] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, AUGUST 1 - 3, 2000 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: "Gili Bar-Hillel" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 07-31-2000 Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:30:50 GMT Thanks to all who wrote Ozcon reports. The more I read, the more I feel I missed, though I had a wonderful time and enjoyed many fascinating talks. Hemmy, too, claims to have enjoyed the convention immensely, despite the fact that he has no Oz grounding. One of the first things he did upon our return to Israel was to take out my DVD of the 1939 movie and watch it - for the first time in his life!! He thinks Oz fans are all off their rockers, but admits if one has to be off one's rocker, Oz is not a bad way to express it. I enjoyed meeting many of you for the first time: Estelle, Bea, Jane, Ruth, the Kennedys, Richard, Atticus, Jno Bell, Scott... and some possible lurkers... Nathan, I somehow did not register that you were you!.. and reuniting with friends from the Winkie convention I attended, both on and off this list - too many friendly faces to recount off the top of my head! Some of the sessions I enjoyed have already been reported on here, but I'd like to add Ryan Bunch's puppet show based on the Russian "Burratino in Oz"; Dick Rutter's slide show of foreign editions of Oz, one of my pet interests (perhaps I shall renew my website and make a cover gallery?); a slide show on the Baums' trip to Egypt; a panel on the Baum Bugle past and future (have we mentioned yet that Atticus has been chosen to succeed Bill Stillman as editor of the BB? Congratulations and best of luck!)... and of course share everyone's awe in the amount of work and planning that went into every aspect of the convention, down to the specialized placemats for each meal... much thanks to Jane and all who helped her. One thing I enjoyed a lot was the range of generations represented at the convention. I'm sure there were quite a number of great-grandparents in attendance, and quite a few babies and tiny ones, and everyone in between. It was also a pleasure to have so many Oz authors and scholars present. I was thrilled to pieces that almost all the new books I purchased were signed on the spot, nearly sorry I hadn't lugged over my "Annotated Oz" and a bunch of other books to BE signed, surprised again and again to finally attatch faces to so many familiar names - it was fun. Of course I lugged back a full (if small) suitcase of books. We've just developed the pictures Hemmy took, and some of them turned out very well, especially those of the many mini-Wizard's balloons decorating the table at Sunday brunch, and their glorious release - Katy Fleming's glasses are actually visible in one of them, poor Katy - up to one picture showing the balloons at great distance, not much more than a sprinkling of emerald gems in the sky. The weather could not have been better at any point during the convention, and the sky in the pictures is a brilliant blue. I overheard poor Sir Readalot telling someone about the side effects of his marathon reading: he had expected a sore throat, but not the chaffing between his tongue and the interior of his cheeks... ouch! He did a good job reading, with much spirit and drama (at least whenever I heard him); I'm sorry the Guiness record did not happen, but there was so much going on at the convention at any given moment, I can imagine that no one wanted to miss any of it any more than I did. Which makes me all the more appreciative of the Ozzy people who gave of their time during the convention, just to keep things running. I have yet to read "The Hidden Prince of Oz", but I did enjoy "Paradox in Oz". You can read my review on Eric Gjovaag's Oz site. All the best, Gili "Jetlagged in Jerusalem" Bar-Hillel ====================================================================== From: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:47:08 EDT Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 07-31-2000 Nathan: Please submit your Quadling King story to _Oziana_. Actually, I'd like to see you submit any of your tales. _Oziana_: I'm looking for material for the 2001 issue. Anyone got a story for it? If you need a jumpstart for ideas, I'd like to have a themed issue for either 2001 or 2002, based on Oz cats: Bungle, Eureka, C. Lion, H. Tiger, Felina.... How does Bungle get into trouble because of her vanity? Does Eureka ever cjange color again or get to go on another adventure with (or without) Dorothy? How did the C. Lion and the Hungry Tiger meet in the first place? Does Felina stick strictly to Storybook Garden, or does she stray sometimes? What are the interactions withing the feline Oz group? Etc., etc. Ozma and her hourglass figure: I think Dave Hardenbrook is correct that the