======================================================================


           ]
         c/ \
         /___\   *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 24 - MAY 6, 2000 ***
         |@ @|
         | V |  \\\
         |\_/| | ;;;
          \-/  \ ;/
          ><     ]


======================================================================
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-2000
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 01:45:37 GMT

<x-flowed>David Hulan:
 >In _Ozma_, he moved it to
 >the Pacific, probably the South Pacific, and the rest of his books don't
 >give any real clue as to where he thought it was. Thompson and the other
 >later authors don't seem to have any concrete idea where Oz is.

If Thompson's Oz is on our Earth, it's most likely in the Northern
Hemisphere.  Captain Salt states (in the book named after him) that there is
ice in north Nonestic, and that he wants to go tropical islands in the
south.  Also, many of her books take place in May, which seems to be
springtime in Oz.  (Baum suggests in _Emerald City_ that Oz has spring
weather all year 'round, but Thompson might have ignored this, considering
that both _Cowardly Lion_ and _Ojo_ mention bears lying dormant in the
winter, implying that there IS a winter in Oz.)

I don't really have much to say this time.  Oh, well.  Maybe next time.

Nathan

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

</x-flowed>
======================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:08:24 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell@compuserve.com>
Subject: HUNGRY for more
  charset=ISO-8859-1

David Hulan wrote:
<<I don't know any reason to believe that Hawthorne was the inspiration for
Baum's poppy field. The soporific properties of poppy juice (laudanum) had
been well-known for centuries by then (I think it was used in Classical
times; certainly by Elizabethan), and the extension of that to a belief
that simply being in a poppy bed could also cause sleep is unlikely to have
been original with Hawthorne.>>

Then we should be able to find an earlier or contemporary reference. Since
lying in poppies isn't really soporific, the connection between sleep and a
bed of those flowers (as opposed to an extract from them) is a literary
creation--a metonymy that must have come from some author. With Hawthorne's
"as soporific as a bed of poppies" phrase still quoted near the last turn
of the century, and his writing part of the literature Baum read, he seems
like a plausible source. (As I recall, some critics have seen a link
between another Hawthorne tale and Jack Pumpkinhead.)

David Hulan wrote:
<<But from an Oz-as-history POV, it's clear that Oz is accessible from any
known starting point on our world only by magical means.>>

That depends on what we understand by "magical means." It's not necessary
for American voyagers to Oz to DO anything magical or even PERCEIVE a
magical element in their journeys in WIZARD, OZMA, DOROTHY & WIZARD, and
TIK-TOK. Nor does any other character in those books or later take credit
for transporting or protecting the voyagers on their way. The journeys to
Oz are thus presented to readers as chance occurrences. They're as
unpredictable as the storms and earthquakes that either begin or
coincidentally accompany them, and thus equally likely to happen to other
children. That final quality is, I believe, one crucial element of the Oz
series' appeal.

David Hulan wrote:
<<Fantastic societies like Utopia, Lilliput, Brobdingnag, Erewhon, etc.
that are set in unexplored parts of our own world aren't really the same
thing. While the societies, and sometimes the inhabitants, aren't like any
we know, the overall natural laws of our world seem to apply in those cases
(at least to the extent that the author could be presumed familiar with the
natural laws of our world - the cube-square law, for instance, makes
Brogdingnag physically impossible, but Swift probably never heard of the
cube-square law).>>

Interesting thoughts. I can see a clear distinction between societies in
which the only fantastic thing is the organization of society itself (e.g.,
Utopia) and societies that in some way break the readers' understanding of
what's possible in the universe. But the boundary of the "overall natural
laws of our world" seems quite flexible in different circumstances.
         Swift, as you say, probably didn't know the cube-square law about
how large creatures could be, but he was steeped in the idea of the Great
Chain of Being. In the third voyage of GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, he took great
pleasure in breaking that "natural law," and the philosophers manage to
break some others in the fourth voyage.
         Other fictions provide an explanation for why what they describe
doesn't match readers' experiences: this technology is real, but secret;
this technology can work, given certain assumptions and a lot of time;
there are invisible fairies in your part of the world that become visible
here. Creating a closed system in this way (and I think the Oz books hint
at one) provides an answer, however weak, for every objection that it can't
be real.

David Hulan wrote:
<<It's like asking whether the evidence we have for a
several-billion-year-old Earth is true or whether God created the Earth
6000 or so years ago as if it were several billion years old. There's no
possible way to test which theory is true, because everything would be
exactly the same today whichever one was.>>

In fact, God created the world five days ago as if it (and She) had existed
for several billion years, so I never actually made the comment you're
responding to. But pretending that I did, I agree that there's no testable
way to determine the difference between an Oz on this planet concealed by
magic and an Oz on another plane connected to this planet by magic. Both of
us then apply Occam's razor and slice away the explanation that seems more
complex; we just happen to disagree on which one that is.
         And yes, I've noted your careful avoidance of "wormhole." As with
stating that Oz is on another planet, folks have brought up that notion
with no apparent doubt about its validity. My thinking about the value of
explaining Oz's oddities using ideas or terms beyond what Baum wrote or
knew was prompted by various remarks of that sort over time.

More HUNGRY TIGER thoughts:
         In her preface, Thompson alludes to the art atop that page,
indicating she wrote it after the book had been laid out. But it's dated
even later. The Oz Club's 2000 calendar says HUNGRY TIGER was published on
28 June 1926, and this author's note is dated July! (For comparison, the
previous book, LOST KING, was issued on 1 July 1925.)
         Even more interesting, Thompson writes in this preface, "And what
do you s'pose has been happening there [in Oz] now? 'Another war?' you
ask." Why would she think war was at the top of her readers' minds? She
hasn't written about a war in Oz, and Baum's last one was in GLINDA.
Thompson may have been thinking of the wars in TIK-TOK, which she's
obviously reread in preparation for HUNGRY TIGER [e.g., 100]. But I bet
this line was a clue that Thompson was already looking ahead to the
invasion in GNOME KING.

Rich Morrissey wrote:
<<One of Thompson's greatest weaknesses is her haste in getting her
characters into places where things happen...compare how long it took
Dorothy and Billina to get to Ev and hook up with their companions in OZMA
to how long it took Betsy and Carter Green.>>

I find the start for Betsy's plot to be quite jerky. Chapter 2 starts with
Betsy [29], hinting that Thompson's already chosen her young protagonist
for this book. But after removing the Hungry Tiger to Rash, she seems to
struggle to get Betsy there too, as you noted. First Betsy chases down
Carter Green--then the action slows, with no conflict for either character
in sight. Then the Winding Road carries them off to the desert--and they
head in circles. Each move away grinds to a halt until Thompson imagines
some new magical intervention. Finally, the Quick Sandals carry Carter and
his cart to Rash, the very same place where the Hungry Tiger has gone.
         "How lucky I found them," Betsy says of the Quick Sandals [67], and
that reflects how much Thompson relied on coincidence in this part of her
plot. Almost all her books depend on coincidences, of course. Usually,
however, they're spread out enough (as in finding the Rash rubies) and the
pacing is fast enough (as when a pigeon happens to grab Reddy) that they
aren't so obvious. Here the lack of anything interesting going on makes
those coincidences stand out.

Rich Morrissey wrote:
<<I'm glad to see Betsy in a starring role in an Oz book, which she'd never
had since her first appearance in TIK-TOK and never would again, at least
in the FF. . . . While Baum had had no trouble giving Dorothy more
initiative than Zeb, or Trot more than Button-Bright, once Reddy came on
the scene he tended to be the more prominent of the two children.>>

Furthermore, both Ozma and Betsy do the stereotypical cowering-girl thing
while the males (Reddy, Carter, and the Hungry Tiger) fight. Even though
Betsy has told Reddy, "I'll help you" [246], and Ozma's been almost as
vicious as we've ever seen her in popping Atmos Fere, during this book's
final battle all they do is hold Reddy's crown for him [249]. This is the
clearest example in my mind of Thompson's adherence to traditional gender
roles.
         [I must acknowledge that Reddy's very well prepared for this fight,
even beyond his Y chromosome. He has the Rash rubies to protect him. He has
the big wig, and Thompson has established its power. And, as chapters 16 &
17 show, he has the gumption and gymnastic ability of an action-adventure
hero. HUNGRY TIGER was published at the athletic heyday of Douglas
Fairbanks, Sr., and Reddy acts like a miniature version of him.]
         Thompson notes that Betsy's from Oklahoma, only recently made a
state when she came to Oz in TIK-TOK and still quite rural in 1926. She
reproduces the down-home speech pattern Baum gave Betsy [162]. But she also
says the girl is familiar with urban "hucksters" from "old times in the
States" [57], visited a "down town...in Oklahoma" [111, 123], and "had
often been in subways in the United States" [129]. As I've noted before,
that implies that Betsy had lived outside Oklahoma for a significant
stretch, even before she went to sea. One other detail: Thompson shows
Betsy "helping herself capably to a spring chicken that was turning slowly
on a spit" [113], which may bolster Ruth Berman's suggestion that she'd
worked as a servant back in the States.
         Thompson makes other statements about Betsy that don't square with
what Baum showed us. She says the girl had "many adventures with kings"
[72], which seems overstated, especially when compared to Dorothy. (Indeed,
by strict definition of a king, I recall Betsy meeting only Ruggedo,
Kaliko, the Lavender Bear, and the unusual fairy kings on the other side of
the world.) Though Betsy met Guph in TIK-TOK, in this book she recognizes
him only as "a gnome" [141]. And she doesn't miss dear old Hank until page
162. But at least her fondness for onions explains her quick friendship
with Carter Green.

