to me, though, that there's a significant change in the copyright expiration limits from whichever expires *later* to whichever expires *first*. This change means that in many cases the actual increase in copyright term would not be a full 20 years. If the death- year+x and copyright-year+x+25 average out to the same thing, that doesn't make much difference, but my impression is that enough authors do enough of their works before the last 25 years of their lives rather than during the last 25, to make death+50 on average a longer term than copyright+75. How much longer, I don't know, but I'll guess an average of 5-10 years longer. If so, a change to "whichever expires sooner" means that the actual increase in copyright time would average 10-15 years, not the full 20. The authors of works published before 1976 (and the corporations with works-for-hire works) do get a full 20 year increase, but the extra lets them catch up with the (probable) average extra time the death+50 group had been getting. In RPT's case, since she died in 1976, if the death+50 protection of 1976 had been made retroactive to works copyrighted earlier, all of her Oz books would still be under copyright and would remain so until 2026, instead of running out between 1996-2014. The new bill would apply to her Oz books as publication+95 copyright protection, which would mean that the copyrights would run out from 2016-2038 -- or, on average, just about the same as would have been the case if the death+50 protection had been applied to all existing copyrights instead of to the new ones only. I'm not sure that the general extension of copyrights is equitable, but it looks as if some extra protection for the pre-1976 (and corporate) copyrights probably is. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:27:11 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Dave wrote: >Did anyone else who submitted a manuscript to the Oz Book Contest receive >a letter from a Jay Delkin in Canada to the effect that he wants us to send >him excerpts from our manuscripts for a compilation to be displayed at future >Oz conventions? I don't mean to sound like a suspicious paranoid, but >does anyone know who he is? Is he indeed a member of the IWOC? What >does everyone think about his proposition? Member: yes. Regular at MunchCon. Past director. "L. Frank Baum Award" '86. Proposition: I'm certainly considering it. ------ On another matter, everyone run out to your favorite comicbook store and get the current issue of "Pinky and the Brain" (with the "Jaws" parody on the cover). In the second story, the Brain tries to take over Oz. (The "Oz", oddly enough, of '39 _and_ '85.) // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:21:16 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: >Scraps >probably doesn't have very good night vision, though, since she has to >rely on Bungle's in _Patchwork Girl_. Well, why shouldn't a magic cat have better night vision than a magic human? // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:01:56 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-98 Tyler Jones wrote >The only >complaint I have about Dick Martin is his tendency to have Dorothy look >like a Barbie Doll. Not fair! His "look" was pretty much set in the 50's, at the same time the Barbie Doll was created. (An unfortunate period for women's looks -- pretty much all the hairstyles and makeup ideals were simply hideous, and American women were pretty much expected to be either plain housewives, cute -- but no more than cute -- virgins, or blousy, brainless, but great-looking -- and almost invariably blonde -- sluts. ) // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 14:34:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Patrick: Congrads! Lisa Bompi: Ouch! I feel for you. (I literally felt for you last summer--I don't know if you were on the Digest at the time--when I sliced the skin off the fronts of three fingers. Nothing so deep as you imply--not a stab, just a slice--but painful nonetheless. I know what it's like trying to type like that, too--not easy!). Dave: Yes, Jay Delkin is indeed a member of the IWOC. (I don't remember how I remember that, but I do.) Until next time, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 23:09:10 -0700 From: ozbot Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Non Oz-copyright question-- Is it true Disney, etc. are afraid of the copyrights running out on Mickey Mouse, etc? Wouldn't this have been created as a work-for-hire and thus owned by the corporation? (Or, if not true with this specific example, what about copyrights owned by companies? How would a copyright run out if the "creator" i.e. the company isn't "dead?") In the Disney case, however, wouldn't the *film* itself be the only thing copyrighted? Mickey Mouse as a symbol is a trademark, right? But his appearance in film is part of a copyrighted package. If the FILM's copyright expires, then the only danger to the proprietors is in the film's free and public distribution. Likewise, the characters themselves as they appear in other stories/films would still be copyrighted, such as Oz writers now treading a fine line in how they portray the non-PD/PD Kabumpo. In any case, feel free to respond to me in private e-mail, as this can get quite non Ozzy to talk about I am sure. On an Oz related subject-- Is there a good source (and what is its availability) for an "index" of sorts to Oz characters and their appearances in the Oz books (major and guest appearances, too.) It's something I'm pondering on doing for a website of mine I'm developing. Thanks! ozbot Danny Wall "I think I should understand that better," Alice said very politely, "if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it." "That's nothing to what I could say if I chose," the Duchess replied, in a pleasant tone. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 98 13:44:24 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things MGM'S _WIZARD_ ON TV: Mark Anthony Donajkowski wrote: >TBS will premiere THE WIZARD OF OZ on its network on > November 21st, 1999, the year of the film's 60th > anniversary. CBS will air the film for their final time > on May 8th. The End of An Era...But why is Turner showing it on TBS and not TCM, where it would be commercial-free?? Ozma: Unless he wants it to be available to as many people as possible... Jellia (Who doesn't have cable): Then why did he buy if off of CBS to begin with??? A REMINDER: We start discussing _The Scarecrow of Oz_ on Monday... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 10 - 12, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:25:47 -0400 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Ruth: I have a bad feeling that the copyright law eventually will be extended into perpetuity. Despite things such as John Bells comment that Monarchy is a childish system, the idea of right-of-birth appeals to many people on a deeply emotional level. That is, if John Smith is noted in some field of achievement, then John Smith, Jr. becomes the heir apparant to that field. There are numerous examples, but I'll forego them here. John Bell: When Glinda mentions that her Magic Book also told Dorothy WHY she was coming as well as the fact itself, is the closest evidence we have in the FF that the Book can interpret intentions and thoughts as well as actions. For example, there's be a world of difference between these two statements: 1. Nog-Nog the magician is doing magical research. This comment, after all, may appear hundreds of times when commenting about fairyland. 2. Nog-Nog is preparing a magical spell with which he intends to turn all the Ozzy citizens into sludge and then bring in his own people so that Oz will become a vast slave labor camp making pre-fab homes. Bear: I'm not sure where you were going on your copyright comments. I can see the arguement as far as physical property. For example, the chair I am sitting on has been in our family for five generations. I would heartily be against declaring the chair to be in the Public Domain and passing it around the neighborhood. An idea, though, it is bit more tenuous. While I am in favor of the creator owning it for all of his life, and perhaps letting his children reap some of the windfall, I just can't see ownership of an idea passing down through the generations unto the end of time. One of the problems wiht this is that after about a dozen generations, hundreds of people could claim ownership of a story or a character. In order to use these, all of them must be tracked down and gotten to sign on. This would be economically infeasible. I suppose that copyrights could be willed to one person, just like any other property, so that there would always be one person (or trust) with control, but in the case of stories and fictional characters, I still can't agree that they should be copyrighted forever, or even more that 75 years, mainly because I don't believe that a copyrighted story or character is property in the normal sense. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 06:34:09 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-98 James, > It's a pleasure joining the group. It's a pleasure having you as a member. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:51:39 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-98 Neill's bane: There was a great debate going on at the time he wrote _Wonder City_ which divided the country into two factions, pronoun and anti-noun. Sorry, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:38:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Druyan Voyager Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, Charon, and Oz [I received this E-mail in reply to my letter to Ann Druyan concerning "Project Oz on Charon" -- Dave] Dear Mr. Hardenbrook, Ms. Druyan has received and read your e-mail. She is traveling presently and has asked me to respond to your request. Unfortunately, she is completely oversubscribed with other obligations and is unable to participate in your Oz proposition. She wishes you luck with the project and sends her very best wishes. Cordially, Karenn Gobrecht Executive Assistant and Office Manager ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:16:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Ozmama Subject: Ozzy Digest 4/10 Dave said:<> Scraps, who does have cable, replies: Money? Scarecrow: How perceptive of you, Miss Patches, m'dear! Ozma (in very small voice): Oh. I'd forgotten those commercial thingies. How sad. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:27:42 -0700 From: Robert Schroeder Subject: Ozzy Digest stuff... Ok, so I'm a little behind in reading the "Digest". In fact, I'm a little behind in reading anything Ozzy right now. I took a detour thru the Ol' South and read "Gone With The Wind" and "Scarlett", and then had to catch up with Anne Rice, reading her newest book "Pandora" (one of the best in the Vampire Chronicles IMHO) and looking forward to her new book on Armand. But anyway, here goes: Congrats on the new daughter Patrick! May Ozma smile upon you and Veronica in this wonderful time! OZ ON TOUR Thank you Bob C for passing along the URL for Oz on Tour. I made it to the site and began to scream with delight. Eartha Kitt as the WOW and Mickey Rooney as the Wizard! What a wonderful cast....and then the screams grew louder as I learned the show will be in San Antonio this August. Apparently, my summer is now planned, all of it having to do with the theater. First on my agenda is a return to Tuna Texas for "Red White and Tuna" (if you haven't seen this show DO IT! Tuna TX is the third smallest town in Texas, where Patsy Cline lives on and the Lions Club is too liberal. All thirty residents are played by two men, Joe Sears and Jason Williams.) then off to see "Angels in America" (both shows), "Annie", "Once Upon A Mattress", "Chicago" the musical "Texas", "Rent", and now, a trip down the Yellow Brick Road. Who could ask for anything more, except maybe winning the lottery..... A few digests ago, someone mentioned a version of the music from WOZ done by Bobby McFerrin. Can you pass along more info. I love Bobby as well as the music from the movie. Is this the version that Scott Hamilton skated during the recent "Skate Debate". Scott did a wonderful routine, playing ALL the characters, except the WOW, which was played by a huge hat that descended over Scott. When the hat came up, Scott was wearing ruby red skates and did a moving dance to "Rainbow". Enough for now! Except I want to wish all a Happy Easter and Happy Passover! Robert ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:54:36 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Ruth >Bear: You think copyright should be perpetual? Seriously? If you're consistent enough to think that patents should also be perpetual, we can just call it a disagreement and leave it at that. If you think patents should be limited (as they are), then the same arguments apply to copyright. After I have lived in my house for 50 years can you come over and take it from me? I don't know Ruth, I would like to hear an argument FOR "taking" other's intellectual property. I had patents at GTE. However, when I went to work there I agreed to turn over any such to them. They went to all the work of going from a disclosure to the final patent. That takes years. For each patent they gave you $100, a nice plaque, and a dinner. That seemed fair to me. And, no, I don't see why patents are limited either. Someone has put in a lot of time, money, sweat and tears to produce something. Time passes and someone else can come along and "take" it for free. Just doesn't seem right to me. Please enlighten me. J.L. >In striking the balance of individual reward and public gain, protection for one full generation after the author's death is long enough. Who says it is long enough? "Public gain?" Who is that? The patent/copyright doesn't revert to the government (public), it is fair game for anyone who wants to exploit it without having done one thing to create it. >Extending the copyright term (i.e., the artificial right to prevent peers of the creator's *grandchildren* from reproducing a work) doesn't spur new creativity or spread information--it brings no benefit to society at all. I see, you are going to justify "taking" by claiming it "spurs new creativity or spreads information." This is just more sophistry to support what is nothing more than theft. Observe how we are getting used to such arguments. There is a swamp behind your house so the government "takes" it to protect some newt. Hey they are just doing it to protect the species for "the common good." What if it's your house? Also, JL, you are getting on in years, probably using up more medical assets, maybe not enjoying life as much. For the "common good" would you mind if we "snuff" you to reduce the financial load on the younger generations? Do you think this is a stretch? I sure don't. WOW! JWK - Tell us how you really feel about women in the 50's. We sure had a different experience. What else is new..... Sigh. Discouraged Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:23:24 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz and the public domain Sender: "J. L. Bell" A quirky question for all: Did the instrumental rock group the Ventures ever record a version of "Over the Rainbow"? Steve Teller wrote: <> To which I say, thank you for carrying on the discussion we've had, especially from the higher knowledge base afforded by your copy of Neill's first draft. Merely because we're scheduled to discuss SCARECROW next week strikes me as no reason to object to a discussion of WONDER CITY. Indeed, ILTT most of the people on this list are able to carry on different discussions simultaneously. And therefore I'll continue. You pointed out a third picture of a young woman in cape and floppy hat: the chapter opener on p. 25. I agree this is recognizably Jenny. The horizontal lines at the bottom of this picture and its overall style indicate it was drawn alongside the other chapter openers. But there's one odd difference: this is the only chapter-opening illustration which contains Neill's signature. (Three others--pp. 62, 125, 162--have his initials.) Might that hint Neill was self-conscious about this drawing as he tried to integrate the old "firefly fairies" image into this book? You also pointed out <>. That women is wearing a broad hat, though in a different style from Jenny's on p. 25. For a Munchkin matron, she looks young. Again, I wonder if Neill chose those details to allow him to use an old drawing to show the same character later. We'll never know. Of Thompson's still-copyrighted works Ruth Berman wondered: <> I expect Ms. Maryott would be agreeable, since the Thompson estate made such a deal with Del Rey. Whether it would be affordable for a publisher is another question; it proved not to be for Del Rey. Standard hardcover royalties start at 10% of the book's purchase price. About half of that price goes to the publisher (Books of Wonder's actual share from Morrow for Thompson books may make the following math even more ominous). Thus, royalties on a hardcover sale take at least 20% of a publisher's revenue. In other words, if BoW were paying standard royalties on its upcoming reissue of KABUMPO, it would need 25% more revenue. Selling 25% more copies would be desirable but difficult, as I'm sure the firm's selling as many as it can already. Raising the price 25% would bring it to nearly $29, well above the price ceiling booksellers perceive over children's books. A higher price would cut the sales, meaning higher printing costs per book, meaning an even higher price--a vicious cycle that could put an end to BoW's hope to make these books available with color art restored for a new generation of readers. That is, assuming that the BoW imprint is operating like most small-run presses: on the margin of profitability. Ruth wrote: <> One classic case is Margaret Mitchell, who never wanted a sequel to GONE WITH THE WIND. Her heirs commissioned SCARLETT and others because they saw money--lots of money--to be made. After, I think, 2011 (2031 under the proposed new law) they won't have the monopoly on those sequels. Another sort of shenanigan came from the James Joyce estate, which endorsed a new version of ULYSSES--with a new copyright--when the old one was about to expire in 1989. The "improvements" in that version were roundly attacked by scholars as going against Joyce's intent, and it seems to have been withdrawn. (Meanwhile, the price of the original ULYSSES has gone down as other publishers have brought out their editions.) I recall reading an extract from a Thompson letter to Reilly & Lee speaking of how only she should use her characters. Yet Neill used Sir Hokus and Kabumpo. The McGraws mention Hokus in MERRY-GO-ROUND. Did they need only the publisher's permission? (R&L owned the original copyrights.) Dave Hulan wrote that Neill's <> I agree, though a glimmer of the Elegant One's vanity comes through when he meets Davy Jones and discovers he's not the biggest thing around (LUCKY BUCKY, p. 282). Ruth Berman also wrote: <> Interesting point. The first two Oz authors show the potentially large discrepancy between America's pre-1976 copyright law and today's. Thompson, having written her most valuable books early and dying late, would have gotten more from the current arrangement of death plus 50 years. Baum, writing late and dying relatively young, would actually have gotten longer protection for his later Oz books from the old term of 56 years. The 1976 law's extension of current copyrights to 75 years was intended as a bridge from one system to another, however. It wasn't meant to grant every copyright-holder the same windfall, just longer protection than they'd had before so none would complain. If we consider copyright through the metaphor of a contract, Baum and Thompson both went into a deal with U.S. society for up to 56 years of copyright protection. Both lucked out with more time, though only Thompson lived to see it. The same contract metaphor shows the dubiousness of the current extension: without giving anything new to the public in return, holders of old copyrights want more than they contracted for, more even than the extra they received in 1976. Scott Olsen wrote: <> That's right: trademarks are perpetual, as long as owners continue to use them in trade and protect them from encroachment. If "Steamboat Willie" went into the public domain and someone printed a frame of that short on a shirt, Disney could still make a case in court that its Mickey Mouse trademark was infringed. For this reason, the MGM depictions of Dorothy and other Oz characters may well remain Time Warner trademarks even after the movie is in the public domain. Dave Hulan wrote: <> You're right, I did leave Shanower off my second list of Oz artists, even though I'd included him in my mix because he met my criteria. Ike Morgan illustrated Baum's QUEER VISITORS FROM THE MARVELOUS LAND OF OZ comic strip and THE WOGGLEBUG BOOK. I included him because he can be fairly said to have been the first to illustrate some Oz stories by Baum, even though he didn't originate any characters. His depiction of the Wogglebug as multi-armed even influenced Baum's text in those works. Dave Hulan also wrote: <> I see this episode, and the similar transformation in YEW, as evidence of the opposite: that while fairies are capable of appearing male, their natural state is female. Or at the very least they, wise immortals, prefer almost always to be females! Baum seems to have used "fairies" in two ways, complicating the issue. In the particular sense, it meant gauzily dressed young ladies dancing in the forest--the traditional turn-of-the-century fairy. In a wider sense, it seems to have been his label for immortals: sea fairies, rainbow daughters, Ryls, Knooks, and even Nomes. Some of the latter groups appear as all male. Mike Turniansky wrote: <<"establishmentarianism", which of course, just means the doctrine of the establishment. >> Gladstone is said to have coined "antidisestablishmentarianism" to mean opposition to disestablishment, the hotly debated Victorian issue of whether the Church of England should lose the state's exclusive support or recognition. Is that the doctrine you mean? When I wrote of Glinda "so upset that locks of her hair were actually falling out of her hairnets--oh, the horror!" Bear replied: <> No. What better way to show (not tell) the magnitude of a crisis facing Oz? Shanower depicts Glinda with a half-in, half-out hair style. And SCARECROW contains one image of her with no snood. So while Glinda may never let her hair down, she needn't always wear it netted. Bear wrote: <<"Was" a really ugly book. Geoff Ryman used Oz to demonstrate his considerable pathology.>> WAS was very much of its time--the early '90s. The focus on childhood sexual abuse and the certainty of early death for AIDS patients nail the novel to that period as tightly as, say, the 1950s are linked to the two Oz books about animals in rockets (YANKEE and the first draft of HIDDEN VALLEY). But that same timeliness means it's dubious to ascribe those themes to Ryman himself. If writing about sexual abuse is a sign of an author's <>, there was a spate of pathological prize-winning novelists in the last decade. Or do you have other indicators of his diseased state? I didn't enjoy WAS. I haven't made up my mind whether I think Ryman succeeded at what he was trying for--in large part because I can't tell what he was trying. The book may have made me think in new ways about Oz, but I'm not convinced those new ways added up to much. James Doyle wrote that he'd <> You must have studied the film quite carefully then! That may prove quite valuable in our upcoming discussion of SCARECROW. Finally, a special little corner for Richard Bauman's version of one of my postings: <> I understand that you archive these digests, Bear. I can't see why. You rarely, if ever, seem to quote from them. Instead, you offer inaccurate paraphrases of what people have written. In the 4/7 digest, I wrote in direct response to comments about the nature of politicians and desires to know more about the pending copyright bill. I fairly described that legislation, which has a direct impact on the reading, writing, and publishing of people in this group. I provided that information with no judgments of any political party or politician. Indeed, I wrote such unobjectionable things as that voters should be "researching candidates and developing reasonably coherent political philosophies." So how does my posting constitute <>? Your mischaracterization of comments is tiresome, Bear, but familiar. Back in the 1/25 digest, I challenged you to identify any quotation which supported the assertions you'd just made about me. You hid behind your TV, replying, <> At that time, I was ready to let the matter drop. But you're back to the same methods. And the game's over, man. The Broncos won. Time to put that archive to use or, and I know this will be hard for you, admit your statements were wrong. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:28:13 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-98 My mother-in-law passed away yesterday. Bob Spark: >> descriptions like "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" are >> closer to names (being distinctive identifiers) > Am I confused? For some reason I equate the "Soldier with the >Green Whiskers" with Oomby Amby (sp?). The Soldier with the Green Whiskers is probably Omby Amby, though he is never given both appellations in the same book. The only real reason to equate them is that when the Wizard is introduced to Omby Amby in _DotWiz_, he asks if he didn't formerly have green whiskers, and Omby Amby says he did. Omby Amby - who was the private in Ozma's army in _Ozma_, but promoted to Captain-General at the end of that book - is the head of Ozma's army (all officers) in _DotWiz_, _Road_, and _Emerald City_. The Soldier with the Green Whiskers is the sole member of the army of Oz in all the books from _Patchwork Girl_ on (if he's mentioned at all). He also appears under that designation in _Wizard_ and _Land_; his role in the Wizard's army isn't specified, though he's the entire Army of Oz under the Scarecrow. In _Ozoplaning_ Thompson names the Soldier with the Green Whiskers "Wantowin Battles," FWIW. J.L.: > I think our discussion of what Scraps and the Scarecrow do when the >lights go out is missing an important element: not all nights are equally >dark. In our electrified world, we often forget that the darkness varies by >the Moon's size, the cloud cover, and trees. On some nights we can read; on >others we can't see where we put our feet. And a rural society like Oz, or >like Roselawn, would be quite aware of those differences. Farmers would >plan to harvest on nights with a full Moon. Lovers would dance by its >silvery light. And, with any almanac, the Scarecrow could conceivably >schedule a chess game. Good point, though I think in the context of the original question the Scarecrow wouldn't have the option of consulting an almanac; the question was what he and Scraps did at night while on an adventure with people who need sleep, and it's rather in the nature of adventures that one doesn't choose the time of month for them. James: Welcome to the Digest! Ruth: > In RPT's case, since she died in 1976, if the death+50 protection of >1976 had been made retroactive to works copyrighted earlier, all of >her Oz books would still be under copyright and would remain so >until 2026, instead of running out between 1996-2014. The new bill >would apply to her Oz books as publication+95 copyright protection, >which would mean that the copyrights would run out from 2016-2038 >-- or, on average, just about the same as would have been the case if >the death+50 protection had been applied to all existing copyrights >instead of to the new ones only. On the other hand, Neill's books would already be PD if the death+50 provision had been applied retroactively. As you say, it depends on when in the author's life the work was created. John K.: >Not fair! His "look" was pretty much set in the 50's, at the same time >the Barbie Doll was created. (An unfortunate period for women's looks -- >pretty much all the hairstyles and makeup ideals were simply hideous, >and American women were pretty much expected to be either plain >housewives, cute -- but no more than cute -- virgins, or blousy, >brainless, but great-looking -- and almost invariably blonde -- sluts. >) I think you exaggerate. Grace Kelly? Susan Hayward? Cyd Charisse? To name a few who don't seem to fit your categories. Danny: >Is there a good source (and what is its availability) for an "index" of >sorts to Oz characters and their appearances in the Oz books (major and >guest appearances, too.) It's something I'm pondering on doing for a >website of mine I'm developing. The best (and only comprehensive) source I know of is Peter B. Clarke's _Who's Who, What's What, and Where's Where in Oz_, but it's out of print now. Snow's _Who's Who in Oz_ lists most of the characters through the first 39 books, but doesn't specify their appearances. I don't know if, say, Robin Olderman or Herm Bieber might have a copy of Clarke's book for sale, or if a copy might come up at a convention auction. SCARECROW Comments: Since there usually aren't any Digests over a weekend, and I'm going to be out of town much of next week, I thought I'd make a few preliminary comments in this post. It's interesting that Baum says Cap'n Bill is "not so very old," when he almost always refers to him as "the old sailor." Cap'n Bill's pipe-smoking would be Politically Incorrect if this book were to be published today. The full-page picture of Trot in Chapter 1 makes her look a rather sexy 16 or so to me. (Flat-chested, but then few if any of Neill's young-adult women are voluptuous enough to show much of a bustline in the kind of dress Trot's wearing here.) I think this is because her head is small with respect to her body; a rough estimate (since her lower legs and feet don't show) is that she's about 8 heads tall in this picture, which is typical of an adult and not of a child. I forget the rule of thumb for children, but I think that a ten-year-old should be more like 5-6 heads tall. And speaking of pictures, while Trot seems to be dark-haired in the picture mentioned above, she seems to be blonde in most of the rest of the pictures in both this book and her two pre-Oz appearances. (Since she's usually wearing a hat of some sort it's not as clear as it is with Dorothy or Ozma.) Starting with _Rinkitink_, though, she seems to be brunette through the rest of the series. Does Pessim reminds anyone else of a couple of people on the Digest? :-) I wonder why Cap'n Bill didn't take more berries of both sorts with them? They could have come in very handy. I also wonder how the berries managed to shrink their clothes and all the stuff in Cap'n Bill's pocket, as well as his wooden leg. Must be highly selective magic. I think Baum got carried away with his "Mountain Ear" pun. If the mountain can't hear what's going on in the world, how can it hear the Bumpy Man telling it what he's heard? I've only gotten as far as their hearing Pon's story in my rereading, so I don't have any more comments at the moment. Maybe I'll send a few more comments on Monday. David Hulan ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 13 - 14, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:16:21 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-98 Copy Right: Is it possible under this new law to copyright a book under the old system--50 years? <<. In _Ozoplaning_ Thompson names the Soldier with the Green Whiskers "Wantowin Battles," FWIW. >> I don't accept RPT as the "real Oz" anyway, as she made so many dramatic departures from the Baumian tradition and so many alterations to Oz itself; this quote illustrates why. Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:28:39 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: SCARECROW OF OZ Sender: "J. L. Bell" I see SCARECROW tracing the progress of Trot and Cap'n Bill from a solitary pair to two of a community of friends. From SKY ISLAND we know they live with Mrs. Griffith[s], a powerful personality, near a small town. Yet in this book Trot's mother merits one sentence (p. 15), the town none; we see the girl and the sailor alone on a bluff, even more alone in their dinghy, and soon completely cut off in the underwater cave. Gradually Trot and Cap'n Bill connect with others. The Ork joins them. They stay briefly on Pessim's island--an unhappy community of four. Then Mo, where the Mountain Ear is a contrast to Pessim; he's separate from his fellow Momen, too, but he's connected to their welfare (p. 94), to his mountain, and to the birds (who call to him by name, p. 112). There by luck our pair meet their old friend Button-Bright. Jinxland is a larger society, but still isolated by the Desert and the gulf. [I remember this story as fitting in the latter half of the book, so I was surprised to see it actually start 1/3 of the way through and take up fully half the chapters.] Friendly as the Jinxlanders seem, the Americans are still "strangers" among them (p. 203). Finally, Trot and Cap'n Bill go to Oz proper. In these final chapters, they reprise their previous adventures: again we see an Ork flight over a natural barrier, lonely cottages, an underground cavern, swirling water, a castle. Thus, when Trot and Cap'n Bill end up in the Emerald City, they've symbolically traveled both: * forward to the end of their journey, the vast community of Oz. * back to the start of their journey, or home. SCARECROW starts by contrasting the outlooks of Cap'n Bill and Trot. The sailor thinks there's a limit to what we can know; Trot disagrees. This echoes SEA FAIRIES statement that they "represented the 'beginning and the end of life'" (p. 12). It also reflects Cap'n Bill's tendency to worry and Trot's readiness to try new plans. However, the book doesn't seem to support one's outlook above the other; the friends never go separate ways because of their contrasting philosophies. Rather, this difference serves to underscore their closeness. Even when they disagree, Trot always tries to stick by the sailor, and Cap'n Bill always listens to the girl. Button-Bright takes up a third position on what we can know: "It tires me to think, and I never seem to gain anything by it. When we see the people who live here we will know what they are like, and no 'mount of thinking will make them any different" (pp. 121-2). And why wouldn't he? The one time we've seen Button-Bright really think things through--sneaking into the Boolooroo's treasure room in SKY ISLAND--he didn't achieve his goal. The Ork is not only an unusual animal, he's an unusual animal companion for the Oz books. He's the first not to go home with either the child-protagonist or Ozma. "Are you *our* Ork?" Trot asks him. "No, I'm my own Ork," he insists (p. 66). Later he reprimands Button-Bright for playing with his propeller: "It happens to be my tail, and I reserve the right to whirl it myself" (p. 110). Only gradually does the Ork come to accept Trot and Cap'n Bill as friends, rather than queer traveling companions. In the early chapters he never calls them by name; later he addresses "Cap'n Bill" twice [though he never addresses Trot by name]. He's clearly concerned about the old sailor and Trot when he talks to Button-Bright (p 216). In turn, the Ork becomes Trot's "old friend" (p. 249). Nevertheless, the Californians always address him as "Mr. Ork" or "friend Ork," never "Flipper" (p. 36), even when there are other Orks around. Throughout SCARECROW the Ork is bold in his actions and keen in his planning. When trapped in an underground cave, he braves the waters to swim out (p. 35), and wants to go into the tunnel right away (p. 39); Cap'n Bill has been far more cautious. The humans couldn't make it through the tunnels without the Ork (pp. 45, 56). On the island he has the breakthrough idea of shrinking down his companions (p. 76). He chooses to cross the Deadly Desert (p. 118). Even after achieving his own goal, the Ork returns to rescue Button-Bright, save the Scarecrow, dethrone Krewl, and capture Blinkie. And finally, of course, he brings Trot and her party to Oz. When Gloria announces she'll marry Pon, "the Ork sneezed twice and said that in his opinion the young lady might have done better" (p. 244). And he should know. He's become an epic hero, the sort princesses traditionally do marry (at least, perhaps, Ork princesses). I imagine choruses back in Orkland squawking the saga of Flipper, the brave young Ork who flew away to see "the creatures called Men" (p. 37); endured whirlpools and biting candles and shrinking berries; led an Ork army to capture a Men kingdom; and still made it home for his uncle's party! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 12:52:06 -0700 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: Ozzy Digest Bear: >J.L. >In striking the balance of individual reward and public gain, >protection for one full generation after the author's death is long enough. > >Who says it is long enough? "Public gain?" Who is that? The >patent/copyright doesn't revert to the government (public), it is fair game >for anyone who wants to exploit it without having done one thing to create >it. Even if someone didn't create an item or idea, that doesn't mean that they can use it without doing anything. If I wanted to write an Oz book with a Thompson character in it, I'd still have to go through the work of writing the manuscript. If BoW wants to publish, say, _Cowardly Lion_, they'd have to publish and market it. I can't understand your equation of the public to the government, either. While on the subject of copyrights, has _Kabumpo_ entered the public domain? If not, I guess there's no point in ever working on that manuscript I started. David: >Cap'n Bill's pipe-smoking would be Politically Incorrect if this book were >to be published today. I fail to see why. Cap'n Bill's smoking is hardly encouraging children to smoke, if that would be the rational behind it. >I think Baum got carried away with his "Mountain Ear" pun. If the mountain >can't hear what's going on in the world, how can it hear the Bumpy Man >telling it what he's heard? Telepathy, perhaps? -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff DinnerBell@tmbg.org or vovat@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "All I know could be defaced by the facts in the life of Chess Piece Face." ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 13:06:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Ozmama Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-98 David Hulan: I'm sorry to hear of the death of your mother-in-law. My thoughts are with you and your wife. Ruth: James is looking for original material from the Wizard stageplay. Where do you suggest he hunt? He has a lot of it already, but lacks some of the songs, if I've got my info correct. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 10:37:54 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-98 David Hulan, Please accept my sympathies on the passing of your mother-in-law. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 15:44:41 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-98 Robert: I got that CD at a second-hand store. As I understand, it was only available at the show, which I missed. I saved the newspaper article when Scott Hamilton did his Wizard of Oz thing, but I didn't see that, either. I finally saw the Dover _Magic_, but I didn't buy it. I fianlly found _Journey Beneath the Sea_ and watche dit last night. I also watched _Hayat Sevince Guzel_ (umlaut over the u), with Zeynep Degirmencioglu and Metin Serezli (Aysecik and Korkuluk (Dorothy and the Scarecrow) of Aysecik ve Sihirli Cuceler Ruyalar Ulkesinde_. This looked like a Disney teen comedy. Serezli played Aysecik's love interest, though I forget his name (I wrote it down). The main difference between it and a Disney film is that there is no kiss, as public kissing is rare in Turkey, not to the taboo of India, but it is not generally proper. There's the comic character, in this case an old man, who realizes he has been mistreating the urchins when Aysecik sees him read from the Qur'an. He has a discussion and embrace with her. Basically, it was about a girl from the country going to live with relatives in the city, where everyone dresses like contemporary (1970s Americans). Banjoko (Toto of the other film) gets thrown off, but eventually follows her home. Everyone in town grows to love her, even when at first they mocked her, and the bitchy aunt (?) tries to keep her heart from softening to her, but fails in the end. It got melodramatic in a Disneyesque way when she falls out of a tree and hits her head, and the whole town turns out to see her, so the male adult relative carries her down the stairs, and everyoner says how much they appreciate her. Aysecik does some exotic ethnic dances that are portrayed as total innocence, no matter how sexy they become (very much in the Disney dfashion). There's lots of music and dancing (though "Man with a Harmonica" from _Once Upon a Time in the West_ is tracked in when aysecik talks with the gardener, though I'm not sure why), and a '70s party where Aysecik shows up in Turkish garb (though with pants--like culottes or something), apparently at another girl's behest, so she can be laughed at, but the tables are turned. This appears to be missing a section of footage as well in Uludag's print, but it's hard to say. What is easier to say is why Temel Gursu now directs TV movies and Tunc Basaran now directs art films. I got one in the same package, _Ucurtmayi Vurmasinlar_, but I haven't watched it yet. Other fils with Zeynep Degirmencioglu as Aysecik are _Aysecik the Poor Princess, directed by Ertem Gorec, Pamuk Prenses ve 7 [Yedi] Sihirli [Cotten Princess (Snow White) and the Seven Dwarfs)], _Anneler Gunu_ [Mothers Envy], _Aysecik ve Omerick_ (Omercik is street urchin in Hayat Sevince Guzel. In one scene Aysecik holds Omercik's little sister, and has all the urchins behind her at a party place for the rich, mimicking Maria's introduction in _Metropolis_.), and _Kul Kedesi_ (Cool Kids [?]). I had to return my Turkish-English dictionary. Unfortunately, no date is given on the films, and information is difficult to get either in English or on-line. The film has no subtites, so I could only follow it so far. Scott P.S.: The worst movie of all time: The Super Sale of Carl J. Sukenick's Alien Beasts. Alien Beasts is an action-packed horror sci-fi adventures of a lifetime with super mega hi-tech special effects by Joe Penna and Dante Studios. There other projects include the T.V. show "Tales From The Darkside". Alien Beasts is a disturbing vision of alien invasion. - Legion Of Terror Magazine Alien Beasts is also endorsed by Sub-Genre Magazine and loved by Psychoholics Unanimous Magazine. Send a $15.95 check or money order payable to: Carl J. Sukenick 305 West 28th Street, #12D New York, NY 10001 ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 15:18:57 -0700 From: Douglas Silfen Subject: for Ozzy Digest Hi all, sorry I haven't posted in a while.... Does anyone the latest Oz book published by Emerald City Press? It has been a while, no? I'm also looking for an Oz book after the FF that deals with the Frog man. Any suggestions? Doug Silfen ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:03:34 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-98 Bear: >I had patents at GTE. However, when I went to work there I agreed to turn >over any such to them. They went to all the work of going from a >disclosure to the final patent. That takes years. For each patent they >gave you $100, a nice plaque, and a dinner. That seemed fair to me. >And, no, I don't see why patents are limited either. Someone has put in a >lot of time, money, sweat and tears to produce something. Time passes and >someone else can come along and "take" it for free. Just doesn't seem >right to me. Please enlighten me. The theory behind the protection of patents and copyrights is the same. There are two possible ways to handle intellectual property: keep it secret, or protect it by governmental action. For patents it's more obvious - the patent holder reveals the "secret," in return for government protection of the "secret" for a fixed term of years. After the term has expired, everyone has the use of the information involved. Conversely, if the discoverer of the "secret" doesn't want to reveal the "secret," then anyone else who independently discovers it has the right to use it without any reference to the one who discovered it first. It is generally considered beneficial to society as a whole to give the original discoverer the protection of his discovery for a reasonable term of years in return for his revealing it to others. He doesn't _have_ to reveal it, but if he doesn't then he has no protection against someone else making the same discovery and using it on his own behalf without payment to the original discoverer. For copyright it's a little more nebulous, since keeping a story or book or whatever secret means that the original creator doesn't profit from it either. But the basic argument is the same. If you publish a book, you (or your publisher) owns all the copies of that book until they're sold to someone else, but in a market economy without government action there's no reason why someone else can't publish his own copies of the same book without any payment to the creator. Any more than, say, there's any reason why someone couldn't make another chair identical to the one that's been in Tyler's family for five generations, if it was such a great chair as all that. The principle of copyright, like that of patents, is to give the creator a limited period of governmental protection of his creation in return for making the right to copy it available to everyone at some time in the future. The main point that I think all of the rest of us have been trying to make is that in the absence of governmental regulation (which I know is anathema to you except when it's necessary to achieve what you believe is Correct), there's _no_ protection for intellectual property. (Or for any other kind, which is why I find the anti-government types a bit on the naive side - but that's a separate argument that we needn't get into at the moment.) This was pretty much what prevailed in the US in the 19th century for anything that was originally produced outside this country; check Gilbert and Sullivan, for instance. >WOW! JWK - Tell us how you really feel about women in the 50's. We sure >had a different experience. What else is new..... Sigh. I don't think John K. was old enough in the '50s to have had an opinion of what women looked like at the time. Most fashions look pretty silly in retrospect. I personally think those of the '30s and '40s uglier than those of the '50s, though I'll have to admit that I find those of the '20s delightful even today. The '50s do get a really bad press from people who weren't around at the time. (I still think the '90s are better, but I wouldn't say the same about the '70s - or '30s or '40s.) J.L.: I don't think the hardcover royalties for reprints are as high as you say; 10% is standard for original publication. Reprint rights are usually considerably less, I believe. But I could be wrong. In any case, it's whatever the owner of the copyright and the publisher can agree on, and Dorothy Maryott may want more than the standard fee. Or may not. Peter Glassman might be willing to enlighten us on that. Ah, OK, that's who Morgan was. I've never seen the original _Queer Visitors_ and _Woggle-bug Book_ illustrations, except for excerpts in the _Bugle_; my _Third Book of Oz_ has the texts, but Shanower illustrations. >Gladstone is said to have coined "antidisestablishmentarianism" to mean >opposition to disestablishment, the hotly debated Victorian issue of >whether the Church of England should lose the state's exclusive support or >recognition. Is that the doctrine you mean? I thought it was only with reference to the Church of Ireland, which had a minuscule proportion of the population adhering to it but which was the only state-supported church on the island. (Most of the Irish were Roman Catholics, and the Ulstermen who were numerous in the north were Presbyterians. Only a few - largely absentee - landlords were Anglicans, which was the Church of Ireland.) I could be wrong about this, but that's what I've been told. A few more comments on _Scarecrow_ before I disappear to Tennessee for the next few days: The passage: "When the Scarecrow was so nearly burned up the girls [including Ozma] all shivered a little, and they clapped their hands in joy when the flock of Orks came and saved him." seems to me to confirm the theory that the Magic Belt had lost a significant part of its power between _Emerald City_ and _Scarecrow_. If it hadn't, surely Ozma could have rescued the Scarecrow without having to wait for the Orks. And considering how important he was to Oz, surely she wouldn't have just left it to chance! The argument against vegetarianism in Oz seems reinforced by the statement that Button-Bright was beating the end of a bass drum with the bone of a turkey-leg after the feast in Jinxland. (Granted, Jinxland isn't typical of Oz, but, still, at the same time...) I guess that's it for comments at the moment. I'll see what I have to say about other people's when I'm back home again. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 21:20:34 -0700 From: Ken Cope Subject: Wogglebug's Patents on Oz Ownership of intellectual property raises some serious (and extremely silly) issues. To whom should a particularly elegant mathematical expression exclusively belong, for how long, and why? Disney, in the form of Imagineering's R&D Patent Attorneys, made my life miserable for 6 months for fear that they'd be sued if I used a skeletal heirarchy to deform my character and display it on a monitor in real-time in their first Virtual Reality Lab. That would have been the right way to do it, but somebody from NYIT was threatening to sue all of the 3D software vendors who routinely use that method. During the 80s, the patent office didn't have much of a clue about software issues and rubberstamped nearly every patent application, no matter how specious, at just about the same rate James Watt was auctioning off non-renewable resources we wouldn't need come the second coming. Yes, all arguments are both religious and political, at least the interesting ones are and there isn't much point in pretending otherwise. I was required to try and make several dead-end and wrongheaded alternative approaches work, while the lawyers tried to figure out how not to have to pay these guys if their patent claim did hold up, (it didn't) and I got further de-railed while they hung over my shoulder trying to patent anything about the way I was modeling, lighting, setting up or animating their characters. If they had succeeded, after I left Disney, I would have had to pay them for the right to use methods I developed. Obviously, it's in a corporation's self-interest to defeat competitors' patents and strictly enforce its own. This is one of the purposes of State funded education and programs like NASA. Research done at some schools is available for everybody to use; it was done with Tax dollars. Corporations get cheap labor, schools get practical direction from the real world and placement of the better students in paying jobs, and everybody is happy. Private vs. public issues like these cloud my Libertarian leanings. When Voyager went to the outer planets, every American shared the porthole, and we all own the data retrieved by the mission. Nobody can hold it from you exclusively, it belongs to you as a taxpayer. We are also free to do what we will with the data derived, say, if a map of a planet is used as art in a CG space battle. Computer Graphics Animators like me owe a debt to Jim Blinn, who worked out most of the methods in use today that weren't worked out by Ed Catmull at Pixar...on public money. SIGGRAPH was an organization set up to share the knowledge, outside of the corporations that would hold it from each other, in order to accelerate its growth. Now Blinn is a Research Fellow for Microsoft. Still, along the way, contractors in the space program are free to patent their original solutions for the problems posed by the job they signed on to do for the taxpayer. Alloys for heat shields, honeycombed epoxy for the Lunar Excursion Module, and countless other spinoff technologies that are derived when people are joined to achieve a common goal, and work up to a standard rather than down to a budget. Patents, unless I've missed something, are awarded for only 17 years, during which time you're free to gouge as much as you can, or force others to do something the dumb way just to avoid paying you a dime. When the time's up, everybody has the right to exploit your invention. It shouldn't come as a surprise that programmers generally don't like the notion of patents, while they're hacking. Once the product ships, that's a different matter; but why should they have to reinvent the wheel when round is the right shape, just to be different? This is why Windows 95, in the broadest sense, is just a butt-ugly variant of the Mac OS as far as functional appearances in the interface go. Not better nor worse as such, functionally, just different enough not to be in violation of any patents or copyrights, or trade dress, and largely for no better reason. Is there a point in patenting the value of Pi? A programmer wants to use the simplest, best tool for the job, and that may be some lines of code somebody else prized from the Gods first. When Compaq cloned the IBM PC, people had to reinvent it more than reverse engineer it, so that the same thing could be done differently enough to satisfy the lawyers. The idea of the computer couldn't be held privately, anymore than the notion of a fairyland with a two letter name can be owned. Ideas can't be copyrighted, but the specific setting into finite form can be. How is intellectual property different than actual property, apart from the notion that property is theft? If you sell your house to me, I have your house and you don't. If you sell a copy of the blueprints to your house to me, I have your blueprints, but you still have the originals. You're free to sell those as many times as you like, unless such sale would be a violation of a contract insuring me the exclusive right to those blueprints. As the home computer becomes more and more powerful, soon the device used to display entertainment becomes identical to the device used to create it. Take the example of 3D characters and environments in a computer game. When you fire up your latest videogame or VRML space, you have to be using a copy of the original intellectual property in order to derive the enjoyment from playing it! The property is the geometry and textures and algorithms and datasets that are the characters, world, and potential behaviors. Why can't you turn around and sell as many copies as you like? Because of the nature of the contract into which you entered implicitly, by using the product. You're not paying for the cost of the materials, which are minimal. You're paying for the cost of the development of those materials. In a given software package, you're paying the company for maintenance, upgrades. You're paying them to continue to improve the software, which is becoming more and more of a subscription these days. What happens if nanotechnology and robotics achieve the level of sophistication that even conservative