majority of us prefer to leave Ozma perenially without a love life. So why the figure? Maybe the two Neill covers with a spectacularly sexy Ozma are part of the answer. Both covers (for _Ozma_ and for _E.City_) are likely to create a permanent image of her for many readers. Her age is indeterminate, anyway. Even her title changes at time, from Princess to Queen. But, because none of the canonical writers even hint at an Ozma who considers romance, her status as a "forever young" gal remains untouched. The only mention of marriage that I can recall is when poor Pompa is presented to her as a match because of the proper princess prophecy; her reaction there shows that marriage is not at all something she's actually considered. Posting to the _Digest_: It would help me to keep track of who's saying what if people would sign off with just their name after each post. I guess I'm denser than most of y'all, because I get lost in the verbiage. There are times I have to scroll 'way up to remind myself who's posting; a name at the end of the post might be easier to find. _The Baum Bugle_: I don't recall anyone's having mentioned the name of the new editor (starting in 2001) of the Bugle_. It's our own Atticus Gannaway. Congratulations, Atty. You're gonna be terrific! O.k., so he's already terrific.... --Robin ====================================================================== From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:27:22 -0700 Hidden Prince of Oz: Is this book out yet? Does anybody know when it's coming out? Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:02:20 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 07-06 & 07-2000 Getting on with catching up: 7/6: David W.: >Does anyone know in what book the GOODY TWO SHOES story appeared? Not sure what you mean. Goody Two-shoes was a character in a series written back around 1800, I read recently. One of Improving books for children. Doug: > The article: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz: America's Fairy Tale, >by LIsa Bompiani was a very good analysis, but; either there is a typo, or >a missed editing, in that she twice refers to Glinda, the Witch of the North. > Glinda is the Witch of the South, according to my memory, and having read >all of the LFB OZ books, many, many times. Lisa either missed this, or has >not really read the OZ books. I might point out that twice Baum refers to Glinda being in the north, so although 99% of the references put her in the south it's not universal. (References are in _Emerald City_ - in a quote from Guph, so possibly erroneous - and _Tik-Tok_, where it's in Baum's narration and therefore presumably authoritative.) Louis: >(I know Dave Hardenbrook loves the 1940 >remake of THIEF OF BAGDAD...but having seen the 1924 silent, >history's first multimillion dollar movie,first,my entire introduction >to the 1940 version was spent in an outraged paroxysm of "they've got >the plot wroooongggg!!!!"...the core of my objection being that the deeds >of derring-do must be done by the romantic lead...NOT his comic-relief >sidekick!!). I've seen and enjoyed both versions of the movie, but they're so different that I had no feeling that either one was "wrong." Any more than I do when confronting the difference between the Fairbanks and Flynn versions of "Robin Hood," for instance. Two totally different stories with the same title can be equally good and equally valid, even if they share a certain similarity in background. >As you might gather from this attitude,I'm one of the "Baum purists". >(My Wonderful Website of Oz at http://www.put.com/oz does not mention >any of the later books).As I've told a few of you,any Ozzy writing I >do will have Glinda telling my prospective narrator flat out, >"Lyman Frank Baum was the Royal Historian of Oz. >Ruth Plumly Thompson was a gifted writer of children's >fiction." You're entitled to your own beliefs about which Oz books to accept and which to reject, as long as you don't try to impose them on other people. (Well, you can try; you just shouldn't expect to succeed.) My own book sticks strictly to Baum, though more for copyright reasons than because I don't accept Thompson and the others. (Technically, there's a short scene that uses a bit of Thompsonian geography, but the place isn't named and doesn't have to be based on Thompson. If she hadn't written about the Maybe Mountains that spot of the Oz map would be blank and I could have put a mountain and a castle there on my own without contradicting Baum.) >(Absolutely all magic native to Oz is dependent on Lurline's >spell...but Nome magic,Yookoohoo magic,and some other things >are "imported" magic). Any reasoning behind this, or is this just an arbitrary choice on your part for the purpose of your own stories? It seems unlikely to me that there