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<<Speaking of the Pasha, what IS his name?  My edition (Del Rey) calls him
both "Irasha" and "Irashi."  Is that true of all versions of the book?>>

For the first coupla chapters Thompson calls that ruler Irasha [20-2]. That
rhymes with his title pasha, his brother Asha [85], and his cook Hasha
[16]. After page 44 she switches consistently to Irashi, which might have
been inspired by the words Iraqi and Irani (the latter preserved only by
crossword-puzzle-makers).
         Thompson tells us that Asha, Reddy's father, retired "to an unknown
state to study radio" [85], leaving the throne vulnerable to his Claudian
brother. In PURPLE PRINCE, Randy becomes king because his father also
decides to spend less time with his family. Oedipally satisfying as that
might be, I'm not sure it's much of an improvement over Daddy dying, a
situation Thompson seems to be trying to avoid.
         Thompson clearly plans for the restoration of Asha's line: in
chapter 1 she tells us Irashi "seized the throne by treachery," and the
people held out hope that the "rightful ruler should be restored" [21].
Later, however, we learn that Evered has been deposed "for a year" only
[106]. Irashi "had the little prince seized and hidden away" [92]--but
obviously not very well. Fizzenpop simply stumbles across the boy "many
months" later in a cobbler's shop. What had Reddy been doing all that year?
Unlike Tip, he retains his memory of his royal identity. Unlike Tandy, "his
life with the cobbler's children" is never described as being restricted
[107]. Yet it must have been. Otherwise, Reddy would have been easier to
find and probably (given what we see of his personality) would have been
trying to regain his throne.
         Here's the only way I can put these statements together to make a
logical year. Irashi had the cobbler keep Reddy a prisoner busy working in
the back of his shop. On spotting the polish-stained prince, Fizzenpop is
able to overawe or fool the cobbler into letting him take the boy back to
the palace. But the cobbler then goes to Irashi and warns his patron of
Reddy's return. The pasha and Ippty find the prince in the palace
(Fizzenpop must be even worse at hiding him, though able to hide his own
tracks); they decide that it's no longer safe simply to hide the boy, and
besides they now have this wonderful tiger, so they toss Reddy into the
courtyard to be eaten. And that's when we came in.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell@compuserve.com
======================================================================
From: Ozmama@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:27:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-2000



David Hulan<< I look forward to the next two _Ozianas_. One of these days
  I really need  to write another Oz short story for you, but I haven't been
much inspired toward fiction lately.>>
     Subtle, David.   :o)  LOL.  I know I'm behind schedule.  The '99 _Oziana_
has been mailed. My first class copy arrived yesterday.
I've installed some software on Jeff's pc that should allow me to do more
than the cut and paste I had to resort to last time. (Real cut and past. What
a drag!)  Now all I have to do is to learn how to use it.  The 2000
issue will feature John Bell's prize-winning "Ozma Gets the Sniffles," a
Fred Otto tale and, hopefully, a story by Atty.  Speaking of Atty, he's
just finished his novel.  Not Oz, but I can't wait to read it.
     Thanks for the offer to resurrect the poll from my Mac disk.  I
haven't a clue which one it's on, but I may have labeled the thing.
  I'll look.  I do appreciate the offer.  --Robin
======================================================================
From: Ozmama@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:29:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-2000

Ruth Berman wrote the following comments:
<<
  The hungry tiger messages I sent before evidently didn't get through. Here
they are again.
  Ken Shepherd: thanks for the day-listing on "Hungry Tiger." (Dave H -- maybe
you'd better go ahead and list an official start-date for sometime soon for
discussing it!)

  Betsynj: I think "The Wizard of Oz" first aired on tv in 1956 (meant to
check the exact date, but forgot; probably someone else will list it,
anyway). Color tv sets were still quite new, and my family didn't have one,
but a neighbor who did kindly allowed a small crowd (just me and some
siblings and their own kids, I think, but that seemed like a crowd) to watch
on their set. The thrill when Dorothy opened the door on the b&w tv set and
it turned into color! // Which reminds me -- "The Bluebird" was on tv
recently, the first time I'd ever had a chance to see it. It's generally
described as a very pretty, but very bad movie. Sure enough, it is. It's
immensely tedious. I'm not sure, though, to what extent the problem was in
the process of Hollywoodization, and to what extent it was built into
Maeterlinck's play. It's a long time since I read it, and I enjoyed it when I
read it, but the movie seemed to be following it closely, as far as the
distant memory was telling me, and yet the allegory seemed both
over-sentimental and over-obvious. (Of course, I've never seen the play
performed onstage, either -- which says something about whether theaters
think it's worth performing.) Part of the problem was Shirley Temple, who
wasn't a good enough child-actress to play a selfish, greedy child who is
going to turn out to be capable of redemption. But that was only a part of it.

  Darth-Bane: The take on the Scarecrow's having a wife -- well, he doesn't.
The apparent romance that begins between him and Scraps in "Patchwork Girl"
ends there, too. As I commented in previous Digest, Baum didn't seem to feel
that romance was worth continuing, and neither did any of his successors.
 From the point of view of the Scarecrow and Scraps, I suppose the feeling
would be the sort of thing that people feel when a first date goes well, but
doesn't turn out to be anything more.

  Michael Turniansky: Idea that Tik-Tok and a wife could keep each other wind
up is clever. Wouldn't work in a non-magical world, but might in Oz. (On the
other hand, that's what Mifkets are for?)

  continuing:

  Tyler Jones: I think there may have been a sort of reaction against "The
Patchwork Bride of Oz" in the form of not buying copies. (Or, of course, for
all I know, it could have sold on average as well as other non-Reilly&Lee Oz
books, or non-buyers could have failed to get it for other reasons. But I'm
assuming that at least some potential buyers might have thought the idea of
Scraps as a romantic lead was unlikely to seem plausible.)

  David Godwin: Cemeteries in Oz? Seems rather a gruesome topic. Still --
perhaps there are some, and the characters in existing Oz books don't happen
to have gone by them. Or perhaps bodies were buried without special markers,
so that sites wouldn't be known (unless a farmer plowing a field turned up
old bones, or the like). Jack Pumpkinhead buried his heads as they decayed,
with markers, so perhaps the second suggestion is less likely.

  Although Dave hasn't actually set a start-date for discussing "Hungry
Tiger," the discussions that have already been posted put me in a mood to
re-read it, and having re-read it to comment. (I don't think anything I have
to say will be a "spoiler" for those who haven't already read it, though.)
Like the others who've been commenting, I enjoyed it. In addition to liking
to see Betsy used as a fairly important character, it was fun to see the
Hungry Tiger getting a title role. It occurs to me that RPT's love of animals
was a factor in her choice of Baum-characters-to-use-in-title-roles -- she
did Cowardly Lion and Hungry Tiger before going on to humans. Or, rather, to
humanoids, first. Another factor may have been enjoying the specifically
fantastic characters -- Nome King and Jack Pumpkinhead. And it's only after
all those that she went on to use Ojo as a title character. Also, in bringing
back characters, it was amusing to find General Guph back, now acting as
Kaliko's steward. Phyllis Karr had an article several years ago in the
"Bugle" about how the later portrayal of Kaliko as treacherous grew out of
Baum's re-write of "Rinktink" as an Oz book, in which the Nome King who would
presumably have been Roquat in the first draft could no longer be Roquat (or
even Ruggedo), and so Kaliko got stuck with the role, and so had to change in
a way that wasn't really consistent with the earlier portrayal of him. I
wonder, though, if Guph's influence (offstage in "Rinktink," but back onstage
here in "Hungry Tiger") might be suggested as a plausible cause for the
change.

  Patrick Maund wrote about how interesting the Down Town episode is in
"Hungry Tiger" in a "Bugle" article some years back. It's perhaps the most
striking section of the story. It occurs to me that it's another example of
Lewis Carroll's influence on RPT's work -- the fall down a hole into an even
more-than-Oz-usually pun-filled world (falling down into a field of eiderdown
outside Downtown and having light available because the sun goes down, etc.).
The kind of direct social satire presented in the episode is maybe more like
Carroll's humor than like Baum's in its rather harsh tone?

It's surprising to note that Neill didn't do any full page-illos for the
story (not counting the endpapers and copyright page), except the ones used
as color plates. The color plates that strike me as most interesting are the
one of Kaliko eating his mud-pie, and the one of the travellers pitching
headlong down the quite fiery looking firefall.

Nathan DeHoff: Suggestion of adopting "Masquerade" specification of October
31 as Betsy's birthday (thus making Reddy's accession occur on Guy Fawkes
day) -- ingenious, but there is a reference in "Hungry Tiger" (in introducing
Carter Green) to the season as springtime. Speaking of non-R&L Oz, I noticed
in looking for HT references in the "Bugle" a mention of a story by March
Laumer, "The Vegetable Man of Oz." It doesn't seem to have been reviewed, and
I'm not familiar with it. Perhaps a review in this context (or a description,
maybe) would be in order?

Ruth Berman>>
======================================================================
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:19:40 -0500
From: David Hulan <davidhulan@mail.ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-23-2000

Jeremy:
 >The Deadly Desert and its Effects:
 >Yes, it turns people and animals and plants into dust, or sand, or
 >whatever.  But I agree with Mr. Bell, zombies who tread on it would
 >be able to survive.  Which leads to some interesting plot ideas . . .