extrapolation from present trends yield, where technology is indistinguishable from magic? If you had the imagination, and sufficient personal responsibility, you could be living in Oz if society had the collective will. Presently, wealth is measured more by the lack of it in others. Freedom from want is postulated in Oz, and in the Star Trek universe. Replicators and robots (or magic) provide what is needed, even wanted, and humans are free to learn and define what it means to be human. We live in a time where it would be safe to bet on the achievement of a fairly sophisticated HolodeckTM style of Virtual Reality entertainment sooner than the establishment of a permanent colony on the moon. Ironically enough, we may only ever imagine we left the cradle of earth before we're swallowed by the sun. The hacker ethos believes in leaving the code in the machine in hopes that somebody can learn from it and perhaps improve it, to add one more string of pure platonic idealism to the code museum. Just because Fred is the first one to figure out that 2 + 3 = 5, should we have to pay him every time we count? No, we want to encourage Fred to have more clever ideas so we give him a break for a while. If we let him rest on his laurels too long, without having used the break we gave him to invent something else, too bad for Fred. In a sense, created works like fiction, and fictional fantasy worlds are co-created by their audience, in their imagination. In a sense, copyrights are valuable for holding the form in stasis long enough for a large number of people to agree that it is good, without it being corrupted by too many derivative works that point away from what was unique about the original. We all profit when an original creation withstands the test of time, and the fickle tastes of subsequent generations. This nation in the 19th century was a pirate, not honoring international copyright. Countless versions of Alice In Wonderland were published here, by lawless publishers, without the authorization of Carrol or his publisher. Those books were not reliably his work, even now we have a wide spectrum of choices presented to us from which we must choose carefully, to discern the genuine from the merely authentic. To limit the imitators and quell piracy to ensure that you are getting the real thing is a primary value of copyright. But now, Wonderland, and Oz, have become part of our heritage, an abstract ideational landscape that we hold in common with each other that brings us closer. We all own a part of Oz, who have tried to picture it, and somehow make it more real as we strove to build our imaginations. It has shaped us, is a part of us, and why shouldn't we all own a bit of it. Oz, like anything else that is such a treasured part of our heritage, is too precious to entrust exclusively to the judgement of progeny. Genetic fruit cannot be counted upon to fall close enough to the tree in perpetuity. If RPT's creations remain hers for a number of years longer, her heir does Oz a favor, as we who would have liked to be in her place as a young woman are presented with the same opportunity she had when she became the next Royal Historian. Any new work that purports to be Royal History will have to base itself purely on Baum's imagination, and that of the new author, just as hers was. If we wish to do her honor and not contradict her contributions, she has left some if not most of her characters to the public domain. As some of us evolve, and we find new forms into which we can fix and expand upon the great ideas of our culture, it is important to carry them forward so that they will be fresh for a new generation. They should be preserved, so they may be discovered in a form similar to the way we first experienced them. The public domain is a trust, the most valuable that an author can hope for. How is an author's success measured if not by the extent to which culture embraces and builds upon original intellectual property? As long as the original work can be trusted to remain fixed, we have the opportunity to carry the song forward with our voices, and the right to begin adding new verses. Whether our additions and new interpretations are catchy enough that others are willing to pay us royalties, is up to each of us. For that, a lifetime should be enough. Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com http://www.ozcot.com ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:45:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Orange5193 Subject: ozzy digest submission. > James Doyle wrote that he'd <f or "His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz".>> > You must have studied the film quite carefully then! I finished recording and synching back in December and can still put put the tape in, walk out of the house, go to the corner store and while I'm gone, tell you with some measure of accuracy what's going on onscreen at any time in the 58 minutes. > That may prove quite > valuable in our upcoming discussion of SCARECROW. Since Scarecrow is one of my favorites among the LFB books, I'm game for discussion. As far as the copyright talk goes, I'm a little afraid as to whether the extensions will go retroactive and carve the current P.D. back to 1903. I've heard rumors both ways-- any new info? It would be ridiculous to legislate into existence a new class of unintentional copyright criminals. Yours, ironing out his prison stripes just in case, James ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:11:03 -0400 From: The International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: FW: NEWS - My MAKEUP OZZIVERSARY Peter Hanff suggested that some of the digest readers in the So Cal area might be interested in this. Jim Vander Noot Webmaster The International Wizard of Oz Club http://www.ozclub.org/~iwoc -----Original Message----- From: JDSE1990 [mailto:JDSE1990@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 12:17 PM Ozisus@aol.com; Rcstir@aol.com Subject: NEWS - My MAKEUP OZZIVERSARY Wednesday, April 8, 1998 Fellow OZ enthusiast - Some great news about my planned makeup tribute to OZ this summer: The Local 706 Makeup and Hairstylists Union executive board voted in favor of endorsing my OZZIVERSARY last night. This is monumental since it means resources, support - every key ingredient (except extra cash, but it is a great start). Thus, I have contacted my makeup point person about going ahead with the plan to re-create the key characters on the show. For this, I will receive help, though I am open to ideas as to how we can best go about this aspect too. This is a great time to hear from you as to how you would like to contribute to this affair. To reiterate, I am interested in canvasing our room (a hotel convention-style hall) with OZ memorabilia, posters, etc. to provide OZ ambience. Any item brought will be secured by on-site personnel who will be hired to document and watch all materials carefully. Moreover, you will be offered every imaginable promotional consideration on the day of the show and in any media used in conjunction (web site stuff, printed works, video). I can also offer video copies of the final event - I am working on having it professionally filmed. Please feel free to E-Mail or call me about this. I welcome participation from any OZ enthusiasts, but I must start planning this month. The target time for this celebration - to be firmed up by May 1 - is a Saturday morning in late August, early September, in the San Fernando Valley north of Los Angeles. My business phone (626) 963-0635. --- Look forward to hearing from you. --- Scott Essman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 17:21:45 -0500 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-98 DAVID HULAN: My sincere condolences on your loss. PATRICK MAUND: Congratulations. A. * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:30:09 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Tyler >One of the problems wiht this is that after about a dozen generations, hundreds of people could claim ownership of a story or a character. In order to use these, all of them must be tracked down and gotten to sign on. This would be economically infeasible. Long before this would happen, the rights to the idea would be sold to Putnam's, Harcourt Brace, Reilly and Lee or whoever. Oh, you came to the same conclusion. So, what is the difference between your chair and your story that you would feel all right about someone taking one and not the other? Dave - It escapes me. What did you ask Ann Druyan to do? Robin - We all dislike commercials but recall, the sponsors pay for the programs. Even PBS demonstrates this now. JL Bell - I'm sorry to disappoint you. I just don't think anyone on the Digest but you is interested in a rehash of your gratuitous political comments. The point was we were asked to desist or take such traffic off line and most of us complied. Well, we tried ...... David - Our sympathies to Marcia for her loss. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 98 00:21:10 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things _SCARECROW_ SOUNDTRACK: James Doyle wrote: >I finished recording and synching back in December and can still put put the >tape in, walk out of the house, go to the corner store and while I'm gone, >tell you with some measure of accuracy what's going on onscreen at any time in >the 58 minutes. I look forward to hearing your score! ( In any case, it's bound to better than the music on the currently available commercial videos of the Oz silents! :) ) COPYRIGHTS AND VR: Ken Cope wrote: >Attorneys, made my life miserable for 6 months for fear that >they'd be sued if I used a skeletal heirarchy to deform my >character and display it on a monitor in real-time in their >first Virtual Reality Lab. That would have been the right way >to do it, but somebody from NYIT was threatening to sue all of >the 3D software vendors who routinely use that method. That's a lot of 3D programmers to send off to Levenworth! So many 3D packages have embraced the bones-and-deformation method, including both _Imagine_ and _Animation: Master_, the two I use. Can something like this really patented? Looks like we're back to the "Apple-sues- Microsoft" issue...I hate to agree with Microsoft, but in this case I think they were right. (I notice that Apple didn't sue Amiga, who "plagerized" the windowing environment concept long before Microsoft did.) >We live in a time >where it would be safe to bet on the achievement of a fairly >sophisticated HolodeckTM style of Virtual Reality entertainment >sooner than the establishment of a permanent colony on the moon. >Ironically enough, we may only ever imagine we left the cradle >of earth before we're swallowed by the sun. Hippikaloric, I hope not! If "virtual reality" technology evolves faster than "real world" technology, what would that say about the human race? That we value illusions over real substance? Do we really want a world of "game-heads"? Dorothy: Am I really living a happy existence in the Land of Oz, or am I just playing the Total Immersion Virtual Reality game "Better Than Life"? Am I in Oz or really a "game-head" languishing back in Kansas?? (That's the sort of question I *don't* want to have to ask!) James Doyle wrote: >As far as the copyright talk goes, I'm a little afraid as to whether the >extensions will go retroactive and carve the current P.D. back to 1903. I've >heard rumors both ways-- any new info? It would be ridiculous to legislate >into existence a new class of unintentional copyright criminals. ARRRRRGGGGHHH!!! You mean they might put us Oz authors out of business altogether??!! SCARECROW: Jno Bell wrote: >The sailor thinks there's a limit to what we can know; Trot disagrees. Cap'n Bill wouldn't look out of place with many modern physicists, e.g. John Horgan, the author of _The End of Science : Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age_. Trot however sides with Kepler, Einstein, and Eric Lerner (author of the far more optimistic _The Big Bang Never Happened_). David H. wrote: >The passage: "When the Scarecrow was so nearly burned up the girls >[including Ozma] all shivered a little, and they clapped their hands in joy >when the flock of Orks came and saved him." I concede that this passage doesn't do much for my assertions that Ozma has an I.Q. over that of a glass of water. Ozma: Actually, *I* was the one who contacted the Orks and sent them over to the rescue, but of course as with the Network News, those little details get left out, and I come across looking like I think it's only a movie I'm watching in the Magic Picture...GRRRR! >Cap'n Bill's pipe-smoking would be Politically Incorrect if this book >were to be published today. Zim: I also have been criticized by the political correctness crowd for my pipe-smoking. Glinda is trying to persuade me to stop, and that is different...But I would much rather the political correctness people would find more productive ways of spending their time. Now for my own comments on _Scarecrow_ -- I have always liked this book, second only to _Patchwork Girl_, but there are a few things interesting about it...For one thing, it stands out for me as the one Oz book in which the title character is not even mentioned until about three-quarters of the way through. (I was going to say "only Oz book in which the title character does not *appear* until about three-quarters of the way through, but I knew some people would then cry out gleefully, "_Wizard of Oz_! _Wizard of Oz_!") Another thing that stands out is that in _Scarecrow_ Baum breaks his own prohibition on romance in children's stories. I guess it was unavoidable when adapting a movie to a book. But I hope he came away feeling less than before that children "can't understand" romantic stories. (_Scarecrow_, as well as a number of Thompson's books, flatly contradict this posit.) And then there's the Ork -- my favorite exotic creature of the Nonestic (Anyone remeber our debate from a year or two ago about the Ork might possibly have evolved?) :) EMERALD CITY PRESS BOOKS: Douglas Silfen wrote: >Does anyone the latest Oz book published by Emerald City Press? _The Lavender Bear of Oz_ is the most recent I've seen... >I'm also looking for an Oz book after the FF that deals with the Frog man. >Any suggestions? _The Magic Dishpan of Oz_ (Though he is in an enchanted form through most of it, but at least he appears in it). "OZ ON CHARON": Bear wrote: >Dave - It escapes me. What did you ask Ann Druyan to do? To support the "Oz-names on Charon" proposal...Her support brings us to a sparkling grand total of four. (Charon's discoverer James Christy, Author Ray Bradbury, British TV astronomer Patrick Moore,and now Ann Druyan.) "POUR ME AN OZADE, I'LL BE BACK FOR BREAKFAST": For those who have been asking, I *am* working on _Red Dwarf in Oz_... I just finished my first _Red Dwarf_ FanFic (in which BTW Zurline makes a cameo apperance), and now I can work on the Ozzy one. It will be about how "The Boyz and Girl from the Dwarf" rescue Oz from the revenge of the Magical Mimics. Camille and Pete Tranter's Sister will also play important parts. Joint Oz/Dwarf fans at least should enjoy it, though already some parts seem surreal even to me -- Omby Amby doing the "Rimmer Salute"? Jellia enjoying Doug McClure-less films with Lister? Kryten talking cybernetics with Tik-Tok? Ozma and Kris Kochanski comparing notes on maligned strong-minded, leadership-skilled brunettes who just want to be loved? And any number of Ozites, including the Adepts, seeing Camille as their ideal companion? -- Well, we'll see what happens... :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 15 - 17, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:01:55 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission In the April 10-12 issue, Tyler Jones says, Tyler is right; the situation is deplorable. Let's take up a collection to get him a new chair. In the same issue, a Discouraged Bear states that any time limitation on copyright protection I am, as usual, confused. I thought that no copyright protections existed prior to the US copyright laws. Zip. Zero. The new laws established a new right and were set up for the explicit purpose of spurring new creativity and the spread of information. The new right of exclusive use of your writings has always been limited. No unlimited right of copyright has ever existed. How is resisting a further lengthening of the copyright limitation the equivalent of theft? J. L. Bell lists examples of an author's wishes being disregarded after the writer's death. Another such example is the case of Kaufka (sp?). He wanted all of his works destroyed. Earl Abbe _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:50:48 -0400 From: Richard Randolph Subject: Ozzy Digest I received the Spring 1998 issue of The Oz Collector in yesterday's mail, so those of you who don't receive the Books of Wonder News, (which Bear suggested I made up! :)) should be receiving your copy of the Oz Collector soon. Dick ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:38:49 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Danny Wall & David Hulan: Danny asked about "an 'index' of sorts to Oz characters and their appearances in the Oz books (major and guest appearances, too.)" and David suggested that Danny look for a used copy of Peter B. Clarke's _Who's Who, What's What, and Where's Where in Oz_. I'd recommend my "Who's Who in Oz Appendix" (copies still available from me) -- equally good as a guide to who's who and where's where (doesn't include what's what, but does include coverage of the IWOC-published Oz books and "Little Wizard" stories as well as the main 40). Mike Turniansky: Oops, of course not Turner. Sorry. You're right that there are plenty of other words for "dog" besides poochie, but I have an impression (from the fact that my parents always called dogs "poochie" if they didn't know the dog's name, and sometimes even when they did) that "poochie" for a while around that time had almost become "the" term. J.L. Bell: Good discussion of the reasons for granting copyrights and for not granting them forever. J.L. Bell & David Hulan: J.L. suggested that the Scarecrow could play chess at night without turning on extra lights on nights with enough moonlight, and David suggested that the Scarecrow probably would have trouble arranging to have a board and pieces along while adventuring. I'd suggest that his brains are probably good enough to let him play mental chess and not need light for it or even a physical chess-set. (I was going to suggest that a serious chess-player might carry around a small chess-set regularly -- in the Scarecrow's case, it could be packed away in his straw easily enough. But on second thought I suspect his difficulty with fine-motor-movement would make it too hard for him to get the case out and too hard to manipulate the pieces.) David Hulan: A few years back David and I were discussing (by mail) Trot's parents and feeling uncomfortable with the announcement that Trot can't go home again and can't even communicate with home or ask to have her parents brought to Oz. (Of course, on the writing side of it, Baum presumably didn't want to repeat the emotional effect of bringing Dorothy's parental figures to Oz with what would look like essentially the same scene done over if the Griffiths got to come.) I commented that Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths might have died in the storm that brought Trot and Cap'n Bill to Oz. David pointed out that there *wasn't* any storm -- Trot and Cap'n Bill start their travels in "Scarecrow" with a whirlpool, not a storm. I hadn't reread the book recently at that point, so accepted that objection. Rereading now, though, it strikes me that there is actually a storm, although all we see of it is its start, in the formation of the whirlpool. Cap'n Bill is worried by the still, sultry (even though cloudless) weather, and is expecting a storm to be about to start; when he sees the whirlpool, he explains that it is caused by a whirl in the air. So it sounds as if Trot and Cap'n Bill are getting caught up at the very start of just such a whirlwind as started Dorothy's travels. (And would Baum have intended such an explanation? Well, it looks to me as if intended readers to assume a storm, and I suppose possibly at some point in the writing he might have considered announcing that the Griffiths died in it, but if so he decided not to do it that way.) Robin Olderman: Enjoyed your Oz-characters-on-money riff. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:28:59 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-98 Speaking of antidisestablishmentarianism-- Isn't that the longest word in the English lanuage, or has another taken the prize? Re _Scarecrow_: Didn't it spawn the hit movie, _Raiders of the Lost Ork_? Okay, I'll stop now. Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:30:39 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: SCARECROW OF OZ and more Sender: "J. L. Bell" After posting my comment on the Moon's phase affecting how dark nights are, I was pleased to come across this comment of the Ork's (p. 247): "It is a fine moonlight [sic] night," and therefore right for flying. Some more SCARECROW comments: I've read recently that a whirlpool of the sort Baum describes in chaps. 1-2 doesn't actually exist in nature, just in bathtubs. It was thought to be real in his time, however. Under the water, "Trot was almost sure unseen arms were about her, supporting her and protecting her" (pp. 22-23). Alongside the sea-maiden pictures on pp. 12 and 22, this makes me think her mermaids are back. And we know from SEA FAIRIES that those mermaids can bring her and Cap'n Bill "hundreds of miles" in a brief time (p. 43). Perhaps they deliberately carried Trot away from the California coast to the Nonestic. Nevertheless, she's in dire straits for a while. For the first time in a Baum book I worry about the heroine actually starving to death. Food's always a big concern for kids, but for the first third of this book every morsel--of fish, of melons, of candy and popcorn--is hard-earned. Only when they reach Oz do Trot and her companions seem assured of their next meal. And the dinners that the Wizard provides by magic are the best of all! Dave Hulan wote: <> Jinxland was a no-smoking area (p. 141). Dave Hulan wrote: <> Especially since it conveniently *didn't* shrink Trot's bonnet (which she'd put on the ground, p. 80). Trot also regrets not having brought more berries, but "Cap'n Bill made no reply to this statement, which showed he did not fully agree with the little girl" (pp. 111-2). One of the lessons Cap'n Bill seems to embody in this book is that what's done is done, and one might as well make the most of what comes next. Button-Bright feels the same way, but (unlike the sailor) isn't cautious about his choices of what to do in the first place. Dave Hulan wrote: <> I'm guessing you mean the art on p. 27. It seems to be of a piece with Neill's other pinups on pp. 150 (Gloria), 167 (Glinda), 259 (Ozma, mostly), 261 (Dorothy), and 263 (Betsy). The Dorothy art also seems to have a little girl's face on a grand ballerina's body. It's nice to see Neill stretch his draftsmanship again, however; since early PATCHWORK GIRL many of his sketches have been in his sketchy style. Dave writes: <> When she's *inside* her hat in the color plate opposite p. 86, Trot is honey blonde. That startles me each time I see it because I think of her as brunette, starting with SEA FAIRIES. (My edition has no color plates, even in grays like the BoW reissue, so I see only black ink in her hair.) Gloria's hair also seems to shift: light orange in the plate opposite p. 140 to dark ten pages later, and back, and back again. You've reported how Neill left the coloring of the plates to the printer. Nonetheless, by leaving the hair area open (in contrast to Pon's dark, filled-in mane), Neill seems to be signalling for lighter locks. Some more comments on Neill's SCARECROW art: All color plates but that opposite p. 28 have borders around them, often picking up a color in the drawing. Those frames are reflected in the round scallopped broders around most chapter-opening drawings. To show the spinning of the Orks' tails, Neill uses motion lines (pp. 250-1, e.g.). I don't recall him using this technique before, except maybe in his cloud trails. Any counterexamples to that memory? Files's bullets, maybe? For texture Neill often uses patterns of many thin, perfectly parallel lines (p. 88, e.g.) or mottled grays (p. 89). I know how today's artists would get such effects with rub-on overlays or software. But does anyone know the technology Neill might have used? The art of p. 7 (dedication page) shows the Scarecrow roped to a tree, a crow, and the Tin Woodman nearby--remind us of any LIL WIZARD story we recently discussed? I can't figure out the illustration on p. 123. For decades I've assumed that was Trot greeting Pon (based on his size and dark hair), but the boy seems to be wearing Button-Bright's clothes. I like the depiction of Krewl's guard on p. 138: teeny battleaxe, bell on his cap. There's something rather Seussian about it. The art on p. 204 wrongly depicts Cap'n Bill (as a human) and Button-Bright among the counsel. Tyler Jones wrote: <> Interesting point. Of course, knowing her friends well, Glinda could have added up Book reports like "Ozma and Dorothy are discussing how to protect Oz," "Ozma's red wagon is moving through the red country," and the girls' presence in her castle to reach her conclusion. (Again, that's me not taking Glinda's statements at face value any more than other people's, and believing that she enjoys having people admire how much she shows.) I see that in the same digest I chastised Richard Bauman for not quoting more often from other people's postings, he did just that. Good show! I'm suitably abashed on that point. And congratulations, Bear, for having developed <>. What's even more impressive is that, given that you <>, you developed these inventions without relying on any older device that had ever been patented and gone into the public domain: no electric currents, no stainless steel,... In response to my contention, "In striking the balance of individual reward and public gain, [copyright] protection for one full generation after the author's death is long enough," Bear wrote: <> Anyone = public. The public's everyone but you, and you. From others' perspectives, you're "anyone." The government is an arm of this public, but it's not the public, especially in this case. The efficiency of the public domain is that neither the government nor any private bureaucracy is involved. And as for <>, I quote the following: The Congress shall have power...to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Ah, the good old days! Tyler Jones wrote of perpetual, inheritable copyright: <> I think one rule of copyright says that if you get *anyone* who has an interest in a text to give you permission for quoting, and no one else who has an interest tells you no, you're in the clear. But that might be more of a lawyer's pragmatic conclusion from court decisions than a stated regulation. When copyrights are obviously valuable, there's usually a family group to handle them: the Baum Trust, which copyrighted Schocken's LIL WIZARD, for instance. But when they're not bringing in money, people lose interest: what will happen to Thompson's copyrights after Dorothy Maryott? Tyler Jones wrote: <> When I wrote that, I was actually thinking of monarchy in its purest form: "Do what I say because I'm king." I was seeing hereditary monarchy as a refinement, made necessary by mortality--a factor childish thinkers don't usually consider. Hereditary monarchy is even worse, however; as people have pointed out on this list, the problem with a truly benevolent dictator is that eventually someone else must come after her (except in Oz). Your main point is powerful, Tyler; there seem to be natural urges to: * bequeath everything we can get our hands on to our children * feel entitled to most of our parents' things * assume a child carries on the qualities of a parent They all seem to be ways to use material things to deny death. The Amish eschew that sort of materialism; children have to bid on their own parents' goods at a competitive auction when the older generation retires, for instance. There's a market solution! During a chat last week, an attorney who specializes in publishing told me that "despite Sonny Bono's death" the new copyright term extension bill was so controversial it's unlikely to pass during this session of Congress. So even with the European law, this doesn't seem to be a foregone conclusion. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:07:29 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-98 Howdy, Re: pipe smoking. It strikes me that the dangers of second-hand smoke have been proven sufficiently that snide comments about "political correctness" are just silly. Your right to swing your fist doesn't extend to the point that it encounters my nose. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:05:47 +0300 (IDT) From: Tzvi Harris Subject: digest David: My condolences on your loss. I just came back from a short trip to the States. While there I had a few free hours and went to B&N in Brooklyn. They had a few BoW and some Dover Oz books. I took _Dorothy_ (BoW) and The Magical Monarch of Mo (Dover). I'm about halfway through Magical Monarch (short stories about Mo), and although the stories are longer and more developed than LWS, I can't say that I'm impressed by Baums' short stories. _Dorothy_ on the other hand (by Baums' great-grandson) had a nice story line, but there was something missing in the style of writing. Hope everybody has (or had) pleasant holidays/vacations. Tzvi Talmon Israel ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:16:33 -0400 (EDT) From: CrNoble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest Hey folks, I received BoW's "Oz Collector" today, and, as promised, _Rinkitink_ and _Kabumpo_ are now available. I notice, however, that there is no "pre- publication" offer. I may wait until it shows up in my local Borders to avoid shipping & handling costs (which I believe are more than my local sales tax). Dick Randolph: Wasn't it you who received BoW's general children's catalog some time ago? Are they offering Johnny Gruelle's _Magical Land of Noom_? Craig Noble ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:57:48 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Well, "The Oz Collector" arrived today. In looking through it I noticed that collecting Oz is making us wealthy. Book/Purchase Price/Current Price Christmas In Oz/$29.95/$29.95 Little Wizard Stories/$14.95/$20.00 Glass Cat/$29.95/$34.95 - Hulan scores! Queen Ann/$26.95/44.95 - Eric scores big!! Giant Garden/$39.95/ sold out - I wonder what this goes for now? This was just one page of the catalog. Yes, I know, none of us are probably going to sell any of our collections, but it does give you a nice warm feeling. I just ordered Rushdie's Oz essay from Amazon. It took me a couple of tries. It kept rejecting me for not including the slash in my expiration date. Sheesh. Who wrote that software? Nathan >I can't understand your equation of the public to the government, either. I don't get the confusion? The government is elected by the people. So, as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Or something like that. David >seems to me to confirm the theory that the Magic Belt had lost a significant part of its power between _Emerald City_ and _Scarecrow_. If it hadn't, surely Ozma could have rescued the Scarecrow without having to wait for the Orks. And considering how important he was to Oz, surely she wouldn't have just left it to chance! You are watching the wrong hand. Recall that Glinda sent the Scarecrow. She was surely monitoring his progress, knew of the Orks coming and thus, was not required to intervene. The best possible non-action from her point of view. Ozma observed the Scarecrow, deduced or was informed as to who sent him, so was likewise not required to perform any action. Those governments are best that govern least! :) It's hard to remember that these days isn't it. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:44:59 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: SCARECROW OF OZ and the movies Sender: "J. L. Bell" I discovered that my message from yesterday evening didn't get through my modem, so you're getting a double feature from me in this digest. [Shuffling. Groans. General caterwauling.] This was the first time I've read SCARECROW since seeing HIS MAJESTY, THE SCARECROW OF OZ. I was impressed by the influence of the movie. As Dave Hardenbrook points out, the melodramatic romance that Baum felt a need to insert into his whole-family entertainments enters the Oz books here. [I'm not counting Files and Ozga 'cause they just fall in love--no melodrama. And I wasn't sure where, Dave, you saw Baum saying such romance had *no* place in children's stories.] Another plot similarity: the Scarecrow becomes his majesty, king of Jinxland, when we all know that seat's supposed to go to Gloria. But the movies have also started to color Baum's depiction of magic. He says of the Magic Picture, "it really was a 'moving picture' of life" (p. 258). And the way in which Gloria's heart thaws is straight out of HIS MAJESTY: "Her heart became visible, at first frosted with ice but slowly growing brighter and warmer until all the frost had disappeared and it was beating as softly and regularly as any other heart. And now the cloud dispersed and disclosed Gloria..." (p. 238). Very different from the *stage* magic (curtains, costume change) at the end of LAND. Gloria's cardiac arrest is not as shown in the movie--a truly heart-stopping vision that starts with the witch cupping her hand before the princess's chest, and the heart appearing in it. [Eeeyew.] Another detail that's different: each of the three witches assisting in the open-chest operation has a different costume; one's dressed as a bat, I recall. However, the rest of the scene in Blinkie's eight-sided house is very like the film. Indeed, we see silent-movie acting: "She [Blinkie] chuckled with evil glee and rubbed her skinny hands together to show the delight with which she greeted her victim" (p. 180). Only in pantomime does someone intend "to show" emotion through gestures. Thinking of HIS MAJESTY thus makes some sense of the action in that chapter and the next. They're full of illogical comings and goings. For instance, the king's soldier shoves Pon away from the door (p. 181), but doesn't tell Krewl or Blinkie that he's nearby. Trot hides in plain sight, then runs ways, then hides, then stumbles across Gloria, then stumbles across the Scarecrow, then is stumbled across by Blinkie, and so on. That's just what large parts of HIS MAJESTY and other Oz Film Company movies feel like: they impart very little sense of how different locales relate geographically, and characters seem to become invisible to others by crouching in one corner of the screen. One disappointing result of the screen's influence on Baum's SCARECROW storytelling may be the action sequences. They seem flat to me. The Scarecrow's battle with the court (p. 223) and the Ork's return (pp. 226-27) read like scenarios for what should be acted out. They don't have dramatic pacing in themselves. Neill's frontispiece of the Scarecrow at the stake--is that a tear, or a bead of sweat from his burlap brow?--is far more scary than Baum's description. For this nightmare I bought the Books of Wonder edition? For today's copyright thoughts, Jeremy Steadman wrote: <> No, it wouldn't be, anymore than one can get 56 years of copyright protection now (except by dying six years after registration). However, you the copyright holder can direct your heirs or executors not to pursue any claims on infringers after 50 years, and to grant all requests for use. In the Information Age, you could probably even post electronic files for anyone to take, with a note saying they're free. Copyright protection is a choice society allows you, not a demand. Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Yes, KABUMPO entered the public domain this year. That's why Books of Wonder is publishing it (see the latest OZ COLLECTOR). Keep writing! James Doyle wrote: <> I've heard nothing about retroactivity, and Congress's official summary of the bill says nothing about it, either. Furthermore, it would be very impolitic for politicians to do so--too many people have invested in reproduction of public-domain works as publishers, artists, or buyers. More so than letting copyright protection drop (which is simply not *giving* anymore), retroactivity would be a "taking" in the legal sense. After Tyler Jones pointed out, <>, Bear replied: <> Not not necessarily--indeed, not in most cases. The copyright in LOST KING is still valid, for instance, but no publishing company owns the rights now. Since our publishing industry is mostly for-profit, publishers keep only the publishing rights to works (expressions of ideas, not ideas themselves) that are commercially viable. Most copyrights are in the hands of the authors or their heirs. And anyone who wishes to republish, quote extensively, or adapt those works must track down the heirs. How efficient would this be over centuries? Anyone who believes intellectual property is the same as real property should stop to think how many disputes there are over the ownership of real property, especially among heirs. And in that realm one person can have physical possession of the property--"I own this sofa because it's in my house!" Imagine what would happen when no one can show real ownership of the property any more than anyone else! On antidisestablishmentarianism Dave Hulan suggested: <> That makes more sense, indeed. I'm just fascinated by a political culture that could come up with such buzzwords. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> As many physicists point out, Horgan isn't one of them; he's a journalist. As he points out, that may let him say things that their mindset makes difficult. While there's a growing movement in physics and cosmology about the limits of what we can ever know, most of those scientists still want to look. Horgan's doubting the value of what they'll find. He's like Cap'n Bill, but questioning whether even to row into that cave. Finally, Richard Bauman wrote: <> Is this our Bear, actually insisting on something *for the good of the community*? It can't be! Ah, but on closer look this reply appears to be an excuse to evade taking personal responsibility for his claims. I guess somewhere in this land the Super Bowl is still being played. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:47:41 -0400 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Doug Silfen: Welcome back! I'd recommend _THE FROGMAN OF OZ_, by March Laumer, although that is hard to get and most people do not prefer the un-Ozzy nature of Mr. Laumer's books. Offhand, I can't think of another non-FF book that featured the Frogman. Bear: I believe Ken Cope just said about all there is to be said on the copyright issue, but I will drop in one last time (I hope). The difference between my chair (which by the way, would not be worth pirating) and a story is that one is a physical asset, while the other is an intangible idea. Both remain mine during my lifetime to do with as I wish. The story may stay for one generation or two, but after that, it can and should pass on to society as a whole. It's strange that I should say that, but in the case on intangible ideas, it fits. David: All sympathies for your loss. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:54:47 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-98 David Hulan wrote: >I think you exaggerate. Grace Kelly? Susan Hayward? Cyd Charisse? To name a >few who don't seem to fit your categories. Of course there are exceptions -- but look at them.... Grace Kelly was rarely seen in a "modern" -- i.e., 50's -- role in clothing that could be called attractive. Susan Hayward generally played "bad girls", I believe, and Cyd Charisse was a dancer, who would have been considerably handicapped if she had to dress like Doris Day. Frankly, I think (and I can scarcely believe I'm saying this) Debbie Reynolds makes a better counterexample. And Audrey Hepburn, of course. Remember, I'm not saying that by some genetic freak, women of the 50's were ugly -- that would be six different kinds of nonsense; I'm saying that, in general, women's fashions, hairstyles, and makeup of the 50's were ugly, and therefore (to get back to the original point), Dick Martin's "look", formed in that ere, must be cut a little slack. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:10:53 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-98 >I don't think John K. was old enough in the '50s to have had an opinion of >what women looked like at the time. I was born in '48, so this is a difficult point to address. I certainly _remember_ the 50's clearly enough. And I was certainly years past puberty before, in '63-'64, the prevailing look moved away from the stiffness and artificiality that had come in with the postwar years and, for the first time I could remember, a majority of the female faces around me -- not just girls, but teachers, other kids' mothers, popular actresses -- actually seemed -- well -- simply _pretty_. No, I didn't "discover girls" at that point; that had been much earlier. In fact, I was somewhat notorious at age 14 for publicly insisting that if the point of makeup, hairstyling, and fashions was to be attractive to men (as all the womens magazines declared) that it might be of some practical value not to look like a robot in a football helmet and a farthingale. >I personally think those of the '30s and '40s uglier than those >of the '50s, though I'll have to admit that I find those of the '20s >delightful even today. Well, the 40's really have to be subdivided. I have no problem with the war years; the postwar years are really just the opening of the 50's. As to the 30's, I'll take Ginger Rogers over Doris Day anytime. The 20's aren't bad, except for the implied frantic insistence on youth. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:51:33 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-98 Some brief notes: Metin Serezli character is called (I think) Meyopah in _Hayat Sevince Guzel_. Those of you complaining about the Glassman/Presley score on the Oz silents should be thankful you didn't get the versions from Timeless Video from _The Oz Collector_. Those "silent" films are really silent! credible film scholars always put "silent" in quotes because silent films were not exhibited silent. They had music and sound effects performed live, and the effects were created with a Fotoplayer, a big box with noisemaking devices that stood behind the screen. Employees would watch and make sure a gunshot sound came when one was fired, etc. The organ was the instrument of choice (not the piano), though big productions sometimes had original orchestral scores performed in larger theatres. It would be nice if someone fot the Tams-Witmark Wisconsin sheet music of _PG_ and orchestrated it, releasing it with the film. Scott P.S.: My webpage is now up, but it's not running. It's just some lame text, now, but might be better by the time you read this. It's at php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi/home.html There is no "www" for the person who screwed that up before. I don't remember who that was, who typed "www.us.imdb.com," when I just said "us.imdb.com," and I don't want to embarrass that person, anyway. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:46:34 -0400 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: Ozzy Digest Hello, Thank you for the well wishes on my hand . . . it is healing quite nicely, but still extremely sore. After working all day at the coffee shop, I haven't been doing much computer work at night! There shouldn't be too much of a scar though; I've smothered it in vitamin e oil. David: My thoughts and prayers are with your family. Dave: I like the new tag at the end of the Digest. (Sorry, I don't know the "real" name for it) Hopefully, I'll have more to add next time. Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:21:45 -0400 From: Jim Vander Noot Subject: FW: wizard of oz Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Any ideas? -----Original Message----- From: OFFICE ACE [mailto:OFFICEACE@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 11:03 AM Subject: wizard of oz I live in New Jersey and am looking for Wizard of Oz characters to perform at my childs birthday party. If you have any information of where I can find this pleas e-mail me at officeace@aol.com.!!!!!!!!! ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:40:47 -0400 From: Jim Vander Noot Subject: RE: OZ!! Maureen, I know there were a few ccs books available in the mid-80's, but I don't know what's in print now. I'm forwarding your inquiry to the Ozzy Digest in case any of the readers can help. Sincerely, Jim Vander Noot The International Wizard of Oz Club -----Original Message----- From: Maureen Sherd [mailto:cen43865@centuryinter.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:22 PM Subject: OZ!! Looking for Oz counted cross stitch kits or or leaflets. am an accomplished crossstitcher,and LOVE Oz. Any ideas? thankyou. Maureen Sherd 428 Fremont St. Caro,MI 48723 sherdm@hotmail.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Apr 98 10:11:31 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Hi all! Everyone got their taxes in? (This is something Ozites need not ever worry about!) RAINBOW SPOTTING: Chalk up one more occurance of _Over the Rainbow_ playing in a wholly unOzzy movie: _I Wake Up Screaming_ with Victor Mature and Betty Grable. "SWIRLY THING ALERT": Jno Bell wrote: >I've read recently that a whirlpool of the sort Baum describes in chaps. >1-2 doesn't actually exist in nature, just in bathtubs. Or out in space where it's called a "wormhole", or sometimes just "a swirly thing"... :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 18 - 20, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:18:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Orange5193 Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-98 Sorry to be so brief, folks, but I had to address this... "It would be nice if someone fot the Tams-Witmark Wisconsin sheet music of _PG_ and orchestrated it, releasing it with the film." I don' t want to talk out of class, so to speak, but let's just say it's an idea developing into a reality very soon. :) :) James Doyle ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:36:07 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: SCARECROW OF OZ: little Gloria, happy at last Sender: "J. L. Bell" The map of Oz printed in TIK-TOK shows Jinxland; we discussed two Oz-as-literature explanations for that: 1) Baum had already started SCARECROW, and wanted to show the part of Oz which would figure so prominently in his next book. 2) As Baum wrote SCARECROW, he looked at the map of Oz and chose the previously undetailed Jinxland to be the setting of the plot he borrowed from HIS MAJESTY, THE SCARECROW OF OZ. I now incline to the latter because TIK-TOK's map of the countries around Oz doesn't show Mo. If Baum had written as far through SCARECROW as Jinxland, he would probably have included Mo as well, cross-selling MAGICAL MONARCH alongside his other fantasies. Indeed, I envision the Scarecrow's mishap at the waterfall as being inspired by the "Magic Waterfall" on the map between Jinxland and Glinda's castle. Originally, I suspect, that feature was drawn just to add cartographic verisimilitude, not in connection to a story. There's nothing especially *magic* about the waterfall in SCARECROW, after all. Turning to Oz-as-history, I find it interesting that a Jinxlander tells Trot, "It [Jinxland] is on the Map of Oz" (p. 125). If the country is cut off from the rest of Quadlingland, how does that matron know? "Birds carrying maps!" Oz fans immediately, if improbably, reply. Yet those same birds never seem to carry news the *other* way since Glinda says, "Oz people know nothing of it [Jinxland], except what is recorded here in my book" (pp. 171-2). Glinda has presumably told Ozma about Jinxland because the fairy princess knows it as "that unfortunate country, which is ruled by a wicked King" (p. 260). Which leads us to a mystery: why Ozma and Glinda haven't taken action against Krewl before. When she does act, Glinda tells the Scarecrow, "I am going to send you to Jinxland, to protect Trot and Button-Bright and Cap'n Bill" (p. 173). Ozma says of those Americans, "I fear they will be treated badly in Jinxland, and if they meet with nay misfortunate there it will reflect on me, for Jinxland is part of my domain" (p. 260). Conquering Krewl and Blinkie is mostly the Scarecrow's idea for protecting his charges (pp. 205-6). If the trio of strangers hadn't landed in Jinxland, Krewl could still be king there. Glinda and Ozma took no action after King Kynd was overthrown over the edge of the gulf, nor do they rescue Phearse from the bottom of the pond. The presence of witches in Jinxland is surely not the reason; Glinda's magic can easily dispatch Blinkie, even through a surrogate. Ozma normally dislikes any news of strife in Oz (see GLINDA). So the two rulers seem to have chosen *not* to interfere in Jinxland, contrary to their usual practice. They haven't even told the Scarecrow about the place. Here's the best explanation I can come up with. After Phearse's coup d'etat against Kynd, the Jinxlanders may have rallied to him (I don't recall anyone speaking ill of Phearse, and some later want his son to be king). Glinda chose to let them suffer the consequences of their opportunism: a similar coup by one of Kynd's kin, followed by cruel rule. The wise Scarecrow knows restoring the Kynd dynasty is not enough: "No Queen with a frozen heart is fit to rule any country" (p. 231--though cf. Tititi-Hoochoo). He insists that the Jinxlanders make their own choice of rulers. Just like the cultists in LIFE OF BRIAN chorusing, "We are all individuals!" the Jinxlanders first tell the Scarecrow they want *him* to be king. They still want to follow the latest conqueror. Only after he lectures them do the people understand their duty to choose a warm-hearted ruler from among themselves. Miscellaneous SCARECROW observations: Like Betsy, Trot knows about Oz, and especially about Dorothy, before she arrives--presumably from Baum's histories (p. 129). I like how the Scarecrow lectures Blinkie to be good, but she's too preoccupied to listen (p. 240). Baum can thus present a moral without being moralistic or unrealistic. A couple of interesting flaws on p. 257. First, Baum slips when he says Dorothy "introduced to Ozma...the Hungry Tiger." Second, just as Baum keeps his moralizing realistic, so he keeps Dorothy from being little Miss Perfect: ...there were times when she was not so wise as she might have been, and other times when she was obstinate and got herself into trouble. But that's what we like about her! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:10:59 -0700 From: ozbot Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-98 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Ruth Berman-- I'd be interested in your Who's Who Appendix, if you don't mind sharing that info. on the Digest, so others similarly interested might be clued in how to get it. I was really interested in appearances (major and minor) within the Baum books, but the Famous Forty would work too. (Just more work for me!) (As I said, tho, this would be as research for an internet website-- so although your contribution would surely be creditted, know that some of your work might be shown in the Ultimate Public Forum of this Wierd Wacky Web.) ozbot Danny Wall "I think I should understand that better," Alice said very politely, "if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it." "That's nothing to what I could say if I chose," the Duchess replied, in a pleasant tone. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:49:44 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-98 "Twilight of the Scientific Age": Is it over already?--I thought it was still going strong. Or is it called the Information Age now, therefore a different thing? As you can see, I don't keep up with the times much... Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:48:45 -0400 (EDT) From: ZMaund Subject: Please post, Dave! Greetings: As usual, I am coordinating the auctions for the International Wizard of Oz Club's three major conventions this summer. If anyone plans to donate or consign material to the auctions, I would be grateful if you can contact me. Many thanks! Patrick Maund ZMaund@AOL.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:42:32 -0400 From: International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: RE: Wizard of Oz -Screen savers No, but I'm forwarding your request to the Ozzy Digest in case the readers can help. -----Original Message----- From: Chuck & Ruth Herndon [mailto:Herndon@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 4:53 PM Subject: Wizard of Oz -Screen savers Hi, Iam looking for a wizard of oz-screen saver- Do you have any idea where I may find this- either to download or purchase? ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:20:53 -0500 From: Gordon Birrell Subject: Ozzy Digest J.L. Bell: > For texture Neill often uses patterns of many thin, perfectly parallel >lines (p. 88, e.g.) or mottled grays (p. 89). I know how today's artists >would get such effects with rub-on overlays or software. But does anyone >know the technology Neill might have used? The mottled effect is derived from an old aquatint technique originally used in intaglio printing. There are a number of variations on this technique, which is still used by printmakers today, but typically a granular resin was sprinkled on the copper plate and heated to make the resin adhere; then the plate was etched in acid, which would eat into the plate in squiggly patterns around the acid-resisting resin. In the printing process the paper was pressed onto the plate and the areas where the ink had collected in those squiggly patterns would appear black, while the resin dots would remain white. With the advent of photography, this process could be transferred to block printing, which was the technique usually used in book illustrations in the first part of this century. I suspect that Neill didn't actually do this work himself but simply indicated to the printer that he wanted a half-tone area of aquatint-like effects in a certain location. As for the thin, perfectly parallel lines: they were simply done with a ruler, and Neill was a skilled enough draftsman that he probably took care of these himself. Earl Abbe: >J. L. Bell lists examples of an author's wishes being disregarded after >the writer's death. Another such example is the case of Kaufka (sp?). >He wanted all of his works destroyed. This is not quite accurate. A number of Kafka's works were published during his lifetime with his full approval ("The Judgment," "The Metamorphosis," "In the Penal Colony," and "A Country Doctor," among others), even though Kafka had severe misgivings about the endings of some of these works, particularly "Metamorphosis." He did ask his friend Max Brodt to destroy the unfinished works, which included the great fragmentary novels _The Trial_, _The Castle_, and _Amerika_. --Gordon Birrell ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 10:13:38 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: For "Ozzie Digest" consideration For what it's worth, this is from the financial section of Yahoo! > OzEmail is the leading provider of comprehensive Internet > Services in Australasia Comments? Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:30:31 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: For the "Ozzie Digest", Ruminations on "The Scarecrow of OZ" Howdy, I thoroughly enjoyed "Scarecrow". The wit is delightful and the Ork is one of the more sterling characters that I've encountered. Button Bright (one of my favorites) is in rare form. I don't recall who compared the book with the film "His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz", but the idea is inspired. I intend to watch the film shortly. I bought the set of four a while back, tried to watch "The Wizard of Oz" and gave it up as a lost cause, but since then others have said that the rest of the films are worth watching, so I shall. Onward. I was puzzled through the book with the degree of knowledge Trot displayed about Oz, since she had never been there, until the following statement on page 283: "While Trot had read of many of the people she had met, Cap'n Bill was less familiar..." Do you think that Baum had realized the problem and was covering himself? On page 64-65, Pessim remarks that one inch is a little more that a millionth part of a mile. More like 1/63360 of a mile. Hardly "a little bit". Was Baum just sloppy, or was Pessim (who, I agree, resembles one or more of our digesters more than a little) just exaggerating for effect? The magical berries. They seem to retain their size, even when carried by people who are getting larger and smaller. Something seems wrong here. Button Bright was buried in the popcorn snow which was "crisp and slightly warm, as well as nicely salted and buttered". Trot, Cap'n Bill, and the bumpy man all waded around in it extricating Button Bright. Seems to me that they would all end up fairly greasy. I don't like the way Cap'n Bill snared the birds. True, they end up profiting by the experience (as far as we know), but his methods were cruel. When Cap'n Bill and Trot were trying to gain admittance to King Krewl's castle and challenged by the soldier for their names and origin Cap'n Bill says "You wouldn't know if we told you, seein' as we're strangers in a strange land". Where does that phrase come from? I know that Heinlein used it in his book of the same name. Is it biblical? It seems to me that Gloria could have done better than Pon. He's always fleeing in alarm from something or other, and he equates his claim to the crown to hers. It definitely is not nearly as legitimate. I know that Button Bright and Trot said the same thing, but I just want to join the crowd. Finally, when Glinda is being described, Baum says "Her cheeks are the envy of peach-blows..." What are peach-blows? Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 19:01:44 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14 & 17-98 Well, I'm back in Naperville briefly, anyhow. Just got back from taking Marcia to the airport for another week in Detroit; I'll drive over tomorrow to be with her, since it's her birthday, and then back on Tuesday. Then Friday we fly to California to attend a wake (at least, that's what they're calling it - her friends and relatives are gathering at her oldest son's house to swap stories about her and show snapshots of her through the years and otherwise remember her; it's what she asked for in lieu of a funeral or memorial service) for her mother. Back here on the 28th, and after that we _should_ be able to stay home for a while. My thanks to all of you who expressed condolences; I passed them on to Marcia. 4/14: J.L.: Interesting analysis of the structure of _Scarecrow_. That's the sort of English Lit discussion that I find interesting when someone else does it, but that I never try to do myself. >SCARECROW starts by contrasting the outlooks of Cap'n Bill and Trot. The >sailor thinks there's a limit to what we can know; Trot disagrees. I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Cap'n Bill's statement that "the more we know, the more we find we don't know," or Trot's apparently contrary opinion that everything we learn is so much gained. Both are, after all, quite true, so there's no contradiction. They're just two different ways of looking at the phenomenon of knowledge, and, as you point out, characteristic of the respective views of one who's already learned a great deal and one who's at the beginning of life and therefore hasn't learned much yet. >The one >time we've seen Button-Bright really think things through--sneaking into >the Boolooroo's treasure room in SKY ISLAND--he didn't achieve his goal. Yes and no. He didn't find his magic umbrella, because it wasn't in the treasure room, but he achieved his goal of getting into the treasure room and having time to search it thoroughly. His failure to find the umbrella was unrelated to his planning that got him into the room. Nathan: >I can't understand your [Bear's] >equation of the public to the government, either. Haven't you recognized by now that anything Bear dislikes he traces to the government? Doug: If my _Magic Carpet of Oz_ is published it features the Frogman as a fairly prominent character. But I need to do some revisions, and I haven't been home long enough since Peter Glassman recommended changes to do anything about making them. 4/17: Dick: I got my new Oz Collector a few days ago as well. And of course promptly ordered the three new books. Costs a little more (with S&H) than it would to buy them at Borders, but as Peter G. quite rightly pointed out, buying directly from BoW improves their profit and makes it more likely that they can afford to continue to produce the elegant editions of the Thompson books as well as new Oz books from ECP. (The Baum reprints are going to continue regardless, since Morrow is backing those, but at the point where you're already paying S&H for one book the difference on another one is comparable to the sales tax you save.) Ruth: Your Appendix to _Who's Who_ is a comprehensive list of the characters, but did it list all their appearances? I have it, but since it's not bound I use the Clarke book, which is, as my main reference, so I can't put my hands on yours quickly. And it was 3-4 years ago when I got it and read it over, so my memory of it isn't detailed. I agree that the Scarecrow's brains are probably good enough to let him play chess without a board, but I'm not sure that Scraps's are - nor any of the other Ozites' except for (probably) Tik-Tok. Jeremy: I think antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word that you can find in an English dictionary, but because of free formation of English words from classical roots it's not difficult to come up with a quite valid English word that's much longer. I remember seeing one proposed that took up about four lines in the book where it was printed; it basically involved stringing together all the different kinds of fortune-telling, ending in "-mancy." (Like geocheironecro...mancy.) It would mean fortune-telling by the use of any combination of those methods. Nobody's probably ever actually used the word, but it's an example of why there's really no "longest word in the English language," any more than there's a "largest prime number." J.L.: Yes, I meant the picture of Trot on page 27 when I said she looked a rather sexy 16 or so. Most of the others you characterize as "pin-ups" are head, or head and shoulders, only, so you don't get a real feeling for head-vs.-body size on them. > To show the spinning of the Orks' tails, Neill uses motion lines (pp. >250-1, e.g.). I don't recall him using this technique before, except maybe >in his cloud trails. Any counterexamples to that memory? Files's bullets, >maybe? There are quite a few examples in _Tik-Tok_ - besides Files's bullets, there's the chapter-ender of Tik-Tok roller-skating, a chapter-header on the next page of him falling down the Tube, Ann's arc as she came out of the Tube and landed on Tubekins, and Polychrome escaping from Ruggedo, just for a few. The only earlier example I can find quickly, though, is in _Road_, where he used them both when the Scoodlers threw their heads at Shaggy and when their heads are shown falling down into the gulf. But in PG he definitely didn't use motion lines in a number of places where you'd have thought he would, like when Scraps was jumping across the creek or when the Scarecrow was riding a racing Sawhorse. > For texture Neill often uses patterns of many thin, perfectly parallel >lines (p. 88, e.g.) or mottled grays (p. 89). I know how today's artists >would get such effects with rub-on overlays or software. But does anyone >know the technology Neill might have used? I don't know for sure, but he might well have used shading plates; I used to use them back in the old days of mimeography to produce such effects. They'd be a little more complicated to use on paper, but maybe not that much harder. Of course, the shading plates I used were plastic, which probably wasn't as available back then. But they could have been made of cast metal, I suppose. I think the boy on page 123 is supposed to be Button-Bright. But it looks to me as if Neill had a drawing of Button-Bright (or more likely just a generic boy of the time) that he'd done for some other book and grafted Trot onto it; the two characters are drawn in very different styles, and the pose for the boy doesn't really fit anything Button-Bright did in the book (or would have been likely to do). Bob Spark: I don't personally think that the dangers of second-hand smoke have been proven all that conclusively. Some studies have shown an apparent negative effect, others have shown little or no effect, and one or two have even shown an apparent positive effect. In the worst case, exposure to second-hand smoke doesn't seem to be as harmful as going to the beach. (Especially when you figure in the number of people who drown as a consequence of the latter, but I'm talking about the exposure to sunlight.) It may be necessary to agree to disagree about this, but as far as I'm concerned the current furor about preventing other people from smoking in well-ventilated areas _is_ a matter of Political Correctness and not health. Of course, smoking isn't good for the smoker, and young people should be discouraged from taking up the habit. And tobacco smoke stinks, and nobody should be subjected to it involuntarily. But, for instance, I find it ludicrous to prohibit smoking in all bars, because nobody has to go into a bar, and anyone who does has to be an adult in most jurisdictions. If smoking is offensive enough to enough people, most bars will voluntarily ban it in order to improve their business; if it isn't, then let those who are sufficiently offended do their drinking elsewhere. John K.: Susan Hayward frequently played "bad girls," but not always - and also, she wasn't blonde. But in any case, esthetics are very much in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think that '50s fashions are any uglier than those of many other eras. Sure, Ginger Rogers was a Babe in the '30s, but no more than Cyd Charisse was in the '50s as far as I'm concerned. And while Doris Day wasn't as attractive as Rogers, she was more so than Irene Dunne or Deanna Durbin, for my money. Anyhow, Dick Martin's first professional Oz illustrations, as far as I know, were in 1963 - which was hardly the '50s. Some of the styles of that day were still similar to those of the late '50s, but not to those of the early '50s. The decade descriptions don't really work all that well, actually; as I've said in other venues, the 1946-1954 period and the 1955-1963 period are each very distinctive, but not very much like each other, whether you're talking about politics, fashion, or popular culture. People tend to lump them both into "the '50s", but it's as much of a force-fit as to consider the war years and the 1946-49 era as "the '40s". Dave: >Hi all! Everyone got their taxes in? (This is something Ozites need >not ever worry about!) No, I don't have my taxes in, but I've filed for an extension and sent in enough money to be sure I've covered anything I might owe. I don't have the K-1 yet for a limited partnership I have an interest in. But who says Ozites need not ever worry about it? Well, maybe not _worry_, but according to EC Ozma collects all the surpluses in her vast storehouses, and that seems to be pretty much the equivalent of taxes. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 98 18:46:38 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things OZTRALIA: Bob Spark wrote: >For what it's worth, this is from the financial section of Yahoo! >> OzEmail is the leading provider of comprehensive Internet >> Services in Australasia >Comments? "Oz" is a popular nickname for Austrailia...Indeed for many, Oz *is* Australia, not a land where a Scarecrow, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, etc. live... OZ CHESS: And of course the next question is: If the Scarecrow played Judit Polgar, who would come out on top? :) OZ "PIN-UPS": I still say the ultimate Oz pin-up is the picture of Ozma facing the "To my readers" page in _Tin Woodman_... And FWIW, give me Ginger Rogers over Cyd Charisse any day! -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 21 - 22, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:24:56 -0400 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones John Bell: Your point is well taken. That is, we ourselves don't actually see the reports in the Great Book, and Glinda could have pretty easily guessed their motives and simply summed everything up into one sentence. John again: My main point at the time was that people seem to feel that children can and should inherit the abilities/roles of their parents, simply due to birth. You also had a good point by saying that while monarchies are usually inherited, they do not have to be. In _The Stars, Like Dust_, by the legendary Asimov, there was a planet whose ruler always came from the same family, although not necessarily direct descendants. Adoptions into the family were encouraged in order that the best person could rule. Hinrik: "After I die, the next ruler wil be, er, um, uh, my cousin, uh, BOB!" John Bell yet again: Yes, John, The Super Bowl is still being played (in my head at least). And in my imaginary kingdom, Neill O'Donnell did NOT throw two interceptions and the Steelers DID beat the Cowboys! :-) Guess who?: One reason for Ozma and Glinda's unsual attitude regarding the situation in Jinxland (from an Oz-as-literature POV) may be that Baum originally intended for Jinxland to be its own separate country outside of the Land of Oz. I read somewhere that this is what he wanted to do originally. Then, desiring a more "Ozzy" book, he moved Jinxland inside the borders and changed a few things. Either he didn't have time to rework the whole background or he didn't want to take the effort to alter minor background material. He left some clues in the story that tell us this, though. In chapter 20, The Scarecrow twice mentions that he would like the Ork to carry them into Oz. Trot informs Button-Brigh that "we're going to the Land of Oz". Later, after the Orks carry them, teh Scarecrow says "Here we are, safe in the Land of Oz. ... You are now within the borders of the most glorious fairyland in all the world." All of these imply that Kinxland is not actually in Oz, although it actually is, in the final version. Bob: The berries may not affect themselves, not being metamagic or feedback magic. Of course, the parts of the berries that they swallowed must have shrunk... Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:40:49 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-20-98 WOZ Screen Saver: I know there's a Judy Garland screen saver out there, but I'm not sure about a strictly Oz saver. Ozma pin-ups: Ouch! Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:02:49 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-98 MY fimography is currently a mess but can be viewed at php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi/ozfilms.html, with a link to the text file someone sent me about the 1910 Selig film. Who wrote that, please, so I may credit you. There is also a link from the IMDb to this file. Jeremy: Lopado...gon (I have no idea the middle part, is a type of Greek soup which is 128 letters long, then there is another word, not listed in the book of lists, that is a chemical made up of305 letters and 500 amino acids, and probably impossible to pronounce. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:34:21 -0700 From: "Peter E. Hanff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-20-98 Dear Dave, I am attaching files for the 1998 Ozmopolitan and Winkie conventions of the Oz Club. I will strip out the graphics to make the files more manageable, but individuals who can handle graphics files with facility may want to ask me for them directly. Peter ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:01:23 -0400 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-98 First, I note that in the new Oz Collector, there is a bok called the Lavender Bear Of Oz. Imagine my shock upon reading the description of it, that the plotline is almost identical to a an AD&D scenario I ran about 8 years ago: the bears of bear central are being mysteriously kidnapped. in the scenario, the plucky group of adventurers (called "Team Muncho" for historic reasons) were hired by the king of the bears to find out the cause (they were recruited by him since on an earlier adventure they had stumbled upon the little pink bear and had returned it to him, after ascertaining the true owner). I suspect a similar discovery will take place in this book, namely that they are being removed by a sinister toy company, since they are of course teddy bears, and sold to little boys and girls. Another odd little note: this adventure took place on an alternate plane of existence where the characters had been transformed into animated cartoons, so much cartoony illogic and punnishness ensued.... Jeremy asked: > Speaking of antidisestablishmentarianism-- > Isn't that the longest word in the English lanuage, or has another > taken the prize? > No. It is not, and never really was (of course, a lot depends on what you are using for your source reference). Other very long ones were "hoccinaucinihilpillifcation", Joyce's 100-letter "thunderclaps", and "ultramicroscopicovolcanosilicoconiosis" But exactly what is is a matter of some debate, since what exactly counts as "English" is a matter of some debate. About 20 years agom a 1913-letter word describing a particular enzyme was one contender (although in the years since, there has probably been a longer one). (BTW, the "real" word for "divination by anything, David(not suggesting that you made up the word you mentioned, but since you brought it to out attention :-), is pantomancy) > John Bell mentions the U.S. Consitution (which I also keep a copy of) as stating: > The Congress shall have power...to promote the progress > of science and the useful arts, by securing for LIMITED > times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to > their respective writings and discoveries. > U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 [emphasis added] By the twister! You're right! So that means no less than a Constitutional amendment could extend it to perpituity. And even an extended length of time law might be the cause for a judicial challenge. "Stranger in a Strange Land" is indeed Biblical. Exodus 1:22 "And she [Tziporah] game birth to a son, and he [Moses] called his came Gershom (lit. "stranger there") for he said, "I have been a stranger in a strange (or "heathen") land" It's a commonly accepted convention that shrink, growth, and invisibilty spells extend to items touched/worn (sometimes it extends to other people touched, but not always, it depends on your literary source). Presumably, the spell generates some type of "aura" Mr. Wall: Anybody here already mention the fine website of http://www.halcyon.com/piglet which contains a very large linkages of where all the Oz characters, items, locales, etc. appear (at least in the Baum 17)? This Oz Encyclopedia is the work of our own Bill Wright. Wow! Much more long-winded than usual, --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:50:45 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz Fiesta Sender: "J. L. Bell" My thanks to Bob Collinge for organizing the first New England Oz Fiesta on Saturday. It was a fine reintroduction to real (as opposed to virtual) Oz gatherings for me. As for a name for us gatherers, Kereteria always struck me as a backwater; I'm happy with the label New England Oz fans! Thanks to Gordon Birrell and Dave Hulan for thoughts on how Neill achieved his shading effects with his day's printing technology. And thanks also to Dave for pointing out motion lines in Neill's other work, especially in TIK-TOK. Interesting point that no similar lines appear in PATCHWORK GIRL. I'm seeing three distinct styles in Neill's work for Baum: elaborately detailed pen-and-ink drawings (DOROTHY & WIZARD, ROAD, EMERALD CITY, SKY ISLAND); less detailed but lively drawings with thick outlines around characters (LAND, OZMA, PATCHWORK GIRL, JOHN DOUGH); and the thin-lined, spare, almost outlined figures showing up in late PATCHWORK GIRL on. Of course, the styles can overlap in books. Bob Spark wrote: <> Then you must *really* dislike the way he caught little crabs, speared them on hooks, used them to catch a fish, and then sliced the fish up for cooking! There's no hint those crabs and fish could talk, but the Ork could talk in the same location. And Cap'n Bill didn't wait to hear the birds speak before he snared them. The Mountain Ear, who's very in tune with the natural world, was upset, too. Baum seems to show exploiting animals as a necessity, at least for Americans. Bob Spark asked: <> "Blow" is an archaic word for "flower" or "blossom," at least in verb form. About Button-Bright's raid on the Boolooroo's treasure room in SKY ISLAND, Dave Hulan wrote: <> I doubt that accomplishing his intermediate goal satisfied Button-Bright; as I recall, he's as disappointed as he ever gets when he can't find his umbrella. Interestingly, however, Button-Bright did come away with the book that proved crucial to showing the Boolooroo was past his term limit. Both those outcomes underscore my point about the low value Button-Bright assigns to thinking ahead in SCARECROW: what he wanted he didn't get, what he got he simply stumbled across, so what's the use of worrying? It is during this episode in SKY ISLAND that Button-Bright tells a lie *despite having bathed in the Truth Pond*. Can anyone point to [at least] one other time he tells an untruth after that veracious plunge? Bob Spark wrote: <> The King James version of Exodus 2:21-2: "And Moses was content to dwell [in Midian] with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land." The Oxford Annotated Bible translates the line as "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land." The Hebrew for sojourner is "ger." Also in Sophocles's OEDIPUS AT COLONUS, the chorus sings, "Stranger on foreign soil" or "Stranger in a strange country" (line 184), depending on translation. So many lackluster versions of the phrase we know as "stranger in a strange land" show how few phrase-makers can beat those Tudor bible translators! Jeremy Steadman wrote of the "Scientific Age": <> John Horgan's thesis in END OF SCIENCE is that science, especially physics and cosmology, has reached the limits of what it can prove or what matters. For instance, superstring theory explains some oddities about the universe, as long as particles exist in [what is it?] eleven dimensions, but are *really, really* insignificantly small in most of them. So what useful will come of that? Horgan asks. If that's the way science is going, it's not going to shape an "age" as it has in the recent past. Horgan posits we'll see an age of technology (applied science, but no new, useful theoretical discoveries), including information technology. Gordon Birrell wrote: <> To me this anecdote has always shown the dubiousness of following an author's wishes in all cases. If Brodt had perfect foresight and told Kafka, "Franz, I can destroy your manuscripts, or I can preserve and publish them and soon you'll be acclaimed as one of this century's greatest writers," I doubt Kakfa would have repeated his request. He might even have gotten better! Finally, I agree with Dave Hulan about the scientific studies of second-hand smoke. It's irritating to eyes and nose, but long-term cancer or coronary damage shows up only in people with nearly constant exposure: children growing up in the homes of heavy smokers, flight attendants working in recirculated smoky air. Nevertheless, we don't need epidemiology to know that setting fire to something without caring about nearby people's comfort is rude. Today some folks want to gussy up that behavior by calling it "politically incorrect," but it's still just plain rude. One of the places Cap'n Bill smokes his pipe is in the underground tunnel (p. 51). Fortunately, he's fairly near an opening to fresh air. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:55:40 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Interesting comments on the art. (And thanks, Gordon Birrell, for the discussion of the techniques available to Neill for creating the greys in his drawings.) Also interesting comments on movie vs. stage influence. Terms of copyright protection -- you wouldn't actually get 56-years- only on the current law by dying six years after publication. In that case, the whichever-is-longer side of it would kick in, and you'd get 75 years from the date of publication. On Ozma's and Glinda's failure to take any action against the wicked king of Jinxland until Trot and Cap'n Bill showed up. Wouldn't the original coups, of Phearse against Kynd, and Krewl against Phearse, have taken place before Ozma became queen? (Possibly even before Glinda got her Great Book of Records, although in any case the Book seems to be so brief in its summaries as to make it easy to misunderstand information without a lot of additional context.) If they didn't know about the coups until too late to stop Krewl from becoming king, they might have been reluctant to take action to oust him unless they knew for sure that the Jinxlanders wanted him ousted (some obviously did, but maybe not enough who wanted it enough to make it clear that a "benevolent conquest" would be welcomed), and knew for sure that there was a ruler or ruling group acceptable to the Jinxlanders who would do a better job than Krewl. Incidentally, considering that Gloria is the daughter of Kynd and the niece of Krewl, Krewl must be the brother or brother-in-law of Kynd, and as the brother (just maybe even as the brother-in-law) has a pretty fair hereditary claim to the throne, and that might be considered a factor in the Jinxlanders' reluctance to rise against him and in Ozma's reluctance to invade. (Nice analysis, by the way, of the Scarecrow's wisdom in refusing the throne himself and in insisting that a Jinxlander, and not one with a frozen heart, would be best for Jinxland.) Jeremy Steadman: With all those i's in it, maybe antidisestablishmentarianism, depending on the fonts used, would be shorter than another word with fewer letters but more w's. Bob Spark: Peach-blows are peach-blossoms. (Both blossom and blow in this sense are from the OE blowan -- which is akin to ON blom, which gave us bloom -- and the OE blowan is apparently a distinct root from the OE blawan, which led to blow in the more usual modern senses.) Yes, "stranger in a strange land" is Biblical, although I don't recall if the context is Exodus, Ruth, or something else. (You'd think I'd at least be sure if it's Ruth or not, but I'm not.) David Hulan: A swap-stories-and-look-at-photos gathering sounds like a good way to remember Marcia's mother and honor the memory. Yes, my "Appendix" includes listing of characters' later as well as their initial appearances. I think Scraps' brains are probably clever enough for mental chess (although, as previously mentioned, I think she'd get impatient with playing the game), but you're probably right that it would be hard for the Scarecrow to find many other potential players, especially from among the list of his fellow non-sleepers. As you say, Tik-Tok might be a possibility. It occurs to me that although the Sawhorse might not be a very good player, he might have the tenacity/stubbornness to get some enjoyment out of it. And his "sawdust brains" might be up to the memory-work involved in playing without a board. (I've heard that it's not a great feat of memory, although I suppose it would be somewhat more difficult than keeping track of which cards have been played in a 52-card deck. Practice helps.) Among the humans, Grampa has chess in his game leg, and Hokus played chess (or was it only checkers?) on Ploppa's back, but perhaps neither one would enjoy playing without a board. The Wizard and Glinda seem like people who might enjoy it, although I don't recall any references to either of them as playing chess (with or without a board). I haven't followed the studies on secondhand smoke and things like cancer and heart attacks, but I feel reasonably sure from the way my throat reacts to being around smoke when I have any kind of sore throat that secondhand smoke aggravates respiratory ailments. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:36:41 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Earl/ Tyler - After some reasonable amount of time, I can see nothing wrong with someone writing a story in an author's world and using his characters. What I would consider theft is someone simply copying an existing book and selling it without giving anything to the originator or his heirs. To me that is a form of theft. Kafka didn't have such a bad idea in his case. If you have read things like "The Penal Colony" you will see why. More pathology as literature. My goodness, there is old Bell, trying to hold my feet to the fire again! J. L., you surely must be short of things to do. JWK's continuing attack on women in the 50's causes me to wonder: "How old were you then?" You must have missed the 40's when women wore house dresses and slacks and anyone over 60 wore shapeless, dark, drapy looking things and ugly hats. By the 50's there were peasant blouses, ballero skirts, poodle skirts, Lanz dresses, and these shorts with suspenders which I thought looked fantastic. Sweaters were also big then. By the 60's we had all of that baggy, tentlike, hippy, tie-died stuff, bell-bottums, leisure suits, weird wide ties, etc. Now that you have got me thinking about it, I'll take the 50's any day. David >Haven't you recognized by now that anything Bear dislikes he traces to the government? See, some one understands me. :) David - I buy from BOW for the same reason. And if we get to pick, I will take Gina Lolobrigida over Ginger Rogers or Cyd Charisse then or now. :) Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:04:20 -0500 From: Gordon Birrell Subject: Ozzy Digest Bob Spark: The quotation "stranger in a strange land" is from the Bible (Exodus 2:22). The Revised Standard Version translates the phrase as "a sojourner in a foreign land." Further evidence, if anyone needed it, of the poetic superiority of the King James version. > Finally, when Glinda is being described, Baum says "Her cheeks are >the envy of peach-blows..." What are peach-blows? According to the OED, "blow" is an old word for "blossom" or "blooming," and "peach-blow" is specifically a pinkish purple color. It can also mean a potato of that color, but I doubt that Baum had that meaning in mind. J.L. Bell: I enjoyed your very insightful comments on the connections between _Scarecrow of Oz_ and _His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz_. It's interesting, too, that Pon cuts a considerably more manly figure in the movie than in the book. The same Art-Nouveau impulse that moved Neill to eroticize the young female images (prime example: that positively Beardsleyan picture of Ozma's head on the spine of _Ozma_, but also the portrait from _Glinda_ that Dave relishes) seems to have been behind the rather effeminate conception of the gardener's boy, who could have stepped right out of one of the paintings of Puvis de Chavannes. Pon's smock reminds me, too, of the loose-fitting garments that were so favored by the Naturist movement at the turn of the century. I have a copy of _His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz_ with James Doyle's score, which was given to me by a mutual friend of ours. This is really a superb score which subtly underscores the action at all times without ever being intrusive. Is there any possibility, James, that the video will be available commercially in the near future? --Gordon Birrell ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:43:11 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-20-98 J.L.: > A couple of interesting flaws on p. 257. First, Baum slips when he says >Dorothy "introduced to Ozma...the Hungry Tiger." This, however, is not the first occurrence of a similar flaw; in _Tik-Tok_ (p. 267) Ozma says that Dorothy was the HT's "first friend and companion." This could be rationalized if the HT is the same tiger who appealed to the CL to kill the giant spider in _Wizard_, but in that case why don't he and Dorothy recall this when they meet in _Ozma_? (Maybe it was only later that they got around to comparing notes and realize that they'd met earlier? But this doesn't explain the clear error in _Scarecrow_, since whether Dorothy and the HT had met in _Wiz_ or not, Dot certainly didn't introduce him to Ozma.) Bob Spark: > I don't like the way Cap'n Bill snared the birds. True, they end >up profiting by the experience (as far as we know), but his methods were >cruel. Animal rights wasn't as well-developed in 1915 as they are now. Sure, they were better developed than, say, Negro rights (cf. _Black Beauty_, etc.), but snaring birds wasn't generally frowned upon, especially if they were later released. > When Cap'n Bill and Trot were trying to gain admittance to King >Krewl's castle and challenged by the soldier for their names and origin >Cap'n Bill says "You wouldn't know if we told you, seein' as we're >strangers in a strange land". Where does that phrase come from? I know >that Heinlein used it in his book of the same name. Is it biblical? It's from Exodus 2:22; Moses named his first son Gershom, "For I have been a stranger in a strange land." I know "ger" is Hebrew for "stranger" (as well as for "proselyte"); I'm not sure what the "-shom" means. > Finally, when Glinda is being described, Baum says "Her cheeks are >the envy of peach-blows..." What are peach-blows? I think "blow" was a variant of "blossom," but I'm not sure of that. Dave: >OZ "PIN-UPS": >I still say the ultimate Oz pin-up is the picture of Ozma facing the >"To my readers" page in _Tin Woodman_... > >And FWIW, give me Ginger Rogers over Cyd Charisse any day! Matter of taste, I guess. I don't care much for that picture of Ozma; I could cite at least a dozen that I like better, starting with the one on p. 83 of _Wishing Horse_. And while Ginger Rogers was a much better actress than Cyd Charisse, I think that from a purely aesthetic point of view Charisse is better-looking. (And Lucy Lawless is better-looking than either of them, though "Xena" is a very silly show; I just watched it for the first time a couple of weeks ago.) David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:34:09 +0300 (IDT) From: Tzvi Harris Subject: Digest Entry Hello to all. Scarecrow: In my edition (Del Rey) I have an illustration of the three adventurers and the Scarecrow flying on Orks (pages 228-229). In the illustration Cap'n Bill has two legs. On the cover of the book Michael Herring prepared a similar illustration, but corrected the error. (I'm sorry if somebody pointed this out already). When travelling to the EC at the end of the story, the travellers call out "Gid-dap!" to the Sawhorse. Don't they usually treat the Sawhorse more respectfully and speak to him? I checked _Land_, and found that when created the Sawhorse was taught to move slowly when told "get-up", to move quickly when told "trot" and stop when told "whoa." Later in _Land_ tip explains to the Sawhorse what he is to do, and the sawhorse obeys. I seem to recall that in other instances Ozma and the others speak to the Sawhorse and explain where they would like him to go. Although it might just be a signal to start moving, it appears rather impolite to me to speak to the Sawhorse in such a manner (Gid-dap). Tzvi Talmon Israel ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:51:03 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-20-98 [Do not adjust your set...The following really *is* one word! -- Dave] Methionylglutaninylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanyl- glutmnylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalyl- prolylphenylalanylyallythreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucyl- glutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucyl- glutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucyl- prolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucelalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonyl- isoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalany- lalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanyl- glutamylmethionylleucyalanylleucylisoleucylarginylgutaminyllysylhistidylpro- lylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalany- lasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysysglycylisoleucylaspartyl- glutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysysvalylglycyl- valylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminyl- glutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarg- inylhistidylasparaginy[WALDO]lvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucyl- cysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylar- ginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyl- tyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglyclyvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamy- lasparaginyalrginylanylalanylleucylprolylleucylaspaaginylhistidylleucylvaly- lalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolyll- eucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartyl- glutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanyl- glycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylbalyllysylisoleucylisol- eucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamylly- sylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylgutaminylpro- lylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylserine. Look, I know some of you cheated and didn't actually read the entire word. So I'll tell you a secret. hidden somewhere in there is a surprise guest word. If you take your time, you'll find it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From http://starbulletin.com/96/11/14/features/memminger.html Probably a joke, with those insertions. [No, except for the "Waldo" bit, it *is* a real word -- It's in _Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary_ (See my post below...) and it *is* the longest word in the English language, provided that you count scientific names as English... -- Dave] What's the longest word in the English language? (pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, a forty-five-letter word which is the name of a special form of silicosis caused by ultra-microscopic particles of siliceous volcanic dust.) from: http://mypage.direct.ca/p/prossett/Trivial.html#24 Solution for language/english/spelling/longest puzzle The longest word to occur in both English and American "authoritative" unabridged dictionaries is "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis." The following is a brief citation history of this "word." New York Herald Tribune, February 23, 1935, p. 3 "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis succeeded electrophotomicrographically as the longest word in the English language recognized by the National Puzzlers' League at the opening session of the organization's 103d semi-annual meeting held yesterday at the Hotel New Yorker. The puzzlers explained that the forty-five-letter word is the name of a special form of silicosis caused by ultra-microscopic particles of siliceous volcanic dust." Everett M. Smith (b. 1/1/1894), President of NPL and Radio News Editor of the Christian Science Monitor, cited the word at the convention. Smith was also President of the Yankee Puzzlers of Boston. It is not known whether Smith coined the word. "Bedside Manna. The Third Fun in Bed Book.", edited by Frank Scully, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1936, p. 87 "There's been a revival in interest in spelling, but Greg Hartswick, the cross word king and world's champion speller, is still in control of the situation. He'd never get any competition from us, that's sure, though pronouncing, let alone spelling, a 44 letter word like: Pneumonoultramicrosopicsilicovolkanakoniosis, a disease caused by ultra-microscopic particles of sandy volcanic dust might give even him laryngitis." It is likely that Scully, who resided in New York in February 1935, read the Herald Tribune article and slightly misremembered the word. Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, 1936 Both "-coniosis" and "-koniosis" are cited. "a factitious word alleged to mean 'a lung disease caused by the inhalation of very fine silica dust' but occurring chiefly as an instance of a very long word." Webster's first cite is "-koniosis" in the addendum to the Second Edition. The Third Edition changes the "-koniosis" to "-coniosis." I conjecture that this "word" was coined by word puzzlers, who then worked assiduously to get it into the major unabridged dictionaries (perhaps with a wink from the editors?) to put an end to the endless squabbling about what is the longest word. --------------------------------------------------------------------- from: http://www.wolfram.com/~lou/puzzles/r.p.answers/languageA52.html Number 1 is a chmical name describing bovine NADP-specifiv glutamate dehydrogenase, which contains 500 amino acids and is 3,600 letters long. [Oops! You mean Methionyl...serine has been "dethroned"?? -- Dave] Number 2 is Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokata- kechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonopt which was coined by Aristophanes in his play _The Ecclesiazusae_, and is a goulash made of leftovers from the meals of the last two weeks. Obviously, from its source, it, too is a joke. (182 letters) Number 3 appears on the first page of _Finnegan's Wake_ by James Joyce, for a thunderclap representing the fall of Adam and eve (100 letters) Amy Wallace list three other words longer than the longest cited above in _The Book of Lists_ (1978) but I don't have time to type them. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 15:36:41 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things A MESSAGE FROM OUR QUEEN: Ozma: Happy Earth Day, everyone! Wogglebug: I demand Equal Political Time on the Digest at all times! Jellia: (Sarcastically) Okay -- Happy Wacko Tree-Hugger Day -- Happy now, Professor?! (Sarcasm mode off) :) TO PETER: >I am attaching files for the 1998 Ozmopolitan and Winkie conventions of the >Oz Club... Anyone who wants the forms, please E-mail me (also specify .PLN, .RTF, WordPerfect, Write, Word, or Works format)... SCIENCE: J.L. Bell wrote: >John Horgan's thesis in END OF SCIENCE is that science, especially physics >and cosmology, has reached the limits of what it can prove or what matters. >For instance, superstring theory explains some oddities about the universe, >as long as particles exist in [what is it?] eleven dimensions, but are >*really, really* insignificantly small in most of them. So what useful will >come of that? Horgan asks. If that's the way science is going, it's not >going to shape an "age" as it has in the recent past. In this sense, I think he may have a point...But Eric Lerner (in _The Big Bang Never Happened_) thinks that superstrings are analogous to the "epicycles" of Ptolomy's geocentric universe in that they are arbitrary constructs with no basis in the observational evidence. Lerner's concern is that cosmology and particle physics have gone in the direction of medieval mysticism in embracing the Platonic philosophy of relying on theoretical and mathematical mental conceptions and rejecting empirical observation and experiment. But Lerner regards this as atypical of modern science and a crisis specifically in cosmology and fundamental physics. Jellia: This thread has lost all trace of Ozziness, so I think you'd better continue it off the Digest, guys. :) But if you do, be sure to CC your comments to me too...I may be only a maidservant, but I like to think on a cosmic level too! :) BEAUTY IS IN THE...I FORGET NOW: :) David H. wrote: >And while Ginger Rogers was a much better actress >than Cyd Charisse, I think that from a purely aesthetic point of view >Charisse is better-looking...And Lucy Lawless is better-looking than either >of them... Well, you know what the Gryphon said about people's taste... :) For me, the one who currently beats out everyone (including Ginger) is Chloe Annett ("Kris Kochanski" of _Red Dwarf_) with Enya and ABBA's Frida as *very* close second and third... ALL THINGS HIPPOPOTOMONSTROSESQUIPEDALIAN: It's interesting that this debate on long words has developed as long words play a role in the plot of _Locasta and the Three Adepts of Oz_. Locasta's favorite "megawords" include "philophilosophos" (a fondness for philosophy), "pseudorhombicuboctahedron" (a geometric solid with 26 faces), and "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian" (of or pertaining to a very long word!). I thank Scott for giving us the longest word of all, Methionyl...serine -- Locasta also makes a reference to this word, but I didn't have the presence of mind to write the whole thing down. (See _Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary_ for a good collection of rare, unusual, and hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian words.) FOR THOSE WHO KNOW: How do the "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction" tables work at the conventions and what would be the deadline for my making a submission for the Winkie Convention (and do I have to attend)? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 23, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:52:44 -0700 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Digestables This is probably the last digest message I will send for a couple of weeks. I am leaving tomorrow to see the first production of the 1903 WIZARD OF OZ since 1912. I will then go on to Syracuse NY to use their Baum archives and on to Cambridge, Mass and NYC to check out what I can find there. The new production of WIZARD with Eartha Kitt, Mickey Rooney and Bob Dorian will be opening in NY whilie I am there, but I have no plans to try to see it. Some of you might be interested to know that a triple signed photograph of Judy Garland, Jack Haley, and Ray Bolger as Dorothy, Tin Woodman and Scarecrow was auctioned off over eBay. It sold for $921.75. I did NOT buy it. See you in two weeks or so. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:18:46 -0700 From: glassman Subject: re: Ozzy Digest > From: Michael Turniansky > >I note that in the new Oz Collector, there is a bok called the Lavender >Bear Of Oz. Imagine my shock upon reading the description of it... Actually, the plot you describe is NOTHING like the book we've just published, except for the fact that the bears were kidnapped. Otherwise, your plotline is VERY DIFFERENT from "The Lavender Bear of Oz" Read the book and you'll see how different it really is! - Peter Glassman Books of Wonder ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:50:04 -0400 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: the last word on Ozzy words... First, a correction to me, before people give me the drubbing I so richly deserve: Shaggy Man, that idiot, wrote: > Other very long ones were > "hoccinaucinihilpillifcation" I of course meant "FLoccinaucinihilpillification" I was thinking of the Shakespearean "horr....icus" at the same time.... > About > 20 years ago, a 1913-letter word describing a particular enzyme was one > contender > (although in the years since, there has probably been a longer one). > This one was also a "methionylglutaminyl...." series, by-the-by, dwarfing Scott's by quite a bit...it appeared in "Word Ways" Gordon Birell asserts: > The quotation "stranger in a strange land" is from the Bible (Exodus 2:22). > The Revised Standard Version translates the phrase as "a sojourner in a > foreign land." Further evidence, if anyone needed it, of the poetic > superiority of the King James version. > Nah, the poetic superioty belongs to the ORIGINAL, thankyouverymuch.Who can beat "Ani l'dodi, v'dodi li" or "v'haretz hayta tohu vavohu" or "Ashirah laShem ki ga'oh ga'ah, soos v'rochvo ramah vayam" or "tovim hashnaim min ha'echad, asher yesh lahem sachar tov ba'amalam"? I rest my case. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:11:01 -0700 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: Ozzy Digest Shaggy: >It's a commonly accepted convention that shrink, growth, and invisibilty >spells extend to items touched/worn (sometimes it extends to other people >touched, >but not always, it depends on your literary source). For a counterexample to this, check out Shanower's _Giant Garden_, in which a magic potion makes Dorothy grow, but not her clothes. J. L. Bell: >As for a name for us gatherers, Kereteria always struck >me as a backwater It might be backwater, but its name is written in all capital letters on Haff and Martin's map. Ruth: >Among the humans, >Grampa has chess in his game leg, and Hokus played chess (or was >it only checkers?) on Ploppa's back, but perhaps neither one would >enjoy playing without a board. It was definitely chess that Hokus played. I recall a reference to a Red King. He kept the chessmen in his boot, IIRC. (I wonder if they remained there after the Knight's metamorphosis.) Grampa actually has a scrum set in his leg, but I would imagine that the board, if not the pieces, is the same. -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff DinnerBell@tmbg.org or vovat@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "All I know could be defaced by the facts in the life of Chess Piece Face." ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:26:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Ozmama Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-21-98 If I'm repeating anything that was said in the 4-14 _Digest_, I apologize. I inadvertently deleted it before I downloaded it, so I haven't read that one. There are a coupla things about the illos in _Scarecrow_ that I've noticed and query. One is the picture of Googly-Goo on p. 143 . Look closely at his ruff. Between his chin and left jowl (slightly right of center, as we face it) there are initials! J R ?????? Maybe JRS? What do you think they are? And who do they refer to? They do not look like JRN, which is what I kept trying to make 'em look like. The other thing has always bugged me. There's a picture of the Scarecrow that I don't think was drawn for this book. P.212. No stippling, which Neill used in virtually all of the other large illos of the character for this book, and there's a checked patch on his left knee which I don't find in any of the other pictures. It looks like Neill just threw it in as filler to eliminate negative space, since it was the end of the chapter. That same illo, btw, showed up back in the '60s and '70s in St. Louis' Soulard Market, an open-air farmers' market. Soulard used it as part of their logo. I don't know if they got it from this book or from some other Neill source...maybe the source for which he did this particular picture? I wish I knew. It's one of those MYSTERIES I've carried around since childhood, through young adulthood, and straight into--ahem-- middle age. As I reread the book, I'm struck by how much more tightly written it is than many other Oz books. Sure, there are flaws, but this is a well-plotted book, taking the characters carefully from the "real" world very gradually into one of magic. Other than the mermaids' arms around Trot, the ork is the first piece of magic they encounter, and he's almost "natural." They all have food worries, which is rare in an Oz book, since it's rare to have so much action outside of a clearly magical fairyland. Pessim's Island is transitional to magic. They eat melons, but find and utilize magic berries. Mo has normal food used in odd and/or magical ways. Molasses candy:odd. Popcorn and lemonade: magical. Even Jinxland food is quite normal. (I've always loved the image of Button Bright and the turkey leg!) No lacasa or anything exotic...unless I missed something. Magic food shows up (like the ice cream that surprises Dorothy) in a magic house inside of "mainland" Oz. The next day Trot is hungry, and a table pops up, magically loaded with fruits and nuts and cakes, etc. It's almost like Baum's hitting us over the head with "It's magic, folks! It's the real Oz!" He follows up with an dazzling scene in the bejeweled underwaterfall cave, which totally awed me as a kid...knocked my metaphorical socks right off my metaphorical feet! Question: How does Ozma know about the cruel King of Jinxland when she's looking in the Magic Picture? She and Dorothy were just killing time when they "happened" to see Button Bright. Ozma knows what an ork is and seems to know about Jinxland and to disapprove of their king...which brings us right back to the problem of why she's allowed such a king to rule in her kingdom in the first place. Did Baum goof? Was there supposed to have been some mention of communication between Glinda and Ozma about Jinxland? Was there such a scene and I just missed it in my hasty rereading? Sorry for such a long post. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:07:52 -0400 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones John Bell: I can't remember Button-Bright telling a lie after the Truth Pond, but the Shaggy Man continued his lie about the Love Magnet even after his dip in the Pond. This might have been due to the fact that he was partially enchanted and therefore most of the magical effects went into transforming him so that the power of Truth did not grip him 100%. Bear: Ok. That I can accept. Simply reprinting a book in its entirety is theft, and shall be unto the end of time, no how many generations. In other words, I do consider a specific story and and of itself to be a physical asset. As it sits now, I find death-plu-50 to be a reasonable time. --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:54:31, -0500 From: NQAE93A@prodigy.com (MR ROBERT J COLLINGE) Subject: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 I would like to thank everyone for thier well wishes on our first New England Oz Fiesta. It was a grand success. We had over 100 people there talking Oz. J.L. Bell, it was a pleasure meeting you. Were any other digesters there? John R. Neil's daughter, granddaughter and great grand kids were there. It was a lot of fun for everyone. We hope to do it again next year. Thanks again, Bob C. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:17:05 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 About the Judy Garland screen saver. I have it, and it is kind of nice, cascading pictures of Judy and characters from the Wizard of Oz movie. Unfortunately it came from a website called www.landofoz.demon.co.uk which is no longer available. It came with some kind of installation file which I no longer have. I would be glad to send the .scr file to anyone who wants it, it's 1,709 kb. I have no idea if you could just copy it into your C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM folder (where it resides in my PC), but you might try. Send me a request at bspark@pacbell.net. I was just thinking about "The Seven Blue Mountains of OZ, book II". Is there a prognostication about it's availability? I sure enjoyed book I. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:14:53 -0700 From: "Peter E. Hanff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 Dave, Thanks for making the 1998 Oz Club convention forms available on demand to readers of the Ozzy Digest. I also appreciate your making them available in various formats. The paper flyers went out today (April 22) by first class mail with The Oz Observer and The Oz Gazette, so Club members should be receiving the forms fairly soon. Although the registration deadline for the Ozmopolitan Convention is given as May 10, members should go ahead and register as soon as they can; we will understand if some of the registrations don't get in quite by the deadline. Peter Hanff ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:18:01 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-98 Jeremy Steadman wrote: >Speaking of antidisestablishmentarianism-- >Isn't that the longest word in the English lanuage, or has another >taken the prize? It is still the longest English word if you omit organic chemistry and rare diseases. It is certainly the longest English word made up of standard English pieces and created by natural use. J. L. Bell wrote: >Hereditary monarchy is even worse Actually, I recall Prince Charles pointing out (in an op-ed piece for the New York Times July 4, 1976 issue, I think) that if you went to historians and asked them to list good/bad/indifferent kings and queens (regnant) of England since 1066 and good/bad/indifferent presidents of the USA since 1789, the statistics came out in favor of hereditary monarchy. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:47:17 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 David Hulan wrote: >(And Lucy Lawless is better-looking than either >of them, though "Xena" is a very silly show; I just watched it for the >first time a couple of weeks ago.) and Dave wrote: >For me, the one who currently beats out everyone (including Ginger) is >Chloe Annett ("Kris Kochanski" of _Red Dwarf_) with Enya and ABBA's Frida >as *very* close second and third... Oh, pooh! If we're going to get into the present day, Mira Furlan ("Delenn" of "Babylon 5") has them all beat. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:56:30 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Gordon Birrell: At first reading, your reference to "Ozma's head on the spine of _Ozma_" left me thinking: well, where else would it be? Tyler Jones: You mentioned Asimov's use of a system of inherited monarchy in which the heir must belong to the royal family but need not be a direct descendent and can even be adopted -- he was following the early Roman Empire for his Galactic Empire generally, and for that detail specifically. But many societies have used some form of the system of choosing monarchs from a royal family. Sometimes the dying monarch chooses the heir (cf. King David's choice of Solomon), and sometimes a council of elders elects the new king (Hamlet, dying, sees prophetically that the election will light on Fortinbras). Sometimes the heirs duke it out, and the winner kills off all the competitors (cf. Solomon, or the Wars of the Roses). (That last is generally unpopular in theory, but turns up commonly in practice, which in turn is why the oldest-son-system of choosing among the heirs and avoiding arguments got to be so popular.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:30:55 -0700 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Digest It is one table, the Oz Research Table. The judges decide what catagory: Fiction, non-Fiction, art, any object belongs in. If you are attending the Winkie Convention you could probvably bring the work with you. But you might check with the convention chair. BTW I will be seeing Gili when I am in Cambridge Mass next week. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 15:19:29 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Nathan writes: >>It's a commonly accepted convention that shrink, growth, and >>invisibilty spells extend to items touched/worn (sometimes it extends >>to other people touched, but not always, it depends on your literary source). >For a counterexample to this, check out Shanower's _Giant Garden_, in >which a magic potion makes Dorothy grow, but not her clothes. Other counterexamples (These are hardly "Canonical" I know, but nonetheless...) -- -- In Disney's _Alice_, Alice (and her clothes) grow smaller, but not the "Drink Me" bottle, which she suddenly staggers under. -- In the _Faerie Tale Theatre_ version of _The Frog Prince_, the newly disenchanted Prince is naked instead of automatically clothed. (He sites this as an oversight on the part of the spell manufacturers.) SPINES: Jellia: Everyone's head is on their spine, except Langwidere... Wogglebug: Of course the problem with the Cowardly Lion is that he has no spine... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 24, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:07:59 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 Sawhorse and chess: Ruth, you say that the sawhorse might have the stubbornness to carry through a game of chess, even if he didn't have much in the way of brains (and thus strategy). Good point. He's a real knothead about some things. I'd expect the Wizard knows about chess and enjoys it--don't know why I feel that way, it's just my impression of him. (Maybe it's the way he likes to pretend he's royalty . . .) Long words: You took my breath away when I read all that! (Oh, you mean I _didn't_ have to try them at home??) I find myself believing I have a greater aptitude for the creation of elongated, twisted sentences with words of a length which one can only assign the technical term "long"--or ia it that I rest myself upright in a more correct state of mind? Sorry (and yes I am; I wouldn't normally wish such a sentence on my best enemy), Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:28:17 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 Publius Vergilius Naso told his slaves he wanted _Aeneid_ destroyed if he didn't finish it. Fortunately, his slaves did the smart thing. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:31:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Toto Arf Subject: Oz webpage Arf! :) Be it known that I had hoped to have a shiny new webpage to advertise our new company and the new items that we have to offer. Most regrettably, our webpage designer is in the midst of moving into a new keep, and has been hitherto unable to devote her attention to the project. So I have tried my best to get all of the titles into an area where they may be seen. This will not be the final webpage (if there is a God). We hope to have the professional page posted in GeoCities asap. But we do need to let the populace know that these items are available. Can you inform your subscribers of them, please? Try not to cringe too much at my disabilities in the webpage art dept. ::cringes himself:: http://members.aol.com/LionCoward/home.html ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:20:43 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-20-98 Cc: Katherine Elaine Ellison > Number 2 is > Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomeli- tokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklo- peleiolagoiosiraiobaphetragnanopterygon, > which was coined by Aristophanes in his play _The Ecclesiazusae_, and is a > goulash made of leftovers from the meals of the last two weeks. > Obviously, from its source, it, too is a joke. (182 letters) It seems the word was truncated in the last post. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:30:15 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 It seems to me Larry Semon's _Wizard of Oz_ (no "the") is a remake of _His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz_, as it, too, deals with Kynd and Krewl. My Oz filmography has been edited for html up to the teens, but unfortunately, it did not center what I told it to center, only what I didn't tell it to center. Perhaps someone who wants to know more about html can help me. I copied some ideas on my self-description off Nathan. I had Katherine's e-mail address linked to my site, but last night she asked me to remove it, so I did first thing today. Her mom was there, too. They weren't mad at me, they just were worried it could be dangerous, though I'm not sure how. Gordon: what instument(s) is Doyle's score scored for. Oh, James is on here, too. Any relation to Patrick? I figured with the word "party" appearing multiple times within the word on a page called "Honolulu Lite," that it was a joke of a scientific name. Here's the rest of his page: Honolulu Lite by Charles Memminger Monday, November 11, 1996 You need a big bowl for this alphabet soup I'd like a word with you. A really long word. In fact, the longest word in the English language. You'll find it down below, all 1,909 letters. Now, I know what you're thinking: I just stuck the longest word in the English language in this column because I'm lazy and was just looking for an easy way to fill this space. That hurts. I'm not saying you're wrong. But it still hurts. I came across the longest word in the English language in a book that just came out called "The Top 10 of Everything in 1997" by Russell Ash. It's a cool book, even though someone pulled Mr. Ash's leg and convinced him that Guam is actually a country. For instance, Guam is eighth on the list of 10 Countries with the Highest Crime Rates list, right between Denmark and Gibraltar. The book is packed with little known facts. Like the country with the most daily newspapers (India, 2,300); country with the lowest proportion of farmers (Singapore); top radio-owning country (U.S.). Peculiarly, Guam was listed as the second top radio-owning country. The language section seems pretty solid. It says Chinese Mandarin is the world's most widely spoken language. Not too surprising, considering there are heaps of Chinese and they've got to be talking about something. The longest English word is the scientific name for a protein enzyme. It has appeared in print only a few times. It's probably never appeared in a daily newspaper, even in India, so we are making history here. And so without any further ado, I proudly present: Charles Memminger, winner of National Society of Newspaper Columnists awards in 1994 and 1992, writes "Honolulu Lite" Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Write to him at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, 96802 or send E-mail to charley@nomayo.com or 71224.113@compuserve.com. Scott P.S.: Look up _Fantasia... 3_ on the IMDb: somebody (not me) added a heck of a lot to its listing, which is much more informative than Marc Lewis's article 1993 article. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:17:57 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-98 Shaggy Man, > Gordon Birell asserts: > > The quotation "stranger in a strange land" is from the Bible > (Exodus 2:22). The Revised Standard Version translates the > phrase as "a sojourner in a foreign land." Further evidence, > if anyone needed it, of the poetic superiority of the King > James version. > > Nah, the poetic superioty belongs to the ORIGINAL, > thankyouverymuch. Who can beat "Ani l'dodi, v'dodi li" or > "v'haretz hayta tohu vavohu" or "Ashirah laShem ki ga'oh > ga'ah, soos v'rochvo ramah vayam" or "tovim hashnaim min > ha'echad, asher yesh lahem sachar tov ba'amalam"? I rest my > case. > > --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky > > I found your answer delighful. Thanks. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 22:17:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Saroz Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-98 Mr Teller mentions that he's going to go see a revival of the 1903 Oz play...does anyone know how long it's running and where? (I haven't read the Digest for some time.) I'd really like to see it. Sarah Hadley ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 21:41:56 +0000 From: Christopher Straughn Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-98 Comments: Authenticated sender is > The other thing has always bugged me. There's a picture of the Scarecrow > that I don't think was drawn for this book. P.212. No stippling, which Neill > used in virtually all of the other large illos of the character for this book, > and > there's a checked patch on his left knee which I don't find in any of the > other pictures. It looks like Neill just threw it in as filler to eliminate > negative space, > since it was the end of the chapter. On the picture where the Scarecrow is being hit over the head by King Krewl, there's a patch on his knee as well, but it's on the other knee. The page in my book is 203, but I have the paperback DelRey edition. Also, in the circle above the title "The Ork Rescues Button-Bright" there is a sort doggish sort of animal wearing a bonnet. Anyone have any idea what the heck it is? Sometimes Neill pictures have so many lines that it's difficult to tell if you're looking at a picture at the right angle. I always had that trouble with one of the pictures of a fox from Foxville. Chris Straughn Bonan Tagon! ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 22:09:34 -0500 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-98 Just a quick note to say that I need a roommate for the Winkie Convention. I thought I'd check to see if anyone on here is interested before I try potluck. Wouldn't want to get paired up with Ruggedo or something. Email me privately if interested. Thanks, Atticus * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 22:24:44 +0000 From: Christopher Straughn Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-98 Comments: Authenticated sender is I'm sure this question has been answered over and over on this list, but I'm going to ask anyway. What stories are the countries and city Ribdil, Aurissau, and Seventon from? Isn't Seventon from a non-FF book by Thompson or the McGraws? Thanks, Danke, Gracias, Dankon, Sag olun, etc.... Chris Straughn ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:35:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Inferiority of Translation (Ozzy Digest) I'd like to interrupt my lurking in the shadows (induced by heavier workload than before) to voice my support for the superiority of the Hebrew Bible in the original Hebrew to any and all English versions. I read through the Pentateuch in a yearly cycle and the Prophets and Writings in a two-year cycle, and I do this in the original language and in standard Aramaic translation. As I have progressed in learning the Holy Tongue, I have increasingly picked up nuances that are frequently lost in translation. Currently in Prophets-Writings I am reading Psalms, and now it appears to me as fine poetry, with a rhythm of its own. The English versions simply cannot preserve this rhythm, and all Hebrew poetry when translated into English becomes sleep-inducing. Also, translated Hebrew is all too often archaicized, even though the grammar and vocabulary which is presented in archaic form in English has changed very little over the millenia. I think I'll end here before this ends up as 90% of today's Digest... Aaron Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@ymail.yu.edu The Antipolitical Martian Empire ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:37:55 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-98 > > David Hulan wrote: > >(And Lucy Lawless is better-looking than either > >of them, though "Xena" is a very silly show; I just watched it for the > >first time a couple of weeks ago.) > and Dave wrote: > >For me, the one who currently beats out everyone (including Ginger) is > >Chloe Annett ("Kris Kochanski" of _Red Dwarf_) with Enya and ABBA's Frida > >as *very* close second and third... > > Oh, pooh! If we're going to get into the present day, Mira Furlan > ("Delenn" of "Babylon 5") has them all beat. > > // John W Kennedy As far as I'm concerned, Jennifer Connelly is the prettiest actress around, and one who can do extremely varied roles well. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:35:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Orange5193 Subject: OzzyDigest I'd have to agree with some of the comments about Neill's illustrations; they are often inconsistent in style. It's interesting to see him evolve at the beginning, trying not to vary too much from Denslow's initial presentation and gradually over the course of the books defining the characters in a new way. Scarecrow of Oz is, like Tik-Tok, both fascinating and problematic, since both were essentially adaptations of stage or film works. Baum's attempt to define Jinxland's place in the Oz universe definitely run into difficulties, but Oz, like the world Baum wrote from is often an inconsistent place. I put the Jinxland question in the same file as the "no one can die in Oz"/ "Tin Woodman killing all those animals" question. Thank you very much, Gordon Birrell, for your generous praise of my 'Scarecrow" score. I would eventually like to make it available commercially (I'm shopping the rough dub around, believe me), but would prefer to synch the score with a video in proper aspect ratio (ie without cutting off all those heads!!). I'm not averse to sharing the vid with people on the list in the meantime and will try to work out a way to do so. Ummm... to the person 'seeing the first production of the 1903 Wizard of Oz since 1912", I'll have to disagree, alas. Tams-Witmark rented 1903 Wizard material (actually the version seems to come from about 1905 given the songs included) and kept doing so until it went public domain, although interest in producing it certainly waned when the MGM version became available in the 40's. I know MUNY in St. Louis did a production in the early 60's. As is the case with so many pre-1950 shows, the orchestrations seem to have gone somewhere beyond the shifting sands. James Doyle ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:18:58 -0400 (EDT) From: MShields2u Subject: L.Frank Baum Trust Dave, I have enjoyed your emails. I've only been a subscriber for the last couple of issues and have enjoyed them. I thought your readers may know the answer to a L.Frank Baum question. Is there a family trust? If so how do I contact their representative? Thank you in advance. Mike ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 98 13:55:17 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things OZMA: Robin wrote: >Question: How does Ozma know about the cruel King of Jinxland when she's >looking in the Magic Picture? She and Dorothy were just killing time when >they "happened" to see Button Bright. Ozma knows what an ork is and seems >to know about Jinxland and to disapprove of their king...which brings us >right back to the problem of why she's allowed such a king to rule in her >kingdom in the first place. Did Baum goof? I stick by the theory that something crossed over in Ozma in the aftermath of her kidnapping in _Lost P._, and that she took ruling Oz much more seriously after that than before, plus I think that in the pre-kidnapping days she was both overly dependent on the Magic Belt (which appears to have been still drained of power at this point), and perhaps had "isolationist" tendancies in this time period. (She knew from the events in _Ozma_ that tyrants seldom can be "talked" into sense, and she was still not ready to take more stalwart action against anyone.) BOOKS: Bob Spark wrote: >I was just thinking about "The Seven Blue Mountains of OZ, book II". >Is there a prognostication about it's availability? I sure enjoyed book I. I'll have to ask Melody... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 25 - 26, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:05:49 -0400 From: Richard Randolph Subject: Ozzy Digest I've been unable to send or receive e-mail for the past ten days due to some computer problems, so I have some catching up to do. Craig: I don't recall whether Gruelle's _Magical Land of Noon_ was offered in BoW's general flier on children's book, and after ordering Rinkitink and Kabumpo, I tossed it away. Peter G. reads the Digest fairly regularly, I think. Maybe he can answer that question for you. Ruth: How does one go about receiving a copy of your "Who's Who in Oz"? I'll gladly pay any costs. John K.: Regarding your comparison of Ginger Rogers and Doris Day, I strongly disagree with you, sir! I have had a crush on Doris Day since 1946, and it continues to this day. (no pun intended. :)) Dick ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:06:27 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-98 Tyler: As to why Shaggy continued his Love Magnet lie even post-Truth Pond, perhaps the lie was so ingrained into him that it would have taken a REALLY powerful spell to undo it (that he even started to believe it himself, to an extent). Of course, the Truth Pond does seem to be pretty powerful! (Until it wears off--so I guess it's not that powerful in the long run at all . . . Interesting to contemplate.) Speaking of Gili: Does she still receive the Digest? It'd be a real shame to lose a Digester (sorry) just because she's in Israel--I mean, we have Tsvi (sp.?) who's in Israel . . . Rambling as usual (but without the jokes), Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:29:57 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-24-98 Aaron: To say that the Hebrew Bible, as the "original" is the "best" makes a good deal of sense. Here at Berry College, a student last year wrote an editorial claiming that the King James Bible is the "best" and that readers of anything else were going to a place down below--that was pure nonsense! Similarly, reading French novels in French allows one (like me) to pick up on many nuances that are lost in translation (ie _L'Etranger_ and _The Stranger_). And the same, I imagine, goes for any other translation . . . English is so barren in comparison to other languages... James Doyle: Tams-Whitmark is a name with unpleasant connotations in my family, as I discussed in the Digest last year sometime--e-mail me if you want details. Oh, I hate ending on a sour note. I better make a pun here, or everyone will get really down . . . Oh, well; a good laugh's good enough . . . Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:46:24 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-24-98 Sarah: I think the play was supposed to be in Florida. Mike: "The Baum Trust" is handled by Dr. Robert A. Baum, Jr., according to the credits of _The Dreamer of Oz_, direted by Jak Bender, who also directed Willard Carroll and Thomas wilhite's production of _Killing Mr. Griffin_. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 20:53:03 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman > Horgan posits we'll see an age of technology (applied science, but no new, useful theoretical discoveries), including information technology. What an arrogant cluck. They wanted to close the patent office in the 20's too. All this talk about smoking reminds me of Bob Newhardt. Have you seen or heard his skit about Sir Walter Raleigh? "I laughed until I thought I would die." David - Don't decide about Xena on the basis of a couple of shows. It really grows on you. The writers are kind enough to the cast to give them a whole spectrum of productions beyond simple "swords and sorcery" including comedies, musicals, slap-stick, mysteries, historicals, etc. I wouldn't miss it. You should see the T-shirt I have. Besides there is Xena...... Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:18:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Ozmama Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-24-98 In a message dated 98-04-24 17:23:45 EDT, you write: James:<< I know MUNY in St. Louis did a production in the early 60's>> I missed it, darnitall, but I didn't even know about the Muni until after my sophomore year ('64). Once I discovered it, I became addicted to the place. Odd that they never repeated the show between then and 1980 when I still lived in the area...not like them at all. Muni frequently recycles shows. I wonder what made them decide not to do so with the 1903 version. Was it poorly received? Did the Baum trust want too much money for it? Do you know, James? Or Ruth? Or anyone? Curiouser and curiouser! Mike:<< I thought your readers may know the answer to a L.Frank Baum question. Is there a family trust? If so how do I contact their representative?