wasn't magic in Oz before Lurline's enchantment; certainly there was in the various countries around Oz (unless Lurline enchanted them as well and it's never been mentioned), so why not in Oz itself? >I admit that Dorothy's non-aging early on presents a problem for >me,since I believe that WIZARD took place no later than 1899, >while EMERALD CITY *must necessarily* have taken place no earlier >than 1908....it was unknown to Baum when he wrote the Author's Note >for DOROTHY & WIZARD in 1908,but "hot news" when he wrote the note >for ROAD in 1909. I disagree. From an Oz-as-History POV I find it much easier to believe that Baum was saving his bombshell for his 1909 book than that Dorothy was only 2-3 years old at the time of _Wizard_. Just because he didn't say anything about it doesn't mean he didn't know; do you always tell everyone everything you know? >It's very difficult to >kill an Ozite,but NOT impossible...and if Pon tried to get his father >out of the pond,he would discover he had indeed drowned. I agree that it's not impossible to kill an Ozite, although I'm not that sure that King Phearse would have drowned. With no oxygen I can believe that he couldn't engage in any activity, but he might well go into a state of suspended animation until removed from the water. This seems to be the kind of condition implied by Baum's description in _Magic_ of Prof. Woggle-bug's being thrown in the river and lying there three days until he was pulled out. If he were capable of activity under water then it would be irrelevant that he couldn't swim; he could walk along the river bottom to shore. But three days should be quite sufficient to drown if drowning were an option. >(Note that during "Prohibition",the period when Ozma forbade any >magic-working except by Glinda and the Wizard,the GWN was NOT on >that exempt list...she was permitted to do a little magic in ROAD, >under the watchful eyes of the "authorized",that ended with things >put exactly back as she had found them). I don't think "Prohibition" started as early as _Road_; the Wizard wasn't a true magic-worker that early. I forget whether that prohibition is even stated in _Emerald City_; the earliest reference I can distinctly recall is in _Patchwork Girl_. >I do not believe that Mombi ever ruled the whole North... I don't think there's any evidence in Baum that Mombi ever ruled _any_ of the North. Certainly in _Land_ she appears to be just a sort of hedge-witch who knew some pretty good spells, but who doesn't seem to have been known outside her immediate neighborhood. Maybe there's a reference to her as a ruler in one of the other books, but if so I don't recall it. Example? (Of course, Thompson makes it clear several places that Mombi ruled at least part of the North at one point, but you reject Thompson.) I tend to agree with you, though, that Omby Amby isn't the SGW. (This doesn't stop me from considering them the same in a story if it suits me, but then I acknowledge that I'm writing fiction.) >Where did the GotG get his green skin tone anyway? Lots of people have "olive skin." Why not the GotG? Dave: >Actually I think your attitude is very reasonable... Does anyone accept >Joan Aiken's _Jane Fairfax_ as canonical Jane Austen, or _Alice Through >the Needle's Eye_ as canonical Alice? It seems to me a unique thing with Oz >that authors other than the original are considered equally canonical just >because they were with the same publisher... I don't think the examples you cited really fit. The continuation Oz books (a) were authorized by Baum's heirs, and (b) substantially outnumbered Baum's own contributions, neither of which is true of your examples. 7/7: Scott H.: >Then how do you explain the Wizard recognizing Omby Amby in DOTWIZ, despite >having shaven, and SGW's statement in LAND that he would shave his whiskers >for shame. This seems ample evidence that they ARE one and the same. Hardly conclusive, though. The Wizard might have known any number of people with green whiskers (or at least, that looked green through his glasses) during his earlier stay in Oz, and if the SGW shaved his whiskers it doesn't make him Omby Amby just because OA didn't have whiskers; I'm sure a lot of Ozites didn't. Gehan: >The Mcraws especially appear to be "Thompson Purists" (the way >FORBIDDEN FOUNTAIN OF OZ was dedicated to Ruth, was as if RUTH created Oz). Hardly "Thompson Purists"; I don't think they used a single Thompson character or location in their FF book, and only Kabumpo in _Forbidden Fountain_. They liked Thompson's books - Eloise Jarvis McGraw said in a _Bugle_ article that _Grampa_ was her favorite Oz book, closely followed by _Cowardly Lion_ - but their books largely adhered to Baum. >I also have reason to believe that >EMERALD CITY took place before 1905 due to "aging reasons". I know that Baum >only got to hear about the story in 1909 or so, but maybe Ozma doesn't let >him know the interesting Ozzy events as soon as they happen, in order to >give the fans enough time to get over 'one' story at a time. Unlikely. At the end of EC Oz was cut off from our world, so Baum couldn't have heard about its events after that until he established wireless communication with Oz, which happened immediately before he learned the story of _Patchwork Girl_. I suppose that it's possible that he was back in touch with Oz at the time he wrote EC and concealed that fact, rather than concealing his knowledge that Oz had been cut off at the time he wrote _Road_ (and, by my chronology, all the rest of the books from _Land_ on), but the latter seems more likely. Telling his readers that there are only five more Oz stories to come at the time he wrote the second one would be quite likely to hurt sales; telling them that there will be no more Oz stories when he knows there can be seems to have no upside. >my theory is that Omby changed his name in order to sound 'fierce' and not >'sissy-ish'... If you accept Thompson's "Wantowin Battles" then it seems to me you have to accept her statement that he was born into a family named Battles and given the name "Wantowin." So it wasn't a name he adopted later. Well, that's another installment that I'll send off. More later. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:30:01 -0400 From: rri0189@attglobal.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 07-31-2000 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: >That doesn't seem to have bothered Nancy Stouffer. (For those who don't >know, Nancy Stouffer is suing JKR over the use of the word "Muggle". >Stouffer has a book called "Rah and the Muggles", and she claims JKR >plagerized the term, even though there are countless independent instances >if the word "Muggle" in literature and elsewhere, and Stouffer's Muggles >bear no resemblance to Rowling's -- The former are little bald people, >the latter is a term for non-wizards.) Of course. The main way that lawyers make money nowadays is by bringing totally worthless lawsuits against innocent parties, knowing that eventually the person they're persecuting will decide it's cheaper and easier to cough up the demanded blackmail. Someday judges may grow the guts to start forcing plaintiffs to pay defendants' expenses in this kind of case, but I'm not holding my breath. >If the idea of Ozma growing up and having a love life is so repugnant to >the "vast majority" of Oz fans, why do so many of said Oz fans draw Ozma >looking so -- um -- (Dave describes an outline of an hourglass with his >hands)? Well, I've never seen an ugly realistic portrait of the BVM. Or Artemis or Athena. It may also be a recognition of political fact. How many consorts of queens regnant have distinguished themselves? Prince Albert probably deserved a better reputation than he has at present, but as a rule, they've all been nonentities. Any consort of Ozma's is doomed either to seem unworthy of her or else to usurp her, unless that consort be monarch in his own right of a kingdom of comparable status. There is also the fact, of course, that in our _present_ state of affairs, no permanent change on such a scale to the status quo is possible. (I thought long and hard about so minor a change in my own centennial entry as de-cactusizing the Nome King and leaving him, at least for the moment, a reformed character; I finally decided that the denouement of my story required it, but it was not an easy choice.) I do _not_ define stagnation as "Ozzy" -- but marrying off Ozma means that every subsequent writer _must_ either accept it or reject it, causing a permanent schism in Oz reality. One is also reminded of other fairy figures, from Luthien to Iolanthe. -- John W. Kennedy (Working from my laptop) ====================================================================== From: "ruth berman" Subject: greenbeards in oz Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:55:19 -0500 Tyler Jones: Yes, copyright on published illustrations is the same as on texts. Neill's illustrations published before 1923 are in public domain and can be reprinted at will. (And copyrights on things published in 1923 and after are in the same complicated state of affairs for illustrations as for texts.) Nathan DeHoff: So "Paradox" assumes that the Soldier's green whiskers grow that color without benefit of make-up? That wouldn't, though, stop someone else writing an Oz story from assuming otherwise, as it is impractical to try to be consistent with all the mass of fan-published Oz books. (Trying to be consistent with the canonical 40 Oz books, although not exactly practical either, considering the inconsistencies in Baum alone as well as in Baum-and-successors, is at