The sign just says "living flesh." This would, inter alia, imply that as
long as one's shoes don't have holes in them one could walk onto the desert
unscathed. But the fact is that we don't really know what the effect of
stepping on the desert is, because nobody did it in any of the books
(except possibly Mombi in _Land_, and it didn't seem to harm her).

 >David Hulan:
 >"I haven't seen it, but I've heard of an X-rated Oz book titled _Sex
 >Fiends of Oz_. Don't know if this is the one you heard of. I think
 >Hank Stine wrote it, but that's a misty memory and I could easily be
 >wrong."
 >
 >Would that be, a _steamy_ memory?

Since I never even saw the book, much less read it, the memory isn't what
I'd call steamy.

John K.:
 >David Hulan wrote:
 > > There was a named witch in the Little Lulu comics, too, though I don't
 > > recall her name offhand.
 >
 >Witch Hazel (and her niece, Little Itch).  Strictly speaking, these were
 >tertiary-universe characters, living only in stories Lulu made up.

Well, it was probably 50 years ago the last time I read a Little Lulu
comic, certainly more than 40; now that you mention it I remember that
those were stories Lulu made up (for Alvin, IIRC), but anyhow the witch did
appear.

 > > And there wasn't anything particularly wrong with the way the
 > > Titanic was built; it was handled poorly.
 >
 >Hmmm....  I'd say having inadequate lifeboats and "watertight
 >compartments" that connected were fairly wrong.

Insufficient lifeboats wasn't what I consider a problem with the design of
the Titanic but with how it was equipped. According to what I've read,
anyhow, the reason the ship sank was that the captain (or whoever was at
the helm at the time) tried to dodge the iceberg instead of running into it
head-on, which is what the ship was designed to take. In doing so he ripped
so much of the side off the ship that even the remaining watertight
compartments weren't good enough to keep it afloat. I could be wrong about
that, though. In any case, I suspect that if the Ark had sideswiped an
iceberg it would have gone down too.

J.L.:
 >         This being a Thompson book, of course, nothing's that consistent.

Implying that any of the other Oz authors were notably more consistent?

Ruth:
Wonder if that was _Sky Island_ or _Sea Fairies_ that you meant by _Sky
Fairies_.

Mark:
There was a much longer article about Oz and the LoC exhibit in the Chicago
Tribune a few days ago. (They also had one about the Centennial Convention
a few days before that - Oz in the News in Chicago!) People who are
interested in either article can probably find them at
www.chicagotribune.com.

David Hulan


======================================================================
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:46:03 -0400
From: "Melody G. Keller" <harmonyarts@compuserve.com>
Subject: Ozzy Digest

Last October, I dreamed a Biblical twist on the Wizard of Oz.

There have been so many theories about the symbolism of 'Wizard,' let me
run this one past you folks: Dorothy, the little girl who wants to go home,
symbolized Eve. The Scarecrow symbolized the Wicked One. Which hardly seems
fair to the poor fellow, since he's a Good Guy in the series, but Jeremiah
10:5, the only reference to scarecrows in the Bible, says: "They (idols)
are like a scarecrow of the cucumber field..." The Cowardly Lion symbolized
Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah.

And the Tin Woodman symbolized God himself. In a few places, the Bible does
speak of the Most High as a woodcutter. In Isaiah 10:15: "Will the ax (the
proud king of Assyria) enhance itself over the one (Jehovah) chopping with
it, or the saw magnify itself over the one moving it back and forth, as
though the staff moved back and forth the ones raising it on high, as
though the rod raised on high the one who is not wood?" Having his heart
cut in two by a wicked witch symbolized that the Fall was calculated by the
Wicked One to be the most  horrendous emotional blow he could give to God.
The Wicked One could not hurt or kill Him directly, but he could break His
heart. Which may not seem too serious until one recalls that people have
been known to die of a broken heart. This is what the wicked one may have
hoped for. Failing that, he'd have the satisfaction of seeing his creator
in eternal misery. Or so he hoped.

This was not in the Ozzy/Biblical dream but here's what Dorothy's Silver
Shoes might symbolize. Psalm 119:105 says: "Your word is a lamp to my foot
and a light to my roadway." Psalm 12:6: "The sayings of Jehovah are pure
sayings, As silver refined in a smelting furnace of the earth, clarified
seven times." The Silver Shoes that have the power to take Dorothy/Eve home
to Eden symbolize the Word of God.

Some of you once discussed the possibility that Dorothy had a faery dad.
Dorothy's name means Gift of God. If she does symbolize Eve, then she
really does have a faery dad--God himself.

No, I am not sure who the Humbug Wizard or Toto or Glinda were supposed to
symbolize.

It is said that Baum felt there was something special about "The Wizard of
Oz"--it may possibly have been a touch of the divine. Most fantasies seem
to be a mix of both good and bad sides of the divine issue, and 'Wizard' is
no exception. Hope you enjoyed this new twist on your favorite story.

Melody Grandy
======================================================================
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sara <Navy355@excite.com>
Subject: Oz F.A.Q.
X-Sender-Ip: 32.101.171.195

I was reading through your F.A.Q. and noticed that the hanging munchkin/dash
man in the background of the Tin Man scene was some knid of Bird.  To be
more specific, it is a peacock.  The studio hired peacocks from the animal
department for that scene.  If you watch it on a movie theater screen you
can actually see them throught the whole scene.  Especially when the tin man
is doing his solo tap dance.  One cocks out his neck and ruffles his
feathers.  So there you go,  a lil tid bit from a fellow oz-maniac.


Also, by any chance, have information on the Wizard of Oz and how it is a
parallel to poulism.  I could use it As Soon As Possible.  Thanks a bunch!





_______________________________________________________
Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite
Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp

======================================================================
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mark Donajkowski" <madonajk@alpha.delta.edu>
Subject: oz in chicken soup

There Is an Oz
They arrive exactly at 8:00 a.m. to take her home, but she has been ready
since before seven.  She has taken a shower -- not an easy task lying down
on a shower stretcher.  She isn't allowed to sit up yet without her body
brace, but regardless, here she is, clean and freshly scrubbed and ever so
anxious to go home.  It has been two-and-a-half months since she has seen
her home -- two-and-a-half months since the car accident.  It doesn't
matter that she is going home in a wheelchair or that her legs don't work.
All she knows is that she is going home, and home will make everything
okay.  Even Dorothy says so:  "Oh, Auntie Em, there's no place like home!"
It's her favorite movie.

As they put her in the car, she thinks now of how much her father reminds
her of the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz.  Like the scarecrow, he is built
in pieces of many different things -- strength, courage and love.
Especially love.

He isn't an elegant man.  Her father is tall and lanky and has dirt under
his fingernails from working outside.  He is strictly blue collar -- a
laborer.  He never went to college, didn't even go to high school.  By the
world's standards he isn't "educated."  An awful lot like the scarecrow --
but she knows differently.  He doesn't speak much, but when he does, she
knows it is worth remembering.  Even worth writing down.  But she never
has to write down anything that her father says because she knows she'll
never forget.

It is hard for her to sit comfortably while wearing the body brace and so
she sits, still and unnatural, staring out the window.  Her face is tense
and tired and older somehow, much older than her seventeen years.  She
doesn't even remember the world of a seventeen-year-old girl -- it's as if
that world never was.  And she thinks she knows what Dorothy must have
meant when she said, "Oh, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
It is more than an issue of geography, she is quite certain.

They pull out onto the road to begin their journey and approach the stop
sign at the corner.  The stop sign is just a formality; no one ever stops
here.  Today, however, is different.  As he goes to coast through the
intersection, she is instantly alert, the face alive and the eyes
flashing.  She grips the sides of the seat.  "Stop!  That's a stop sign!
You could get us killed!  Don't you know that?"  And then, more quietly
and with even more intensity, "You don't know what it's like -- you have
never been there."  He looks at her and says nothing.  The scarecrow and
Dorothy journey onward.

As they continue to drive, her mind is constantly at work.  She still
hasn't loosened her grip on the seat.  She thinks of the eyes, the eyes
that once belonged to her -- big, brown, soulful eyes that would sparkle
with laugher at the slightest thought of happiness.  Only the happiness is
gone now and she doesn't know where she left it or how to get it back.
She only knows that it is gone and, in its absence, the sparkle has gone
as well.

The eyes are not the same.  They no longer reflect the soul of the person
because that person no longer exists.  The eyes now are deep and cold and
empty -- pools of color that have been filled with something reaching far
beyond the happiness that once was there.  Like the yellow brick road it
stretches endlessly, maddeningly, winding through valleys and woodlands,
obscuring her vision until she has somehow lost sight of the Emerald City.

She lightly touches the tiny gold bracelet that she wears.  It was a
present from her mother and father, and she refuses to remove it from her
wrist.  It is engraved with her name on the side that is visible to
others, but as in everything there are two sides, and only she knows the
other is there.  It is a single word engraved on the side of the bracelet
that touches her skin and touches her heart:  "Hope."  One small word that
says so much about her life and what is now missing from it.  She vaguely
remembers hope -- what it felt like to hope for a college basketball
scholarship or maybe a chance to dance professionally.  Only now, she's
not sure she remembers hope as it was then -- a driving force, a
fundamental part of her life.  Now, hope is something that haunts her.