>> You bet there is! Peter Hanff will certainly know the answer to your question. Peter Glassman will also know, I think. Dave:<> I'll buy that. It's as sound a theory as any other! --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:05:20 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz on stage and page Sender: "J. L. Bell" Yesterday at lunch my Nantucket Nectar bottle cap reported: "Juice Guy Mike Pavis tapped dance the entire Wizard of Oz." Which raises a number of questions. Did Pavis tap dance the book in Morse code? Did he tap dance the movie score? After tapping dance, did he go back to selling juice, or has he become a professional tapper dance? On SCARECROW Tzvi Harris wrote: <> This is pp. 250-1 in the original pagination, for anyone who wants to see that in making this observation Tzvi indeed has a leg to stand on. Gordon Birrell wrote: <> Good connections. A hermaphroditic Pon isn't all Neill's doing, however. Baum describes Pon's smock and sandals, and makes clear that he has nothing to recommend him as a royal consort except the unfathomable fact that Gloria loves him. Ironically, the characterization Baum came up with for kids is more nuanced than the romantic hero he proffered to a movie audience with a higher average age. Pon and Gloria are Baum's last pair of lovers, are they not? In later books I recall grudging marriages and some repressed sexual tension, but no real romance. Not that what's here is serious, either. On the question of why Glinda and Ozma took no action against Krewl until Trot and her friends arrived in Jinxland, Tyler Jones suggested: <> And Ruth Berman posited: <> There's definitely confusion in SCARECROW about what "the land of Oz" refers to (as in WIZARD). More so than the other places Trot has visited, Jinxland is a borderland. From outside Oz, it's definitely part of that country. From inside, it's not fully. The Scarecrow says, "Then Jinxland is really a part of the Land of Oz" (p. 171), though he later implies the opposite, as Tyler wrote. But we say the same thing about our own countries: is Puerto Rico part of the U.S.? Yes and no. When Ozma and Glinda discuss Jinxland, however, Baum makes clear that they both think of that country as part of Oz. Baum could have written that they'd only just learned about Krewl, or didn't feel responsible for his rule because of Jinxland's isolation; he writes the opposite. That's what intrigues me. I'm intrigued by the notion that Krewl might have been Kynd's brother, and thus probably his nearest male relative. The ascension of Gloria might thus represent a significant shift in the inheritance of the Jinxland crown, allowing either sex to rule. And speaking of hereditary rulers, Tyler Jones wrote: <> Nifty. A similar adoption system worked for Rome's so-called Good Emperors: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius (who had a son and destroyed the scheme). And I think some Arabian and Southeast Asian dynasties aren't as strict about male primogeniture as European crowns; the royal family selects an heir among many related candidates. In several books (especially LAND, SKY ISLAND, TIK-TOK), Baum presents alternative systems for choosing rulers. Many of those systems have some democratic element--the subjects must approve the choice, or the queen must not be too rich, or the Boolooroo must step down [way down!] after some years. But every system seems to come out with a monarch, and usually a supreme one. It's as if Baum were introducing young readers to different governance possibilities without getting into the complexity of full democracy. Tzvi Harris complained: <> The Sawhorse is rather proud of being a horse, of course, so perhaps he/it doesn't mind being addressed as one. After all, no one else in Baum's Oz has the honor of being told, "Gid-dap!" to mean, "We're ready to go now." Ruth Berman wrote: <> "...and this is a knight." "It doesn't look like Sir Hokus." "No, but knights ride horses." "Sir Hokus rode a camel." "After he turned back into Prince Corum, he rode a horse--a horse that looks like this chess piece." "Which should be called a horse, then." "Well, it's not. It's called a knight. It can jump two squares in any direction and then one square over." "Can it jump farther than I can?" "No, it's just a chess piece. Try to concentrate on the game, please. Now this is a bishop." "What's a bishop?" In a recent digest I quoted the Ork saying, "It is a fine moonlight night." I was struck that Baum didn't write "moonlit," but in running UNCLE TOM'S CABIN through my car stereo last week I heard the same phrase. "Moonlight" must have been the preferred adjective of the 19th century, and it does have parallels today--we don't speak of "daylit hours" or "The Twilit Zone." In UNCLE TOM I followed the character of Topsy, recalling Rich Morrissey's hypothesis months ago: <> Though in tomboyish action and braids Topsy is like Scraps, in speech she's more like young Button-Bright: "Don't know." (The difference being that Topsy really does know.) But I bet I'm looking at the wrong Topsy. We have the text of the original UNCLE TOM, but we don't have the experience of the late-19th/early-20th stage versions of the story, which were much more farcical. Those shaped the public's view of Topsy, Uncle Tom, and other characters as much as, if not more than, the book. In the same way, we're at a loss in really understanding how Baum and Thompson's contemporaries viewed Oz because we can't see the stage show that toured the country for years. Pastoria, a Wizard capable of kidnapping a baby--those first appeared on stage. What else did? What was different enough to surprise readers who came to the books from the play? With the MGM movie, at least we can watch it ourselves and know the source of people's misconceptions! And lastly Richard Bauman wrote: <> You know how hard it is finding entertainment when the NFL season is over. Oh, wait a minute, Bear--you *don't* know how that is! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:23:01 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz addendum Sender: "J. L. Bell" Of SCARECROW illustrations, Robin Olderman wrote: <> I think it is supposed to be JRN, but the N is twice as wide as the other letters and melds so easily with the ruff's loops that its opening frill looks like an S. I certainly can't think what else John R. Neill would draw there. Robin Olderman wrote: <> I'd actually thumbed through PATCHWORK GIRL to see if this drawing was reprinted from that book because it's so much in Neill's earlier style. Perhaps Neill drew it for PATCHWORK GIRL, but couldn't fit it into the right place [which would be? No knee patches appear in that book, either]. Perhaps it was one of his first drawings for SCARECROW, before he chose a different (less time-consuming?) style. In any event, Neill surely knew he could always use another Scarecrow drawing. Chris Straughn wrote: <> The prairie-dog on p. 214 (four paragraphs into this chapter). I note that on this page Button-Bright says the people of Jinxland aren't to blame for their king--which goes against my hypothesis of why Glinda and Ozma let Krewl rule. But, to be frank, if Button-Bright's answer to a sophisticated philosophical question is no, the answer seems more likely to be yes! Before leaving SCARECROW art, I'll mention my favorite incidental drawing in the book, on the half-title page: the Woozy trying to ride the Sawhorse. Scott Hutchins wrote: <> Frank J. Baum was involved in both movies, I believe--in the earlier as his father's right-hand man at the Oz Film Studio, and in the latter as co-scenarist. He may have been behind the similarity. John W Kennedy wrote: <> There's an unbiased observer! Mr. Windsor glossed over the fact that several time since 1066 the English monarchy has had major breaks in the line of descent. I recall there being another Prince Charlie, for instance. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:56:19 -0400 From: International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: RE: Help with staging Wizard of Oz Cc: Dave Hardenbrook Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Gary, Excellent! I'm passing your note on to the Ozzy Digest in hopes that some of the subscibers can offer suggestions. Let us know when your performances are scheduled so that we can list it on our events calendar. Sincerely, Jim Vander Noot The International Wizard of Oz Club -----Original Message----- From: Xpect2Win2 [mailto:Xpect2Win2@aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 11:05 AM Subject: Help with staging Wizard of Oz Dear Fellow Club Member, Our little community theater in Seguin, TX. has committed to a production of the Wizard of Oz. Casting is underway now with rehearsals to start mid- June. What the director and producer are looking for now is ideas on sets and costuming. If anyone within the sound of this e-mail has any experience in this field I would really appreciate your comments. I can be reached at my home e-mail address of Xpect2Win@aol.com. I have been volunteered to research this due to my membership in the IWOC. Thanks for your willingness to help! Gary Bethel ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:02:28 -0400 From: International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: RE: Oz Personality Test Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 What fun! That's a new one on me! Have any of you Ozzy Digest readers ever heard of such a thing? If so, it would be a great addition to the Oz Club web site trivia section! Sincerely, Jim Vander Noot The International Wizard of Oz Club -----Original Message----- From: T. Litzner [mailto:telitz@webtv.net] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 2:11 PM Subject: Oz Personality Test A few years ago, I took a quiz that leter classified me as one of the characters in the movie. There were about 20 of us and it hit everyone righton the nose. It was allot of fun, though a little long. Well, I lost the quewstions and scoring test. Have you ever heard of it? If so I would like a copy, and am willing to send payment. We are going to Toronto to see the show on stage in JUNE and this would greatly help pass the time. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:20:20 -0400 (EDT) From: JOdel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-24-98 I will have to say that Scarecrow was one of my favorites as I was growing up. I don't think it was one of the ones that we owned, but I had the good fortune to grow up in a community where the librarians had no snotty attitude towards the Oz series and our town library had most of them. This book seems to have a stronger plot than some of the others, even though it is clearly made up of two separate stories. Trot and the Captain's adventures being one, and the pure fairytale of Jinxland being the second. I was always aware that these were two stories crammed together, but both were well enough handled that I had no objection to getting two tales for the price of one. (Unlike Tik-Tok which seems also to be more than one story, and all of them working at cross purposes.) I've always liked Trot. She is a perfectly viable alternate to Dorothy. Less independent, perhaps, but also more exuberant. Dorothy was always presented as finding life a serious business, while Trot, at least before settling in Oz permanently, seemed to have a stronger sense of fun. As to some of the points raised so far. First; the case for allowing Krewel's tyrany to stand. Ozma does not interfere much with the local customs of the little kingdoms under her reign. By this time she has learned better. No one in Jinxland has made a concerted effort to ask her for aid against their king, even though she has some reason to believe that no one likes him. That this may be due to Jinxland's isolation from the rest of Oz she probably recognizes, but she is hardly going to send in a messenger to take a survey. I would also be willing to bet that Krewl WAS Kynd's brother -- or possibly step-brother (that sort of contrast between siblings tends to be fairly standard in fairytales), thereby giving him a reasonably valid claim to the throne. As to mounting an intercession on Gloria's behalf, well, how is Ozma to know whether the Jinxlanders would accept Gloria as their Queen? The Roses, in their kingdom, flatly refused to have a female ruler, and I doubt that they were an isolated instance. No, Ozma can hardly make a case for marching into Jinxland to put things right on spec, even if Jinxland were more easily marched into. The fact that there is a wicked witch practicing in Jinxland is harder to overlook. The only way that I can see Ozma condoning this would be that Ozma and others were under the impression that Blinky was a fraud, posing as a witch, but actually achieving the appearance of performing magic through trickery much as the wizard had during his humbug period. And it seems clear from the text that Blinky is at least to some degree a con artist. Unfortunately, she is not ONLY a con artist, and Glinda finally decides to shut her down. The mounting pressure to marry Gloria off to Googly-Goo (*sigh* I ask you, REALLY! Nobody is named Googly-Goo. I couldn't swallow that when I was eight!) and the measures that Krewl is prepared to take toward that end would probably have brought matters to a head eventually. The sudden appearance of a trio of inocent bystanders only hastened the issue. I will have to say that the methods Glinda takes to counteract the threat to the travelers, neutralize Blinky and depose Krewl could have been better organized from the point of an onlooker. The whole expedition appears to leave altogether too much to chance. But as a child I didn't question any of it and it wasn't written for me as an adult to pick holes in, after all. There was more, but I have lost track of it. Maybe later. As to the hatchings and stipplings which Neill usedfor shading; at the time that Neill was working, it would have been most likely that he shaded his drawings by hand, using pen and ink. This is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, and I have always assumed that it was the case. I would also be interested in Seven Blue Mountains; Book II. I was under the impression that Buckethead intended to publish it, eventually, but that there were several other stories ahead of it in the que. What the situation is now, I have no idea. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:41:31 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Oz (1976) The other day I ordered a 2 CD set from Greg's Music World in Australia, _Shape I'm In_ by Jo Jo Zep and the Falcons, which includes "Beating Around the Bush," the best song from Chris Lofven's _Oz_. Unfortunately, the soundtrack is only available on LP (which I have, though my record player is broken), and neither the album or video are currently available in Australia. I don't know if small hole-in-the wall places (Aussie equivalents of D-Rose Video) might still have them on their rental shelves, but it wouldn't help much, anyway. Reel still says "Soon" on the 7-day rental page for _20th Century OZ_. My order status for _The Wizard of Mars_ also says "shipped" but I have yet to receive it, and fortunately have not been charged. I also received my copy of _Supesu Ozu no Boken_ episode #1, a not-so-good quality copy taped off Japanese TV (with Japanese commercials). Hopefully the credits are the same on every episode, so I don't have the translation chore each time I get a new one. Oz is a satellite in this anime, too. However, unlike Katsuhisa Yamada's OAV _Oz_ (an SF film about a destructive satellite called Oz), this deals with more than just themes of _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_, but actual characters. The Tin Woodman is a robot, of course. The Lion looks like in the _MY Favorite Fairy Tales version_. There are two characters that look like they could be the Scarecrow (I haven't watched it yet): one withered, and one looking across between the Canadian and Russian versions), if I remember from the brief bit I saw. They have a starship that looks like the one in _2001_, only without any extension whatsoever. there is a dinosaur with a drilling tail that looks like it could have come from Cinar, as well as Mombi (I think) and a goofy looking alien (nome?) Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 26 Apr 98 11:42:57 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Jeremy Steadman wrote: >Speaking of Gili: >Does she still receive the Digest? It'd be a real shame to lose a >Digester (sorry) just because she's in Israel--I mean, we have Tsvi >(sp.?) who's in Israel . . . It's my new policy that in the interest of protecting Digest memebers' privacy, I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of any individual on the Digest unless they choose to reveal their presence. PERCHANCE TO DREAM (CONT'D): I had a bizarre dream last night...I dreamt that a new Oz book came out, but in the illustrations for the book, every Oz citizen (including Ozma) was wearing a mask like a dog's muzzle as though it were the latest fashion. Okay all you Sigmund Freuds on the Digest, figure *that* one out! MONARCHY (OZMA NOTWITHSTANDING): J.L. Bell wrote: ><Times July 4, 1976 issue, I think) that if you went to historians and asked >them to list good/bad/indifferent kings and queens (regnant) of England >since 1066 and good/bad/indifferent presidents of the USA since 1789, the >statistics came out in favor of hereditary monarchy.>> > >There's an unbiased observer! Mr. Windsor glossed over the fact that >several time since 1066 the English monarchy has had major breaks in the >line of descent. I recall there being another Prince Charlie, for instance. Also, going back to 1066 (900 years) for the British Monarchs and only to 1789 (200 years) for U.S. Presidents is a rather lopsided comparison... And can one really include the monarchs after the Reforms of 1832, after which the monarch was pretty much just an icon as far as the governing of the country was concerned? LANGUAGES: I don't know about how much the Bible suffers in translation from Hebrew to "King James" English to "Revised Standard" English ( or "God's Word rendered into Civil Service jargon" as _To the Manor Born_'s Audrey fforbes-Hamilton says :) ), but have any of you ever seen _Alice in Wonderland_ in French? All the wonderful word-play is shot to the Land of Lost Things... Also, Charles Schulz is always wondering how other countries translate a lot of what he puts in _Peanuts_, especially word-play and slang. THE POLGAR SISTERS IN OZ: In which the "Three Adepts at Chess" come to Oz to teach everyone the game... Might make a fun short story! :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 27 - 29, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 17:12:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-26-98 does anyone or has anyone seen the new wizard of oz thats going around it was being performed in detriot with micky rooney in it i seen it on a billboard when i was there unfortunetly that was the last day for it and i had a prior engagement so i couldnt go ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 15:08:52 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-26-98 Aaron, I apologise, I would have sent this privately but I've lost your email address. I have been keeping a friend of mine up on the conversation contrasting the King James Bible and the original Hebrew. I find it fascinating. He sent me the following request: > There is a line repeated at various points in Holy Scripture > to the effect that the Jews ought to be supportive of > struggles for social justice "for ye were servants in > Egypt." A friend once gave me a whole set of citations for > this sentiment, but I have forgotten even the precise > statement. I will keep trying to remember, but do you recall > anything along that line? I was wondering if you would mind giving him some words of wisdom? Thanks, Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:00:38 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: For Ozzie Digest Hi, This certainly isn't germane to any Ozzie discussion, but since others have been discussing their favorite actresses, I thought I'd give you my two cents worth. Deborah Kerr has to lead my list, with Audrey Hepburn a very close second. Joan Blondell is a particular favorite of mine. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:37:55 -0500 From: Bea & Herschel Premack Subject: Baum trust X-MSMail-Priority: Normal I am way behind in reading my Digest, so decided to start reading backwards. Someone inquired about the Baum trust. Robert Baum is no longer heading the trust. Richard Baum is now the person in charge. I have had opportunity to visit with him and have found him to be most congenial and helpful. Bea Premack ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:23:58 -0400 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Robin: That scene may have been part of the original idea. That is, Ozma recognized King Krewl of Jinxland, but could not do anything since Jinxland was not part of Oz. Of course, that is only an Oz-as-literature explanation. I can't think of an Oz-as-history explanation, unless Ozma felt that she could not move against such an isolated king with the Belt at such a low power. Of course, she did just that later on in _Glinda_, but the Jinxland experience may have shaken her up and put her in a more responsible mode. Hmmm, Dave hardenbrooke came to much the same conclusion. Great minds... :-) Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:24:06 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest James Doyle: What's your source for saying that St. Louis MUNY did a production of the 1902 "Wizard" in the 60s? I have a copy of the 1962 program (and don't find references in the "Baum Bugle" to indicate that there were any other 60s productions of the "Wizard" at the MUNY), and the program shows that what they produced then was the usual Gabrielson adaptation of the 1939 movie. I think all the reports of a production of the 1902 "Wizard" in St. Louis in the 60s come from a misreading of a newspaper article that Russell P. MacFall wrote to publicize the production, in which he talked a good deal about the earlier play. The Gabrielson version didn't start getting done much until the 60s, and I suspect it wasn't available until then, either. During the 20s-50s, when theaters did versions of the "Wizard," what they were usually doing was the Chicago Junior League's dramatization (as published by Samuel French). Your "Scarecrow" score sounds fascinating. Robin Olderman: One of the articles on Neill in the "Bugle" in past years (Michael Patrick Hearn's, "Illustrator's Illustrator") discussed the initials on that portrait of Lord Googlygoo. They're for Neil's friend Fred Gruger, and the name of Gruger's daughter Dorothy Gray Gruger is worked into the portrait of the princess with the strings of willow-like leafage hanging down behind her. MPH suggests that possibly the two of them modeled for those two characters. Reasons that MUNY did not repeat their 1962 production of the Gabrielson version of the 1939 "Wizard" -- I don't know, but would make a guess that they figured that having Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch was a big part of the draw, and if she didn't happen to be available to repeat the role, that would have been a factor. J.L. Bell and Tsvi Harris: "Gid-dap" does sound like a rather abrupt way to address the Sawhorse. On the other hand, in "Land," the Sawhorse is told that people will say "Get up" when they want him to start going, and "Gid-dap" is just another pronunciation of "Get up." J.L. Bell: Enjoyed the riff on difficulties of teaching the Sawhorse chess. Joyce Odell: Maybe Lord Googly-Goo got his name for his looks and is too vain to realize that it isn't a compliment? Chris Straughn: Ribidil and Aurissa are from "The Witchcraft of Ann- Marie," a short story from the second edition of Baum's "American Fairy Tales" (and reprinted a few years ago in the "Baum Bugle"). Seventon is from Thompson's "Enchanted Island of Oz." Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:04:15 -0400 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-26-98 > Bear growled softly, > All this talk about smoking reminds me of Bob Newhardt. Have you seen or > heard his skit about Sir Walter Raleigh? "I laughed until I thought I > would die." "Hey, tell you what, Walt, send a long some of those beans, too. If they go for those burning leaves, they gotta love those beans! Mr. Bell indicates: > . And I think some Arabian and Southeast Asian > dynasties aren't as strict about male primogeniture as European crowns; the > royal family selects an heir among many related candidates. > And let us not forget the ancient Israelite kingdom, being a monarcho-theocracy. David was no relation to Saul, but after his reign, when the kingdom became dynastic, it soon split up into rival houses, and both met their comeuppance. > Dave Hardenbrook wonders: > Also, Charles Schulz is always wondering how other countries translate a lot > of what he puts in _Peanuts_, especially word-play and slang. > When I was in high school, I noticed the public llibrary had a copy of one of the earlier Peanuts books in Spanish. there was a joke (in the English version) involving Linus showing Lucy a sheepshank knot, getting himself all tangled up, and Lucy offering that she knew some sheep that would get a few laughs over it. In the Spanish version, that had to subsitute a joke based on entirely different knot name since the pun wouldn't carry over, since it's not called a "sheepshank" there. --Mike Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:26:24 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-26-98 Jim: The personality test may have something to do with Judy Atwell's _The Plan Is Divine; The Gifts Are Awesome_, though it is not in the materials given to me. There is an implication of some sort of thing in the video, IIRC. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:45:39 +0300 From: ltharris Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-24-98 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal As a rabbi and scribe I have to cast my vote with the original also. Tzvi Harris ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:53:35 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: oz I don't think this is the same James Doyle, even if the IMDb says so... James Doyle (II) Academy Awards, USA Year Result Award Category/Recipient(s) 1992 Won Technical Achievement Award - - For the design and development of the Dry Fogger, which uses liquid Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:31:41 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Jeremy - >English is so barren in comparison to other languages... Oh? Which ones did you have in mind? No JL, I am constantly entertained in all seasons. Didn't we decide one time what was the equivalent of verbal diarrhea in email? Briefly, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:45:14 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-22-98 David Hulan wrote: >It's from Exodus 2:22; Moses named his first son Gershom, "For I have been >a stranger in a strange land." I know "ger" is Hebrew for "stranger" (as >well as for "proselyte"); I'm not sure what the "-shom" means. The etymologies presented in the text of the Bible are generally unsophisticated post-facto guesses, of the type forever pilloried by the phrase "lucus a non lucendo", referring to the famous attempt to derive the Latin word "lucus" ("forest") from "non lucendo" ("_not_ illuminated"). Some of the Biblical etymologies are provably wrong; I don't believe any are taken seriously. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:54:05 +0000 From: "Earl C. Abbe" Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - English Cc: earlabbe@juno.com In the April 25-26 Digest, Jeremy Steadman says, "English is so barren in comparison to other languages..." Surely he jests. IIRC, English has the largest vocabulary of any of the world's languages. That hardly sounds barren. Earl Abbe ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:54:36 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Ozzy news! I just got word from a reliable source that May 8 will be the last showing of the 1939 movie on network TV, since Ted Turner will have the rights to it. (That's for all of you movie buffs. I don't care for the movie much myself.) Until next time, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:44:13 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: More Ozzy info about _Wizard of Oz_ More info on the last showing of the MGM movie on public TV: It will air on CBS on May 8 at 8:00 PM. Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:03:09 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Ozzy Digest While on the subject of losing thing in the translation Does anyone who knows a lot about e-text know if Victor Hugo's _Notre Dame de Paris_ is avaialble in its original French on the web. I haven't been able to find it. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:59:14 -0400 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Dave E-mailed me on Seven Blue Mountains of Oz 2--I'm doing some editing & tweaking on it right now. It also needs illos for the empty holes. I'd love to bring it out in Fall of this year--if Chris Dulabone and my bank account is up to it. Would like to speed up sales of SBM1, but admit to being a very bad marketing wizard. Any ideas, folks? :-) (For you folks who'd like to buy SBM1 from me, it's $15.00 plus shipping & handling of $2.00 for the month of May. The Snail Mail address is: HarmonyArts, 21 Hazelwood St., Asheville, NC 28806. :-) ) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 29 Apr 98 23:18:45 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things A FEW MORE OF MY FAVORITE MOVIE ACTRESSES (SINCE THE SUBJECT CAME UP): Jean Arthur, Glynis Johns, Alexis Smith, Kay Hammond ("Elvira" in _Blithe Spirit_), Julie Walters ("Rita" in _Educating Rita_), Janis Paige, Anne Bancroft, Linda Darnell, Claudette Colbert, Ann Sheridan, Patricia Neil, Wendy Hiller, Sandy Dennis, Judy Davis, Jodie Foster, Teri Garr, Goldie Hawn, Polly Walker, Emma Thompson. (Whew!) :) OZ AT THE MOVIES: _Wizard of Oz_ is going to Turner is it? So he's sayinng to all Oz fans "Let them eat cable"... _The Browning Version_ is on as I write this...Oh, if only they had made films of the other Oz books! Jean Kent ("Mrs. Crocker-Harris" ) would have been so perfect as Langwidere, the First and Foremost, Coo-ee-oh, Mrs. Yoop, or any of Baum's "Lovely but superlatively evil"! -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_