least something that can be attempted.) Then again, very likely having the Soldier's whiskers grow that way is a more attractive idea than having them dyed. In line with this Soldierly discussion -- I re-read James E. Haff's "The Man Nobody Knows," an article about the Soldier ("Baum Bugle" 1978 #3), and I see that he finds in "Land" explanations of the changed traits between the unnamed Soldier and his reappearance as Omby Amby. ("The Man" accepts the identity between Soldier and Omby Amby implied by the conversation between the now-whiskerless Soldier and the Wizard in "Dorothy/Wizard" about "didn't you use to have green whiskers?") In "Land," the Soldier's reaction to Jinjur's attack is, "I shall disguise myself by cutting off my lovely green whiskers." And evidently he has done so before Glinda has conquered Jinjur, and that is why Omby Amby has only a mustache and no beard. Also, Jinjur remarks that the "Army is old and feeble. His strength has all been used to grow whiskers." It follows that when the Soldier loses his beard, he has strength to spare for the greater amount of bravery he shows in "Ozma" (although he's still somewhat timid, and is as reluctant as the officers to run past the Giant with the Hammer). "The Man" didn't discuss just why having a beard should take the strength out of the Soldier to produce the effect of greater bravery while beardless and a return to greater inactivity once the beard has grown out again ("Patchwork Girl"). Two possibilities occur to me: the Soldier's vanity over his lovely green whiskers might make him want to avoid situations that will put them into danger (beardly, rather than personal, cowardice); the magic that makes his whiskers grow in green might include as a side-effect sapping his strength and so making him timid. (If the side-effect was intentional, it sounds as if having green whiskers might be the result of a malicious spell, rather than the kind of reward for service Robin Olderman suggested as a possible story-base. Then again, the fact that the Soldier's whiskers turn red in "Wishing Horse," in a danger signal, sounds more as if the colors might be a beneficent spell, and the effect of timidity unintended.) Incidentally, the MGM "Wizard" seems to take for granted the identity of the Soldier and Omby Amby, too -- Frank Morgan's makeup as the Soldier was beardless, but green-mustached. David Hulan: You're probably right in thinking that the US changes in "Harry Potter" are likely to be pretty much trivial. A letter to the editor (from John C. Rezmerski, who is a widely-published poet, also an sf fan) in the Minneapolis "Star Tribune" pointed out that UK publishers routinely Briticize American books they publish in the same way that US publishers Americanize British books, and no one seems to complain about the Briticizing as a problem, so the Americanizing probably isn't really a problem, either. I forget who asked about getting copies of "The Blue Emperor of Oz." The author was Henry S. Blossom, whose address was listed in last IWOC address-book as 244 Wilson Creek Circle, Wimbeley TX 78676-5001. He isn't likely to have any copies left, but perhaps he'd be willing to make photocopies for individuals. (Or perhaps if there are a lot of individuals, he'd consider reprinting.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:30:26 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 07-12-2000 Continuing to catch up: 7/12: Louis: >I hold to Lurline's intervention being a one-time thing,with the fairies >she left in Oz(who all left when their children died) leaving descendants >who married into the main dynasty,so there were heirs with fairy blood, >but no other full-blooded fairies ever came to Oz after that. What about Polychrome? (I assume you meant "to stay," or "fairies of the sort who are the guardians of mankind"; I don't know that I agree, but I don't have any grounds for disagreement either.) But is it your thesis that half-fairies aren't immortal? >Why did they "do everything necessary" except market [RPT's Oz books] to her >satisfaction?Seems they would want to do that. Marketing costs money, so there's always a cost-benefit analysis associated with how much a publisher is willing to spend in hopes of selling more books. RPT and R&L apparently came to different conclusions on the subject (as would be expected, since the marketing expenses affected only the latter's bottom line whereas the additional sales benefited both). Scott O: >A little off-topic, but I feel like I'm the only person who hasn't read any >of the "Harry Potter" books. Is this something I should look into? You've gotten a lot of varying answers on this (though to the best of my recollection everyone who's actually read the books has said, "Yes!"), but FWIW I think you should. They're not much like Oz, and