The dreams come nightly.  Dreams of turning cartwheels in the yard or
hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall.  But there is one, the most
vivid and recurring, and the most haunting of all...There is a lake and
trees, a soft breeze and a perfect sky.  It is a scene so beautiful it is
almost beyond imagining.  And in the midst of it all, she is walking.  She
has never felt more at peace.

But then she awakens and remembers.  And remembering, she knows.  She
instinctively fingers the bracelet, the word.  And the fear is almost
overwhelming -- the fear of not knowing how to hope.

She thinks of her father's God and how she now feels that God abandoned
her.  All at once, a single tear makes a trail down her thin, drawn face.
Then another and another, and she is crying.  "Oh Daddy, they say I'll
never walk again!  They're the best and they say I'll never walk.  Daddy,
what will I do?"

He looks at her now and he stops the car.  This is the man who has been
with her down every road, every trail and every path -- so very like the
scarecrow.  And he speaks.  "I know that they can put you back together.
They can put steel rods in your back and sew you up.  But look around you.
Not one of your doctors can make a blade of grass."

Suddenly she knows.  He has taught her the most valuable lesson in her
life and in all her journey:  that she is never alone.  There is an Oz;
there is a wizard; there is a God.  And there...is...hope.  She releases
her grip on the seat, looks out the window and smiles.  And in that
instant she loves her father more than she has ever loved him before.

By Terri Cecil
from Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul II
Copyright 1998 by Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen and Kimberly Kirberger


======================================================================
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:56:48 -0500
Subject: Oz
From: "David Godwin" <d.godwin@minn.net>

David Hulan wrote:
 > When my brother read the MS of _Glass Cat_
 >one of his comments was "Don't these people ever have to go to the head?"

When I was a kid, I always thought that was what was meant by such
expressions as "They were shown to their rooms and permitted to make such
toilets as they could..." (_Road_, ch. 15). I admired the books for being
so honest about it when all the other books I was reading at the time (e.g.,
Tarzan, Rick Brant) ignored the necessities of nature as if they did not exist.

Naughty Books in (but not necessarily about) Oz:
I have always been a little suspicious about the scene in WWOz where it
says "Beautiful green flowers stood in the windows, and there was a shelf
with a row of little green books.  When Dorothy had time to open these books
she found them full of queer green pictures that made her laugh, they were
so funny."

- David G.



======================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:03:40 -0500
From: David Hulan <davidhulan@mail.ntsource.com>
Subject: More Oz News

Since the Ozzy Digest hasn't come out in a long time (unless I failed to
get one since 4/23) I thought I'd add a couple of things.

First, everyone who is planning to come to the Centennial Convention and
hasn't registered yet should remember that after May 30 - which isn't that
far away now - the price of an adult membership goes up from $195 to $225.
We already have about 200 memberships, and the absolute upper limit is 450
based on the capacity of the facilities. Join now if you haven't! (Send
$195 per adult and $30 per child to me, David Hulan, Registrar, 1208
Ardmore Drive, Naperville, IL 60540. Make checks payable to "Ozmopolitan
Convention.")

Second, the following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune, 4/30/00:

--------------------------
Yellow brick, golden memories

One hundred years of sparkly shoes, stalwart friends and lessons in
self-reliance - not a bad legacy for a guy who had trouble staying in a job.

L. Frank Baum's classic, "The Wizard of Oz," is an American fairy tale that
turns 100 this year. It provided a happy ending for its creator, who had
spent years in occupations from actor to oil salesman. It has provided
magical enjoyment across the world as a book, play, cartoon, and (several
times) a movie. (The movie might have won an Oscar in 1939 but for the fact
that another classic book-become-movie, "Gone With the Wind," also was a
contender.)

The songs, dances and emerald images of the Oz movie have captivated
children for decades. And its messages of friendship, overcoming obstacles
and finding inner strength hearten children and adults alike.

It has a very Midwestern style of enchantment, conjured not just out of a
Kansas cornfield but a magical time in turn-of-the-century Chicago, where
Baum settled and began his string of best-selling Oz books. Political
allusions are a stretch, but certainly this real-life city has had enough
empty strawheads, heartless tin men and would-be wizards ordering us not to
look behind the curtain of deception.

Oz is a land for all, and in this, its centennial year, that is a truth you
can see, even through little green glasses.
-----------------------

The Trib also had articles about Oz earlier in April - one on the
Centennial Convention itself, including a photo of Robert Baum and quotes
from Jane Albright, and one on the Library of Congress exhibition similar
to the one Mark Donajowki ran in the last Digest, but with considerably
more material (almost half the back page of the front section, after a
small front-page lead-in). Pretty good Oz coverage from one of the top ten
newspapers in the country; of course, Baum was a Chicago resident when he
wrote his most famous work.

David Hulan



======================================================================
Date: Sat, 06 May 00 20:29:28 (PDT)
From: Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47@mindspring.com>
Subject: Ozzy Things

Hi everyone!  I'm sorry it's been SOOOO long since the last Digest,
but the last two weeks one thing has just been piling on top of another!
GRRRR!


Does anyone have a release date for Books of Wonder's edition of
_GLINDA OF OZ_?


About a week ago, I was browsing the computer magazines and found
an article in _Computer Arts_ (I think!) about an upcoming "Wizard
of Oz" 3D computer game.  I didn't have the cash then to get the magazine,
so I went in again last weekend to get it, but they had replaced it
with the May issue!  I've been desperately searching the Web for some
info that I could share it with you all (at least the company putting
out the game), but as per usual with Web Search Engines I couldn't find
what I was looking for.  So are there any subscribers to Computer Arts
(or other 3D magazine) who has seen an announcement for this game that
can pass along some info.  (The other thing I wanted to do was try and
see if I could possibily get a demo of the game for the Oz Centennial.)


                              -- Dave


======================================================================
<END>

======================================================================


           ]
         c/ \
         /___\   *** THE OZZY DIGEST, MAY 7 - 11, 2000 ***
         |@ @|
         | V |  \\\
         |\_/| | ;;;
          \-/  \ ;/
          ><     ]


======================================================================
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 00:02:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mark Donajkowski" <madonajk@alpha.delta.edu>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-06-2000


I was at suncoast and they had a real nice wizard of oz trivia game in a
real nice tin  reasonably priced to


======================================================================
From: Ozmama@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 02:24:52 EDT
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-06-2000



Sara:<< Also, by any chance, have information on the Wizard of Oz and how
it
is a
  parallel to poulism.  I could use it As Soon As Possible.  Thanks a bunch!
  >>
     I assume you mean populism.  H. Littlefield, if I recall correctly, is
the propagator of that theory.  I think his article about it is called "A
Parable on Populism." You probably can find info about it on the net.
I believe it's been covered in a _Baum Bugle_.  For what it's worth,
though,
most Baum and Oz scholars think that the populism parallel
is bunk.

Mark D.: <<Suddenly she knows.  He has taught her the most valuable
lesson in her life and in all her journey:  that she is never alone.  There
is an
Oz;there is a wizard; there is a God.  And there...is...hope.  She releases
her grip on the seat, looks out the window and smiles. >>
     Thanks, Mark.  Interesting reading.

Melody: Good to hear from you again.  That was some dream!  Again,
interesting
reading, although I'm sure I don't feel up to analyzing it.
--Robin



======================================================================
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-06-2000
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 17:30:14 GMT

Ruth:
 >Also, in bringing
 >back characters, it was amusing to find General Guph back, now acting as
 >Kaliko's steward. Phyllis Karr had an article several years ago in the
 >"Bugle" about how the later portrayal of Kaliko as treacherous grew out of
 >Baum's re-write of "Rinktink" as an Oz book, in which the Nome King who
 >would
 >presumably have been Roquat in the first draft could no longer be Roquat
 >(or
 >even Ruggedo), and so Kaliko got stuck with the role, and so had to change
 >in
 >a way that wasn't really consistent with the earlier portrayal of him. I
 >wonder, though, if Guph's influence (offstage in "Rinktink," but back
 >onstage
 >here in "Hungry Tiger") might be suggested as a plausible cause for the
 >change.

Also note that Kaliko presumably wasn't too happy with Guph, since this is
his last appearance in the series.  When Dorothy visits the Nome Kingdom in
_Wishing Horse_, Kaliko's chamberlain is a Nome named Shoofenwaller, whose
personality seems to be a better match for Kaliko's.  Note that Guph
advises
outright treachery, while Shoofenwaller provides a devious way for Kaliko
to
get out of helping Dorothy at all, which is more in line with what the King
wants.

Sara:
 >Also, by any chance, have information on the Wizard of Oz and how it is a
 >parallel to poulism.  I could use it As Soon As Possible.  Thanks a bunch!

As I'm sure plenty of other people will tell you, the populism thing most
likely was NOT what Baum had in mind while writing the book.  To get
information on this particular theory, the article that you should read is
by Henry Littlefield, who started the "parable on populism" idea.  I forget
exactly what it's called, but it's something along the lines of "The Wizard
of Oz: A Parable on Populism."


Nathan

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

======================================================================
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 20:13:45 -0400
Subject: Ordering books
From: Ben A Lindsey <ben.lindsey@juno.com>

I would like to echo Dave Godwin's comment about how refreshing it is to
order books from Amazon.  I get instant verification, notice of shipping
delays etc.
I ordered "Hungry Tiger" nine weeks ago, and other books ten weeks ago
from IwoO, and have yet to hear a word.