they're not the greatest children's fantasy written in the last couple of decades, but they're a lot of fun and have become enough of a cultural icon by now that people who don't read them are going to run into a lot of references they won't understand - just as people who've never read an Oz book or seen an Oz movie would. David G.: >I know I am. In fact, I have already written some fairly lengthy comments on >_Nome King_ - the first RPT book which I actually find to be entertaining. Well, our tastes obviously differ in this area; I consider _Lost King_ the best of RPT's books up to at least _Yellow Knight_, and _Gnome King_ one of her least appealing ones. But I'll wait for the formal discussion to elaborate. Ruth: >The R&L Oz books have >a degree of unity that the fan-written Oz books cannot have (for various >reasons, probably all pretty obvious), and if you, for instance, wanted to >have Eureka get back to Oz in a way different from the way David Hulan >used, you probably would not get similar complaints from readers. Especially since my book in which that happens hasn't been published and probably won't. :-) Dave: >"HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A FOOL!" >Well, I have just finished Harry Potter 4 (Terrific book!), and it has >brought up a question relative to Oz: Have you ever noticed how many >escapes by heroes depend on the villians "playing" with them? I can't >say how this relates to the new Harry Potter book without spoiling it >for those who haven't read it yet, but in Oz I'm most specifically thinking >of the Nome King in _Ozma of Oz_. Dorothy et al. would all be "oblivionized" >(to use a _Red Dwarf_-ism) if Roquat hadn't been determined to do it the >"fun" way, which of course bought time for the Ozites and allowed them >and the Evians to escape. Just thought it's interesting how often in >fantasy the trumph of good depends on the combination of sadism and stupidity >in the bad guys. This has become almost a convention of adventure fiction, along with the one where villain, rather than offing the protagonist directly, subjects him or her to some kind of slow death involving a Rube Goldberg sort of approach (rising water in a closed chamber is very popular) that gives an opportunity to escape. 7/14: Louis: The prohibition on magic-working doesn't seem to have been very effective while it was on. It's true that most magic-working in Oz between _Patchwork Girl_ and _Glinda_ was shown as illegal, but there are exceptions. Ozma knew about and did nothing about the Lavender Bear's magic-working in _Lost Princess_ or Polychrome's and Nimmie Amee's in _Tin Woodman_, for instance. And of course there were a lot of magic-workers whose actions are considered illegal, but who were doing them anyway - Dr. Pipt, Blinkie and her associates, Ugu, Mrs. Yoop, Coo-ee-oh, the Su-dic and his wife...and that's just in Baum, since those are the only books you accept. I don't have a centenarian relative living at present, but my great-grandfather lived to be 105. (Which was harder to do when you were born in 1842...) Darth-bane: >What >author do you know of that is free from error? The chroniclers of the Oz >series were not divinely inspired, and likely needed better editors. Even works that many consider to be divinely inspired may contain contradictions. Check the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. They don't even agree on his great-grandfather. Or which son of David he was descended from. Scott H.: >This in contrast to "A Murder in Oz," set where "death is unknown," >yet everyone >knows what it is. I don't know who I'm quoting, but I know I have >seen that phrase >associated with Oz, and it doesn't make sense. Obviously it is >meant figuratively. Of course. In that context "death is unknown" means "death doesn't happen," not that people don't know about death. Oz has too much contact with the outside world where death is well-known for Ozites not to know what death is. (I'm reminded of one of the Asterix books, _Asterix and the Normans_, where the Normans invaded Gaul because they'd heard it said that they "didn't know the meaning of fear," and they wanted to remedy that defect. Asterix and company obliged...) Out of curiosity, why do you comment to me about _Waiting for Godot_? I hadn't posted in over a month when you did, and I've certainly never said anything about that play. That's two more Digests down. If I can continue to do two a day I'll eventually catch up no matter how fast Dave puts out new ones (as long as it's not more than one a day...). David Hulan ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Seven Blue Mountains, Tin Daughters, and Fairies Marrying in Oz Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:13:15 GMT Joyce: >A second Seven Blue Mountains Book is out? Info please. The