    Uncle Ben

======================================================================
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 10:22:23 -0400
From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenned@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-06-2000

David Hulan wrote:
 > Insufficient lifeboats wasn't what I consider a problem with the design of
 > the Titanic but with how it was equipped.

If it had been equipped with the already-available double davits, it
could have carried adequate lifeboats.

 > According to what I've read,
 > anyhow, the reason the ship sank was that the captain (or whoever was at
 > the helm at the time) tried to dodge the iceberg instead of running into
it
 > head-on, which is what the ship was designed to take. In doing so he
ripped
 > so much of the side off the ship that even the remaining watertight
 > compartments weren't good enough to keep it afloat. I could be wrong about
 > that, though. In any case, I suspect that if the Ark had sideswiped an
 > iceberg it would have gone down too.

She still wouldn't have sunk if the so-called "water-tight compartments"
had had complete bulkheads.  As it was, as the ship merely _began_ to
sink, and consequently tilted, water spilled over the bulkheads into
more compartments.  It was that that doomed her.

     * * *

As to that "Chicken soup" story -- may I say that _as_ _a_ _Christian_ I
found the tawdry Hollywood-brand religiosity sickening?

--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwkenne@attglobal.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays.  -- Charles Williams
======================================================================
From: Tyler Jones <tylerj@apprentice.com>
Subject: Oz
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 10:44:20 -0700
charset="iso-8859-1"

John Bell Wrote:
 > (Betsy) doesn't miss dear old Hank until page 162.
This won't be the last time that Thompson has sepatated
characters that are traditionally together in Baum. Two
books later, Trot will be completely without her longtime
companion, Cap'n Bill.

Ruth:
Yeah, I watched "Bluebird" once and it wasn't really very good.
It all seemed forced somehow, with the fairy impatiently herding
the children to their "assigned" adventure. The only thing I like
about the movie were the names of the family : Tylette, Tyltyl and
so on. I would fit right in! :-)

Jeremy and David Hulan:
Besides Mombi, the only other time I can remember where somebody
actually stepped on the Deadly Desert was in the non-FF
_Gardeners Boy_. Somebody walked across in snowshoes, but one grain
of sand hit her toe and dissolved it.

John Bell and David Hulan:
I would say that Baum was slightly more consistent that RPT. However,
with Neill, all bets are off. As for later FF books, there are too few
to really compare.

Melody:
Interesting possibilitie, but I'm not sure of the interpretation. In looking
at Dorothy as Eve, I would cast the Silver Shoes as the Fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil. Oz, of course, is Eden. In this case, however,
"Eve"
is deliberately seeking to leave Paradise for the land of thorns and
thistles.

Casting Glinda and/or the Wizard in the role of Satan may be fitting, since
they
facilitated her leaving.

Sara: (possibly not a Digest member):
 > Also, by any chance, have information on the Wizard of Oz and how it is a
 > parallel to poulism.  I could use it As Soon As Possible.  Thanks a bunch!
Sometimes, I wonder if this myth will EVER be put to rest, like so many
others.
On the good side, it's been a long long while since I've received a copy of
the Macy's cookie recipe, so maybe there's hope after all.

Tyler Jones


======================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 11:00:46 -0500
From: David Hulan <davidhulan@mail.ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-06-2000

Nathan:
Good point that Thompson seems to have put Oz in the Northern Hemisphere,
if it's on our earth at all. Although the variation in temperature from the
north to the south of the Continent of Imagination seems excessive for its
apparent size, with the cold of Isa Poso off the northern edge of the
continent and tropical islands like Patrippany off the southern. That's a
lot of temperature variation for what can't be more than a few hundred
miles N-S, if it's on our world.

J.L.:
 >Then we should be able to find an earlier or contemporary reference. [To a
 >bed of poppies being soporific.]

And I expect that an extensive literature search would find such
references, but I'm not about to try reading a lot of 18th and early 19th
century literature (which I have a hard enough time reading when I have to,
much less doing it for fun) in an effort to find them. Maybe Hawthorne did
originate it, but I beg leave to doubt it. And while Baum may well have
read Hawthorne's quote, it doesn't sound to me like something that would
inspire an "Aha!" reaction and carry over into his fiction. I think it much
more likely that the idea of a poppy field's being soporific was just a
general belief of the time; sure, someone probably was the first to suggest
it, and it could have been Hawthorne, but it's going to be hard to convince
me that he was a direct inspiration for Baum.

 >(As I recall, some critics have seen a link
 >between another Hawthorne tale and Jack Pumpkinhead.)

This, I'd have to say, seems much more plausible as a link; the
pumpkin-headed scarecrow of that story may indeed have suggested a
pumpkin-headed Oz character to Baum (especially since he had already used a
scarecrow to good effect in an earlier book, and Jack was probably intended
to fill the role in the musical Baum was envisioning when he wrote _Land_
that the Scarecrow had played in the musical _Wizard_).

 >David Hulan wrote:
 ><<But from an Oz-as-history POV, it's clear that Oz is accessible from any
 >known starting point on our world only by magical means.>>
 >
 >That depends on what we understand by "magical means."

What I meant by "magical means" was that magic has to operate on the
characters in order for them to reach Oz. It can be random magic, as it
apparently is in _Wizard_, _Ozma_, and _Tik-Tok_ (in _DotWiz_ they reach a
magical country by random magic, but it's Ozma's magic that brings them to
Oz_), or it can be direct magic as it is in _DotWiz_, _Road_, and _Emerald
City_. (_Scarecrow_ isn't clear; it could have been random magic or it
could have been the work of the mermaids.) But it's clear that normal
physical means wouldn't get Dorothy or the Wizard to Oz, nor the Wizard
back home, in _Wizard_, and unless you just reject Thompson's books as
valid Oz history then none of her travelers to Oz could have gotten there
by normal physical means either.

 >         And yes, I've noted your careful avoidance of "wormhole." As with
 >stating that Oz is on another planet, folks have brought up that notion
 >with no apparent doubt about its validity. My thinking about the value of
 >explaining Oz's oddities using ideas or terms beyond what Baum wrote or
 >knew was prompted by various remarks of that sort over time.

Well, if one is starting from the premise that Oz is real, then what Baum
knew is really irrelevant to what Oz is. Oz is there, somewhere, and what
Baum knew and what he wrote about Oz isn't necessarily the truth, any more
than what Herodotus wrote about the world is necessarily the truth. It's
all the evidence we have, but it doesn't prevent speculation on what might
really be the case based on other theories, whether Baum knew about them or
not.

 >         Even more interesting, Thompson writes in this preface, "And what
 >do you s'pose has been happening there [in Oz] now? 'Another war?' you
 >ask." Why would she think war was at the top of her readers' minds? She
 >hasn't written about a war in Oz, and Baum's last one was in GLINDA.
 >Thompson may have been thinking of the wars in TIK-TOK, which she's
 >obviously reread in preparation for HUNGRY TIGER [e.g., 100]. But I bet
 >this line was a clue that Thompson was already looking ahead to the
 >invasion in GNOME KING.

But there wasn't an invasion in _Gnome King_. Are you thinking of the one
in _Pirates_? In _Gnome King_ Ruggedo traveled to the EC to work mischief,
but he was alone; I wouldn't call that an invasion or a war. The first war
Thompson describes on-stage (as opposed to referring to past ones - she
does that in both _Cowardly Lion_ with regard to Mudgers' raids, and in
_Grampa_ with Grampa's numerous battles) is Mogodore's invasion in _Jack
Pumpkinhead_.

 >         Thompson notes that Betsy's from Oklahoma, only recently made a
 >state when she came to Oz in TIK-TOK and still quite rural in 1926.

It's still pretty rural even in 2000, compared to most states in the US.

 >         Thompson makes other statements about Betsy that don't square with
 >what Baum showed us. She says the girl had "many adventures with kings"
 >[72], which seems overstated, especially when compared to Dorothy.

Of course, we don't know what Betsy might have been doing in the 10-15
years she'd been in Oz that no Royal Historian happened to write about. And
Thompson may have been using "kings" loosely to mean "rulers"; in that case
you could add Queen Ann of Oogaboo, the Rose Princess, the High Coco-Lorum
of Thi, the Czarover of Herku, Coo-ee-oh, the Su-dic, Jak Horner, and
whoever was ruling the Hoppers (when she accompanied Ozma to stop their war
in _Royal Book_). And those are just the ones we know of. Still not as many
as Dorothy, but quite a lot more than the average little girl.

 >         Thompson tells us that Asha, Reddy's father, retired "to an
unknown
 >state to study radio" [85], leaving the throne vulnerable to his Claudian
 >brother. In PURPLE PRINCE, Randy becomes king because his father also
 >decides to spend less time with his family. Oedipally satisfying as that
 >might be, I'm not sure it's much of an improvement over Daddy dying, a
 >situation Thompson seems to be trying to avoid.

Baum set the precedent for this, though, with the disappearance of Jol
Jemkiph Soforth and his wife that put Queen Ann on the throne of Oogaboo.

Robin:
I got the 1999 Oziana a week or so ago. Haven't read it all yet, but it
looks good.

Melody:
Welcome back! (Of course, you may have been lurking for quite a while, but
I for one have missed you.)

Interesting Biblical twist on Oz, though I don't think the parallels work
out particularly well. Neither Dorothy nor the Scarecrow had anything to do
with the Tin Woodman's losing his heart, for instance, nor does the
Scarecrow tempt Dorothy into anything wrong. Still, it's interesting to
note the references to God as a woodcutter.