first was >excellent I am deffinitely interested in the second. It this Tippetarius in >Oz, or yet a third book? It's _Tippetarius in Oz_. You can order it from Buckethead (or Tales of the Cowardly Lion and Friends, or whatever Chris is calling it now). Gehan: >But I agree with Tyler that the northern, central and southern >parts of the Munchkin Country were ruled by three different people(King >Cheeriobed and Queen Orin at the north, the WWE at the center and Ojo's >parents at the south). Actually, I would say that it was probably Cheeriobed's FATHER who ruled the north; there's no indication that Cheeriobed ruled anything other than the Ozure Isles prior to _Giant Horse_. Similarly, it was Ojo's grandfather who ruled in the south (with some help from Unc Nunkie). I'm not entirely sure what would have happened in the north after Mombi had deposed the King, but maybe there was no ruler there for a little while. Rich Morrissey: > So would I...especially as, in Baums version, she (and, even more, >Dorothy and the other girls from the mortal world) seems a bit too young to >get married. Yes, I know in some societies girls marry at 14 (Ozmas age) or >even 11 (Dorothys age), but its not something I (or the vast majority of Oz >readers...Baum did, after all, write for an American audience) would be >comfortable with. Thompson states in _Kabumpo_ that Ozma is "just a little girl fairy after all," and wouldn't want to marry for that reason, but she also allows Randy to age enough for a marriage, so why not Ozma? > Well, some of the conflicting things in the series could have some >more >prosaic explanations. True, although the paradox explanations tended to be quite enjoyable. I do find it a bit odd that magic was apparently impossible in pre-enchantment Oz. Ix is apparently not an especially magical country, and Queen Zixi can practice her witchcraft there, so why wouldn't witches be possible in a non-magical Oz? Still, _Paradox_ probably gives the best portrayal of the enchantment that I've seen (no offense intended to anyone else who might have written about this event in hoztory). Tying it together with the story of the wicked king who drank the Water of Oblivion was a clever touch. Dave Hardenbrook: >I E-mailed Melody to ask about the status of _Seven Blue Mountains 3_. >She tells me that it's partially written and that Chris Dulabone and >"Rinnie" (that's his wife, right?) will be writing the rest, since she >(Melody) is no longer writing Oz books. Any particular reason why not, or just loss of interest? >Her other unpublished opus -- _Forever in Oz_ -- is apparently in limbo, >as it's far too heterodox for Dulabone. (If one doesn't accept the idea of >Ozma falling in love, they're probably not going to accept Melody's premiss >-- >That the Tin Woodman has a daughter! ... *I* have no problem with it, >FWIW.) I wouldn't say the idea is heretical, but it seems quite out-of-character for the Tin Woodman to have abandoned his own child (and we certainly see no sign of her in earlier books). This is assuming that the child is a natural one from his pre-tin days, and not a recent magical creation, of course. Nathan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:19:45 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: back home--status quo ante Atticus Gannaway reported several awards and appointments announced at the Centennial Convention last month, but modestly left out one of the most important. He'll become the editor of THE BAUM BUGLE in 2001. Bill Stillman deserves great praise for his work in recent years, culminating in the two anniversary years of 1999 and 2000, and Atticus deserves all our support and ideas for the future. Congratulations to both gentlemen! On the question of Omby Amby and the Soldier with the Green Whiskers, Louis Epstein wrote: <> Unless, of course, one reads the implications of this passage from DOROTHY & WIZARD in the way most people [though not all] seem to do: . . . added a tall soldier in a Captain-General's uniform. The Wizard turned to look at him. "Did you not wear green whiskers at one time?" he asked. "Yes," said the soldier; "but I shaved them off long ago, and since then I have risen from a private to be the Chief General of the Royal Armies." We can put this passage together with the one from LAND in which the Soldier with the Green Whiskers states: "I expected this blow" said the Soldier, sulkily; "but I can bear it. I shall disguise myself by cutting off my lovely green whiskers." And in PATCHWORK GIRL, the Shaggy Man addresses the Soldier with the Green Whiskers as "General." So for Omby Amby NOT to be the Soldier with the Green Whiskers, there would have to have been two tall men with green whiskers in the Wizard's Emerald City, both of whom cut their whiskers during the Scarecrow's regime and both of whom became generals of Ozma's army. Yet no book mentioned this notable coincidence, or showed these two men together. On that difficulty, Louis Epstein wrote: <> Basically, this answer for where Omby Amby is when we see the Soldier with the Green Whiskers, or vice versa, is, "Elsewhere." I don't think that solution will win new converts. For one thing, it raises more questions than viewing Omby Amby and the Soldier as the same man. In approaching this issue, Occam's razor is as useful as the razor the soldier used to shave. As for personality, EMERALD CITY offers this characterization of Omby Amby: He was very tall and slim and wore a gay uniform and a fierce mustache. Yet the mustache was the only fierce thing about Omby Amby, whose nature was as gentle as that of a child. That matches rather closely to the Soldier with the Green Whiskers observed in LAND and described in LOST PRINCESS: "There is one soldier," claimed Dorothy. "He has green whiskers and a gun and is a Major-General; but no one is afraid of either his gun or his whiskers, 'cause he's so tender-hearted that he wouldn't hurt a fly." I'm not sure what big differences folks perceive between those characters. Louis Epstein wrote: <> If Ozma in OZMA were flawlessly logical, she wouldn't have said, "But I shall have eleven guesses. . . . Surely I ought to guess one object in eleven correctly"; a logical person would have asked the Nome King how many objects she had to choose from. If Ozma were flawlessly logical about her army, she'd surely have learned more about Roquat's forces and prepared to meet them. And I have yet to see the logic in the top-heavy military she does bring. No, I don't think Baum portrayed her as a perfectly rational ruler early in her reign. As late as EMERALD CITY, in fact, Baum depicts Ozma's political decision-making as less than exemplary. She's ready to sacrifice her entire kingdom and all her subjects to maintain her principle of not harming others. Logical perhaps, if one agrees with her fundamental beliefs, but hardly flawless: the Scarecrow and Glinda have to save her and Oz from her own convictions. Her excellence as a ruler seems to increase as the series goes on, and even as late as GLINDA there's cause to quibble. Finally, if you're looking for flawless logic, it seems quite inconsistent to dismiss Tititi-Hoochoo's statements on private soldiers. Isn't the whole point of his character that he's EXTREMELY logical because he has sharp judgment and no heart? Before leaving the Soldier with the Green Whiskers, in WISHING HORSE his beard's sudden change of color is Dorothy's signal that some great danger threatens Oz. Thompson needed some way to protect Dorothy from Skamperoo's spell over the Emerald City. That treatment hints that the color of the Soldier's whiskers is somehow integrally linked to the well-being of his native land. As for the Guardian of the Gates, the "greenish tint" of his skin is noted when he stands in "a high arched room, the walls of which glistened with countless emeralds." The man is "clothed all in green," and beside him is "a large green box." Those gems, clothes, and furniture must really be green because Dorothy and her companions haven't yet put on their spectacles. The little man's skin might therefore be tinted by the light cast from his surroundings. JODel wrote: <> A fine explanation, if we need one for Rinkitink's appearance in Neill's book. As for whether the fat king could have found a TALKING goat without help from his Ozian friends, that's another question. But a goat can surely be surly without talking. Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> After Carter's ears pop in HUNGRY TIGER (because of heat, not altitude), he goes deaf until he replaces them with new ones from a cornfield. Presumably he could have done the same surgery on other parts of his vegetable body. But since Carter perceives that having people eat his vegetables saves them from death, there might be nuances to vegetable mortality that we know not of. Robin Olderman wrote of the Centennial Convention: <> Speaking as a coastal resident who feared not finding ANY spiciness in central Indiana, I thought the food was just fine. [And, in fact, my sinuses were moved to drippy surrender by a hot green bean dish I had in the Encore Cafe the night before the conference.] But I'm afraid, Robin, that I never saw the OZIANA 2000 issues that you labored to have ready at the convention. The Oz Club's sales table had the 1999 issue out, and in the hour or more I staffed it I looked for the next issue, but couldn't find it. The Carsons were so busy trying to keep the goods safe that I didn't press them on opening new boxes. But the bottom line is, for most people OZIANA 2000 is still a treat in store. Louis Epstein wrote of SKYDROPPERS IN OZ: <