Dave:
 >Does anyone have a release date for Books of Wonder's edition of
 >_GLINDA OF OZ_?

It's out. I got my copy about a week ago (ordered direct from BoW).

Hope you can get a demo of the Wizard of Oz 3D game for the Centennial.

David Hulan


======================================================================
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 21:04:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-06-2000
From: darth-bane@juno.com

<<Does anyone have a release date for Books of Wonder's edition of
_GLINDA OF OZ_?>>

It's out.  B&N just received the copy I ordered and Books of Wonder are
finally shipping me all 15 (Great package deal on them I might add!).

======================================================================
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 20:57:14 -0700
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-06-2000
From: darth-bane@juno.com

<< Speaking of non-R&L Oz, I noticed in looking for HT references in the
"Bugle" a mention of a story by MarchLaumer, "The Vegetable Man of Oz."
It doesn't seem to have been reviewed, and I'm not familiar with it.
Perhaps a review in this context (or a description, maybe) would be in
order?>>

I certainly would appreciate it.  Since it doesn't look like I'll be
getting my hands on any copies of his works any time too soon, a review,
plot summary, etc., (not to mention possible date placements) of any or
all of his works would be great!

======================================================================
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:31:37 -0500
Subject: Location of Oz
From: "David Godwin" <d.godwin@minn.net>

Our high school trigonometry teacher, Mr. Smith, lived alone outside of town
and kept a few pigs as a hobby. He would often regale a bored classroom with
anecdotes about his pigs. It was also not unusual for him to offer up the
results of his solitary ruminations in the form of relatively short
philosophical or metaphysical disquisitions. On one of these occasions, he
presented a chain of logic purporting to prove that heaven and hell are on
physical planets somewhere. He said that, since there is no body anywhere in
space other than a planet which is capable of supporting life, the celestial
and infernal realms, evidently not being on earth because they had never
been discovered despite thorough explorations, must be on other planets. No
one contradicted him or offered any alternate thesis. I suspect most of us
thought his idea was simply boring and irrelevant. Personally, I was struck
by the extremity of his materialism, through which he might have reached the
somewhat more logical conclusion that heaven and hell don't exist at all.

I suppose that this incident of my youth may have had some influence upon my
somewhat negative reaction to the idea that Oz is on another planet, or even
in another "dimension" (whatever that might mean). I tend instead toward the
idea that Oz is a different order of reality altogether, no more likely to
be on another physical planet somewhere than is the world of dreams - or the
world of imagination. The difference may be that the commonly accepted
"real" world is the dream, the illusion, and Oz is a step closer to the
ultimate reality, much more vivid and vital than our sepia-toned existence
here in "Kansas." To "wake up" as Dorothy did at the end of the MGM movie is
actually to go back to sleep. All this has nothing to do with planets or
dimensions.

Another reason for favoring this view of things, other than some sort of
natural (or ingrained) disposition on my part, is that such a notion has
definite overtones of Hinduism and thus, perhaps even more so, Theosophy,
and Baum was certainly influenced by Theosophy. I feel that he began by
thinking of Oz as somewhere in the Western U.S., then in the Pacific -
always to the West, if that means anything - but finally settled for a
Theosophical concept of its location. Either through deliberate vagueness or
simple insouciance, Baum's successors perpetuated this approach without
necessarily understanding it.

The Theosophical system of "planes" as explained by Mdm. Blavatsky is
central to this idea. She says, "It is not only that their material density,
weight, or fabric are entirely different from those of our earth and the
other known planets; but they are (to us) on an entirely different _layer_
of space, so to speak; a layer not to be perceived or felt by our physical
senses.... What I mean by 'layer' is that plane of infinite space which by
its nature cannot fall under our ordinary waking perceptions, whether mental
or physical; but which exists in nature outside of our normal mentality or
consciousness, outside of our three dimensional space, and outside of our
division of time" (_The Key to Theosophy_). This sounds a lot like a
description of other "dimensions," the key difference being that the planes
are of increasing spirituality or "refinement" (whatever that may mean) the
farther you get from our material plane. I imagine she would say that Oz is
on the Astral Plane. She says there are seven of these planes. In cabala,
there are four, which represent various stages between materiality and
divinity.

Perhaps the distinction between a material dimension and a metaphysical
plane is one without a difference, and for all practical purposes that is
probably true. But that is like saying that, as far as the average person is
concerned, it is a distinction without a difference as to whether the earth
goes around the sun or vice versa. The difference does exist, and it sort of
seems important.

- David G.


======================================================================
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 13:22:07 -0700
From: "R and D Easterday" <ozma@amouse.net>
             (by way of "Peter E. Hanff" <phanff@library.berkeley.edu>)
Subject: Patchwork Girl of Oz Magic Lantern Slides

Dear Dave,

A few weeks ago Dorothy Easterday wrote to ask about a group of Magic
Lantern Slides that depict Oz characters. The characters are primarily
based on Neill's illustrations for The Patchwork Girl of Oz, and are
therefore considerably later than the Lantern Slides made for Baum's
Fairylogue and Radio Plays show.

The owner would be interested in learning if anyone has any knowledge of
these lantern slides or comparable ones. Dorothy Easterday suspects they
were made in the 1920s.

She has now asked me to circulate her inquiry more widely, so I attach it
below.

Best,

Peter

* * * * * *

I have talked with the owner of the Magic Lantern slides and she would like
you to keep inquiring if anyone knows anything about them.
So, if you think there is someone in the club who may have some information,
please send the pictures to them.

Also, in response to Peter's question about knowing the age of the slides,
this was the response:

"Could be that they were handmade in the '20s using etched glass and just
traced with pencil onto the glass from the book illustrations and then
tinted.  This type of thing was done at that time.  They're decades old
because
no one makes them anymore nor has access to material to do it!"


Thank you for your interest in helping with this.

Dorothy


======================================================================
From: "ruth berman" <berma005@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
     "ozdigest" <ozdigest@mindspring.com>
Subject: populism (not much) in oz
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:25:59 -0500

There isn't really much populism in Oz. Henry Littlefield's theory that the
"Wizard" might be a systematic allegory of populist politics is not
particularly convincing. He didn't actually intend it as a serious theory
of something Baum intended, in any case -- he intended his allegorical
reading to be a useful way of getting his history students to remember the
events of the period. In his article in the Spring 1992 "Baum Bugle," "The
Wizard of Allegory," he commented that he did still think his allegorical
reading was something Baum *might* have had in mind. But no biographical
evidence has been found to back up this theory, and the parallels between
the characters/events of the story and the characters/events of Populist
politics aren't really striking enough to prove (in the absence of
biographical evidence) that the parallels were intended. As Tolkien
commented when critics started reading "The Lord of the Rings" as an
allegory of the atomic bomb, a plausible allegorical reading of almost any
story on almost any idea can be constructed, but it does not necessarily
follow that the author of the story had any such ideas in mind.

On the other hand, the Populist party's ideas might certainly have
influenced Baum's political thinking to some degree. Michael Gessel wrote
an accompanying article in the same "Bugle," "Tale of a Parable," and
commented that the satire of "politicians who pretended to be more powerful
than they are" in the portrayal of the Wizard might be one example of
Populist influence on Baum's ideas.

Littlefield's original article, "The Wizard of Oz: A Parable on Populism,"
appeared in a 1964 issue of "The American Quarterly," but is probably
easier to find in  libraries in a book, Michael Patrick Hearn's edition of
Baum's "Wizard of Oz" in the "Critical Heritage Series" (Shocken Books
1983), which reprinted several articles, including Littlefield's, on Baum's
work.

I don't think the IWOC has copies left of the Spring 1992 "Bugle" to sell,
but perhaps someone near you has a run of it and could let you look at the
two articles in it on the topic. (Or I could photocopy them for you in
return for money to cover the copy/mailing costs.)

Ruth Berman

======================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 00 11:49:27 (PDT)
From: Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47@mindspring.com>
Subject: Ozzy Things


OZ ON CNN:
Check out this Oz-related story from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/04/21/100years.oz.ap/


OZMA:
Does anyone recall when we had the debate about Ozma's distant past and
where she cam from?  Someone has been asking about it...


MELODY:
Melody has not returned to the Digest... So comments to her must be made
in private E-mail.


OZ ESSAYS:
For anyone who's interested, I found the following page of Oz critiques
(including a link to the original Littlefield essay!):
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/2525/oz-critics.html


                              -- Dave


======================================================================
<END>
           ]
         c/ \
         /___\   *** THE OZZY DIGEST, MAY 12 - 28, 2000 ***
         |@ @|
         | V |  \\\
         |\_/| | ;;;
          \-/  \ ;/
          ><     ]


======================================================================
From: "ruth berman" <berma005@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: featherhead in oz
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:24:44 -0500

There's an interesting article, "Foreign Goods," by Michael Patrick Hearn,
in the Spring "Riverbank Review," which is a magazine on children's books
published by the University of St. Thomas, 1000 LaSalle Ave #MOH-217, Mpls
MN 55403-2009 ($5/issue). The article is a complaint about toning down or
trying to hide complaintly the foreign setting of children's books of other
countries. His chief examples are the American editions of the Harry Potter
books (which translate British turns-of-phrase into American ones or
substitute British ones common enough to be better known) and Alexander
Volkov's translation/*very*-free-adaptation of "The Wizard of Oz" into
Russian.

David Hulan: Oops, I meant to say "Sky Island," not "Sky Fairies."

Nathan DeHoff: Interesting comments on change from Guph to Shoofenwaller as
chamberlain.

J.L. Bell & David Hulan: Speaking of Hawthorne's "Featherhead" as a
pumpkin-headed influence on Baum -- reminds me of the fine production on
tv many years back (when PBS had a budget to produce shows of its own and
was doing a "Masterpiece Theater"-like series of plays based on US writers)
of the turn-of-the-century dramatization of "Featherhead," starring
Gene Wilder as the title scarecrow. He did a wonderful job of showing the
character's naive wonder and delight at being alive and grief when he finds
out he's only a pumpkinhead after all.

Ruth Berman

======================================================================
From: DJWMS3@aol.com
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 22:31:40 EDT
Subject: THOUGHTS

When I was going to college a long, long time ago one guy I ran around with
was a film buff who wanted to write chalderns books.  He was a wiz at story
telling, and I was amazed at how fast he could crank out a piece.  He had a
Creative Writing class in the PM, and when we would meet for lunch he would
do his assignment.  This was in the days before typewriters were common.  Off
he would go to class & when we met for diner he would be in a hiss fit.  He
would read his piece & then would have to listen to the class tear it apart &
come up with his DEEP meaning.  As he insisted he had no deep meaning & that
was just a story, it was fun to watch.  Could LFB BEEN A NATURAL BORN STORY
TELLER?

While reading the digest last night I was {watching}/listen to the History
Channel's Engineering Blunders.  They got to the Titanic sinking & I watch.
The old theory was that the Titanic ran into an under water ice spur which
ripped her hull open like a can opener.

After diving & viewing the wreckage, and finding no long gash it now seems
that the Titanic sank because of poor quality steel used for the hull plates
& rivets.  Samples from the wreck show that the steel had a "large" sulpher
content & that in the freezing waters it became brittle.  It appears that the
ship glazed the iceberg & that the blow was enough to pop the rivets & cause
the plates to come loose.  Had it not been for the poor steel plates she
would have taken on some water but would have stayed afloat.

There were proposals to fit the ship with double stacks of lifeboats, but
White Star say no because of the cost & delay.

Also the officers and crew were lacking in training about how the ship
handled.  They had only been on her a short period of time & had no feel for
how fast she could be stopped, what her turning radius was at different
speeds, etc.  It was a disaster waiting to happen.

Titanic's sister ships seems to also have had a similar fate.

Does Books of Wonder have a web page?

Was looking at bn.cm for S-F-OZ, but no luck.  They did have a S-F, by Robert
Silverburg's pen name but didn't say if it was On/In Oz.

Dave Williams

======================================================================
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:36:34 -0500
From: David Hulan <davidhulan@mail.ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 05-11-2000

There was a letter a few days ago in the Tribune from a young lady who
visited the Digest a year or two ago asking for information on censorship
of the Oz books. Hana something; don't remember her last name. Very good
letter on the same subject; it was the lead letter in the Vox Pop section
of the editorial page, in response to the Trib's editorial that I quoted
here.

Tyler:
 >John Bell Wrote:
 > > (Betsy) doesn't miss dear old Hank until page 162.
 >This won't be the last time that Thompson has sepatated
 >characters that are traditionally together in Baum. Two
 >books later, Trot will be completely without her longtime
 >companion, Cap'n Bill.

True, but Trot had a significant adventure in _Lost Princess_ without Cap'n
Bill along; Betsy had never done anything important on-stage without Hank.

David Godwin:
Your idea of Oz being on a different "plane" is essentially what I believe
as well. I may have used the term "dimension," but I meant the same thing
by it as you describe. In fact, I think I most often have used the term
"vibrational plane," but I'm pretty flexible; the only thing I regard as
definitely true about the location of Oz is that you can't get from here to
there by purely physical means. Whether you call the way magic, or
dimensional gates, or shifting one's vibrational mode, or entering a
transcendant state, or something else doesn't really matter to me. But the
Ozian land mass isn't something that sits out there in the South Pacific
and that one could sail to reliably if one only knew the correct latitude
and longitude.

 >Perhaps the distinction between a material dimension and a metaphysical
 >plane is one without a difference, and for all practical purposes that is
 >probably true. But that is like saying that, as far as the average person is
 >concerned, it is a distinction without a difference as to whether the earth
 >goes around the sun or vice versa. The difference does exist, and it sort of
 >seems important.

Yes, but there are ways to test the proposition of whether the earth goes
around the sun or vice versa. There's no way of testing whether the
separation of Oz from our earth is material or metaphysical - in fact, I'm
not quite sure how one would tell the difference. There's a difference in
the sense that Baum must have been thinking of one or the other, from the
Oz-as-literature POV, but since we don't know anything substantive about
either other material dimensions or metaphysical planes, how could we
recognize whether something is one or the other?

David Hulan


======================================================================
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:37:28 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell@compuserve.com>
Subject: HUNGRY for more
  charset=ISO-8859-1

David Hulan asked of my comment on Thompson:
<<Implying that any of the other Oz authors were notably more consistent?>>

Within single books, I think everyone but Neill tended to try harder at
consistency than the plumly one.
         Jack Snow seems to have tried especially hard to be
consistent--with Baum. But he had to fudge in some ways because Baum's
books weren't consistent with each other, and he made a couple of flubs of
his own. The way Snow depicted his choice in WHO'S WHO implies he was
motivated by loyalty to Baum's vision. I recall, however, seeing quotations
from a Thompson letter to Reilly & Lee asserting control over the
characters she created, "of course." So perhaps Snow's hands were legally
tied.

Dave Godwin wrote:
<<The difference may be that the commonly accepted "real" world is the
dream, the illusion, and Oz is a step closer to the ultimate reality, much
more vivid and vital than our sepia-toned existence here in "Kansas." To
"wake up" as Dorothy did at the end of the MGM movie is actually to go back
to sleep. All this has nothing to do with planets or dimensions.>>

It does seem connected with Plato's SYMPOSIUM, though that may simply be
the most influential Western expression of the idea.
         It's an interesting view of Oz, and the theosophical connection
gives a link to Baum. My major concern with this hypothesis is the thought
that Oz is on a different, indeed higher, level of reality than the world
we know. Baum seemed to take pains to assure his readers that Oz and the
magic visible there were just as real as America and the technology here.
The corollary of that statement is that America is just as real as Oz.
         I don't recall Baum depicting life in one land as somehow more
real, pure, or true than the other. Each existed, each had its benefits and
flaws. For Dorothy at first, gray Kansas with her family with clearly
better than Oz; with the sheriff on the way to seize Uncle Henry's farm,
however, Oz was clearly better than Kansas. Zeb and Button-Bright made
different choices, based on personal values (if Button-Bright can be said
to have any), not universal ones. Ozma recognized how much more appealing
people would find life in the Emerald City, but she saw the barriers
against them as physical and then magical, not a question of spiritual
"refinement."
         Seeing the Great Outside World and Oz as equally real, Baum's
readers could think about visiting the Emerald City without having to leave
their homes and families and friends permanently. They wouldn't have to
rise above those familiar sources of comfort, so important to children. And
the return would be easier as well. Socrates described people laughing at
the philosopher who returns from the "realer" world to the familiar one; at
the end of the movie, Dorothy suffers just that reaction. But kids don't
like to be laughed at.
         What appeals to kids is a fundamental principle of how I approach
discussions of the "reality" of Oz. Whatever visions of or explanations for
Oz we come up with, I want them to retain the stories' core attraction. If
that appeal is lost, I figure, then what's the point of the exercise?

David Hulan wrote:
<<if one is starting from the premise that Oz is real, then what Baum knew
is really irrelevant to what Oz is. Oz is there, somewhere, and what Baum
knew and what he wrote about Oz isn't necessarily the truth, any more than
what Herodotus wrote about the world is necessarily the truth. It's all the
evidence we have, but it doesn't prevent speculation on what might really
be the case based on other theories, whether Baum knew about them or not.>>

Because Baum's stories ARE <<all the evidence we have,>> it seems important
to give special weight to the explanations in them. Unlike Herodotus, we
don't have other chroniclers of the same events, or an archeological or
scientific record about them. The only "better evidence" about Oz that we
can come up with is other statements from Baum.
         If we discount what Baum's books tell his readers about Oz's
location, we start to cast doubt on what they say about its existence.
That, in turn, may start to diminish their credibility, already fleeting,
and their appeal. If we can find answers within his books (and I think we
can find answers as scientifically valid as the notion of alternative
dimensions), my preference is to stick to those.

Turning to HUNGRY TIGER, I noted some interesting connections between this
book and its predecessors. In RINKITINK Baum described "Nome" as meaning
"one who knows," and Nome kings seem to like to know what's going on above
them. Baum showed them relying on the Long-Eared Hearer, the Lookout, and a
magic spyglass. In this book Thompson invents "exspectacles" [135], though
Kaliko's wizard doesn't seem to make a new pair after Carter breaks this
one [152].
         The Wizard was experimenting with Dr. Nikidik's wishing pills in
LOST KING. In HUNGRY TIGER he's got his own "new wishing powders" that he's
"anxious to try" [34-5], and one of them turns out to work for Ozma [202].
Presumably he later packaged those powders in pill form, making "the
Wizard's wishing pills" that figure in so many more of Thompson's books. A
bit of reverse engineering, perhaps?

David Hulan wrote:
<<But there wasn't an invasion in _Gnome King_.>>

In the early chapters of that book--the part Thompson was most likely to
have been mapping out or writing as she drafted the foreword to HUNGRY
TIGER--Ruggedo speaks to his "general" Peter about using his "army of
gnomes" to conquer Oz. Sounds like an impending invasion to me!

David Hulan wrote:
<<we don't know what Betsy might have been doing in the 10-15 years she'd
been in Oz that no Royal Historian happened to write about.>>

I presume the Royal Historians wrote about the most adventurous events in
Oz available to them. Betsy figures in rather few of the recorded events,
usually as one of a large group and under the protection of a more powerful
person. Thompson's "many adventures" remark [72] seems to be the only hint
she went on truly adventurous trips we don't know about.

David Hulan wrote of kings in retirement and seclusion:
<<Baum set the precedent for this, though, with the disappearance of Jol
Jemkiph Soforth and his wife that put Queen Ann on the throne of Oogaboo.>>

Queen Ann seems to be significantly older than Reddy or Randy, and older
than the intended Oz book readers, so I don't think her parents'
disappearance would be as worrisome to kids as theirs. On the other hand,
getting parents out of the way is a constant challenge for children's book
writers.

Tyler Jones wrote:
<<This won't be the last time that Thompson has sepatated characters that
are traditionally together in Baum. Two books later, Trot will be
completely without her longtime companion, Cap'n Bill.>>

In both cases, the little girl is carried away from the Emerald City by
forces beyond her control. When we get to GIANT HORSE, I'll be curious to
see if and when Trot voices any wish that Cap'n Bill were with her.

Ruth Berman wrote:
<<It's surprising to note that Neill didn't do any full page-illos for the
story (not counting the endpapers and copyright page), except the ones used
as color plates.>>

As in LOST KING (which had one full-page exception that I theorized Neill
drew for another job), all the illustrations in the text of HUNGRY TIGER
are the same size. That probably let Neill and the layout team work faster.
         Also as in LOST KING, Neill worked every chapter-opening
illustration into an unusually shaped frame. In this book he only once
breaks that frame, to show speed [70]. Most often these drawings have solid
black backgrounds--the "negative space" described in the BUGLE article you
quoted earlier. Dark-haired Ozma merits the only exception [194].
         Neill provides a number of nice facial portraits in this book, I
thought, with lots of character: 49, 80, 91, 190. My edition doesn't have
color plates, alas.

Ruth Berman wrote:
<<Kaliko presumably wasn't too happy with Guph, since this is his last
appearance in the series.>>

Judging by how Betsy doesn't recall having met Guph before [141], this
might as well be his first appearance, too.
         Another curious slip from TIK-TOK is Thompson's statement that
Ruggedo had been deposed by "a powerful Jinn" [134]. That must be how she
remembered Tititi-Hoochoo, the Great Jinjin. In JACK PUMPKINHEAD Thompson
would introduce her own Red Djinn, later rendered simply as the Red Jinn,
but this seems to be the first appearance of the term "Jinn" in the Oz
series.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell@compuserve.com

======================================================================
From: Tigerbooks@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:06:39 EDT
Subject: L. Frank Baum the Composer

I though it might be worth a quick posting to let people know that
Amazon.com's listing for James Doyle's CD "Before the Rainbow," now has a
half dozen soundclips you can listen to online. There are samples from the
1903 WIZARD and other early Oz stage shows. But you can hear a sample of
Baum, the composer, if you click and play the song from MAID OF ARRAN.

For those who've been wondering--Oz-story is going well and will be out in
mid July. I think you'll all be really pleased with Eloise's new Oz book, THE
RUNDELSTONE OF OZ.

David Maxine
======================================================================
From: Ozisus@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:01:26 EDT
Subject: Disappointing news

With great regret I must report that the three Neill daughters have had to
cancel their participation in our Oz Centennial Convention in Bloomington in
July. Annrea, who has been recovering from surgery, has now learned that she
must undergo additional medical procedures and will therefore be unable to
participate. Her sisters Natalie and Joan feel they cannot attend without her.

I had spread far and wide the delightful news of their planned attendance. I
now ask your help in spreading word of this change. I know we are all
disappointed, but I am sure we all wish Annrea the speediest of recoveries.

Thank you for sharing your support and prayers for them along with my own,

Jane Albright

======================================================================
From: Tyler Jones <tylerj@apprentice.com>
Subject: Oz
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:29:59 -0700
charset="iso-8859-1"

Another Ozzy Digest Moment:
Having nothing else to do today (apart from my job), I did a search through
the archives,
and found that on December 16, 1998, Dave Hardenbrook coined the term "Ozma
who?"
to define that genre of Oz that is entirely based on MGM and it's
derivatives. That is,
an Oz that is not based at all on the original books.

It has also been referred to as "Ozma, who's Ozma?"

Tyler Jones

======================================================================
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 08:47:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mark Donajkowski" <madonajk@alpha.delta.edu>
Subject: silippers on auction article

Classic Oz memorabilia goes under the hammer

Tuesday May 23, 2000

They're not made of precious stone and are some 60 years past their prime.
But Christie's still expect the legendary ruby slippers worn by Judy
Garland in The Wizard of Oz to fetch a sum "in the high six figures" when
they are auctioned in a movie memorabilia sale in New York on Wednesday.
Other blasts from the past scheduled to go under the hammer include Bert
Lahr's Cowardly Lion costume (made of genuine lion hide), Christopher
Reeve's Superman outfit from the 1980 film Superman and the yellow and
black Rolls Royce that featured in the classic 1964 Bond movie,
Goldfinger.

Inevitably, though, it is the ruby slippers that are expected to draw the
most attention. The pair are reported to be in good knick, are sized 6-B
(having been made to measure for Garland) and are made of red satin,
covered in scarlet sequins. Sad to say, however, that the slippers are not
unique. They are one of four pairs that was made specifically for the 1939
MGM film and were raffled off in a competition to promote the picture the
following year. This is how the ruby slippers fell into the possession of
lucky winner Roberta Baumann, who kept them for nearly half a century
before auctioning them off in 1988.

On this occasion, the slippers set a record for movie memorabilia by
fetching a price of $150,000 from Disney's MGM Studio theme park, but they
are expected to at least treble that figure tomorrow. The current record
auction is currently held by the Best Picture Oscar statuette for Gone
With the Wind, which was sold for a whopping $1,542,500. The buyer was
none other than a certain Michael Jackson.


======================================================================
From: KABUMPO16@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:24:36 EDT
Subject: Hand-made Ozzy crafts

Greetings Oziots!

I am sending forth a plea for any of you who have hand-crafted Oz items that
are special or unusual.  These could range from your Auntie Em's Yellowbrick
Road quilt that she made you back in third grade, to dolls, to art pieces,
jewelry....whatever..but it needs to be something not commercially mass
marketed.  We would like to show some of these at the Convention in July, so
if you have something special that you think would fit, please e-mail me with
a description and I will follow up and probably ask you to send a picture.

Thanks so much......          Kathy Gire   (Kabumpo16@aol.com)

======================================================================
From: DJWMS3@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:10:25 EDT
Subject: WIZARD OF OZ TEDDY BEARS

On page 7 of the July/August 2000 issue of TEDDY BEAR REVIEW there is an ad
from Jaymar Creations announcing it 100th Anniversary of the Wizard of Oz
bear collection.  There web site is www.jaymarcreations.com.

Back in the 70s there was a plain to develop a Dorothy's Kansas Farm House as
a tourist attraction.  To help pay for the house they sold gold bricks.  Does
anyone know where in Kansas this Oz attraction was to be & what happened to
it?

Dave Willams

======================================================================
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:13:35 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell@compuserve.com>
Subject: Centennial Celebration hotel rooms
         TIKTOKTALK <tiktoktalk-list@eskimo.com>
  charset=ISO-8859-1

This message might be useful to other folks planning to attend the Oz
Centennial Celebration in Bloomington, Indiana, this July. When I called
the conference hotel for a room last week, I was told nothing was available
that weekend. I checked various Internet hotel-reservation services for
another room in Bloomington, and found much the same: nothing available in
my price range. I ended up reserving a back-up room in Martinsville, about
20 miles away!

Today I received a mailing from the Int'l Wizard of Oz Club that explains
the seeming popularity of Bloomington in July. [It's not Bobby Knight's
personality!] The conference has arranged blocks of rooms at five local
hotels with a range of facilities and prices. Calling those hotels directly
and mentioning the "Wizard of Oz Centennial Conference" will get you in. I
just booked myself a small room within walking distance of the meeting that
will be even cheaper than attractive Martinsville. So if you're having
trouble finding space, call the hotels directly and drop the "Oz" name.

I look forward to seeing folks in Indiana!

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell@compuserve.com

======================================================================
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Donald Davis <wiz1939@yahoo.com>
Subject: Oz Collectors Society

I wanted to invite you to check-out a new online
community for all Oz Collectors! Just go
to http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/jarman/1033.
This site is still under construction so I
apologize for the lack of Oz information.

If you decide to join this Society please sign-up on
the left of the site, or E-mail me at
wiz1939@yahoo.com. This is the only E-mail I will send
you so you do not have to worry
about getting alot of junk mail from me!

Also if you know of any other people who have an
interest in The Wizard of Oz, Judy
Garland, or more please give them the site!

Thank You!
Don Davis
Wiz1939@yahoo.com

======================================================================
<END>