] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 1, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:56:22 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Bear: A little additional information on "Ching Li." Illustrator Lynd Ward is more famous than author Alice Woodbury Howard. The U of MN has only one other Howard book (a retelling of an Egyptian folktale), but has over a hundred entries on Ward, who lived 1905-1985. She was a major contributor of original art/ms material to the U's Kerlan Collection of Children's Literature, and the Kerlan holds drawings or galley-stage work of hers from such famous children's books as Elizabeth Coatsworth's "The Cat Who Went to Heaven," Esther Forbes' "Johnny Tremaine," and Julia L. Sauer's "Fog Magic." Bear and Dave: Discussion of sex and/or romance in Dave's "Ozzy Feeling" -- This isn't going to be relevant until Bear can either buy a copy of the story or decide on the basis of other readers' reactions that he doesn't want to. Discussion in terms of author's description of a story that neither Bear nor the others on the Digest have read can't very well be particularly illuminating. And discussion of potential readers' potential objections to presentation of sex and/or romance in story can't very well be particularly illuminating, either. (The readers are guessing at what their reactions to the whole story would be, and the author is guessing at the likelihood that the readers' objections to the whole story would change if they'd read it, which at present they can't. Well, I suppose people could if they felt curious enough to pay Dave for photocopies of the ms, but I suspect that most of its likely readers would rather wait for some kind of publication.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:28:01 -0600 From: Gordon Birrell Subject: Ozzy Digest Bear: >Lisa >This time I managed to connect Oz to Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_. > >The mind boggles! How did you do this? Since Lisa hasn't answered this yet, I'll take it up myself: the connection is that both works concern a quest for a reclusive bald-headed man who has achieved legendary status, is rumored to be extraordinarily wise and powerful, and turns out to be a fraud. In Kurtz's case, a murderous, unspeakably evil fraud. You can't imagine Kurtz saying to Marlow: "Oh no, my friend, I'm a very good man. I'm just a very bad ivory trader." Still, there are some interesting parallels between the two books, and Marlow at one point even likens his journey to a fairy tale: "The approach to this Kurtz grubbing for ivory in the wretched bush was beset by as many dangers as though he had been an enchanted princess sleeping in a fabulous castle." Since both works were published within a year of each other, it might be possible to see them as in some sense complementary. To Mike Denio's information about the remaindered WoO 50th Anniversary book, I'd like to add that this is a useful purchase even for those who love the Oz books but hate the movie. Among other things, it contains a three-page spread with color photographs of the covers of the entire FF in first edition, first state, along with a few other later Oz works (_Who's Who_, _Yankee in Oz_, etc.). I've been thinking about Button Bright's real name. Saladin Paracelcus de Lambertine Evagne von Smith. Saladin and Paracelsus are easy enough identifications, and "Smith" at the end of all those ringing, illustrious, aristocratic foreign names is a very funny touch. But Lambertine Evagne is not as clear an allusion. I believe it is a fanciful Frenchification of the name Johann Lambert (Welsh : Evan; Russian: Ivan; "French": Evagne; English: John; German: Johann). Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-77) was a distinguished German physicist, mathematician, and astronomer who discovered a method for measuring the intensity of light. Named for him is the lambert, a physical unit of--what else?--brightness. --Gordon Birrell ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:00:09 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 David Hulan, > When I was in ROTC back in the days of the "brown shoe" > army, the upper outer garment of the Class A enlisted man's > uniform was called a "blouse." (It was rather like a suit > coat, only with brass buttons and a belt.) I forget if this > usage extended to the coat of the green Class A uniform > (without a belt) that I wore when I was actually on active > duty and wore black shoes with it... > > (Anybody else in here serve in the Army before about 1959?) I enlisted in 1959. I guess you could say that I was in the "brown boot (not shoe) army as I was issued brown boots which I was immediately required to dye black. I don't recall the green class A uniform jacket being referred to as a blouse, but the upper garment (shirt) of the fatigue uniform was. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:03:52 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Reviews from Faerie, next door to Oz Fairy Tale - A True Story There is quite a good website available at the following URL: http://www.fairytalemovie.com/ It contains some background information for the spectacular Charles Sturridge film _Fairy Tale A True Story_. Children under the age of 8 are likely to squirm a bit until they see what they came for, but it is everything those with a taste for the magical could ask for in such a modest film. As the film boasts Peter O'Toole as Arthur Conan Doyle, and Harvey Keitel as Houdini, along with work by those who contributed to the film _Orlando_, you will be pleased by the extent to which the film exceeds its promise. Some time ago, there was discussion on the digest regarding Thesophy. The site for the film contains quite a good essay on the topic, and more than one Theosophist is represented in the film (quite humorously, if gently). If there has been any tampering with the historical accuracy of the events portrayed, the trick cannot be detected in the negative of this photograph of those who embraced and challenged the notion of spiritualism, and the appearance of fairies to two little girls in a Yorkshire garden in 1917. This was the cultural milieu in which Baum wrote. If these belief systems are foreign to you, this is as good an introduction to the notions more children believe than don't, whether they're consciously aware of it or not. The shadows that give depth to the story are those of World War One, and the portrayal of child mortality that is less common in modern times adds a bittersweet edge to this tale. Such tales are not as much about encountering magic, as they are about the sundering, the resounding distance between the world of magic and an emergent modern world; between credulity and skepticism, childhood and grown-ups, fraudulent mediums and magicians. Stardust While the book I am about to recommend is not for younger children, I expect you to go out right now and and buy your own copy of _Stardust, Being a Romance Within The Realms of Faerie_, a 4 issue trade paperback written by Neil Gaiman and illustrated by Charles Vess. It will be released in installments every 6 weeks, and then will be issued hardbound. I have never before seen an entire story of this quality, in which the tale is 50% author, and 50% illustrator, in full color, with some of Charles Vess' best work ever, which says quite a lot. It is not a comic book, it is instead a lavishly illustrated, well-written story. If you can't afford a copy, rob a collection plate and buy one, now. If you are under a Faerie curse and would crumble to dust upon setting foot inside a church, have a friend rob the collection plate for you. If there is to be carnal bliss and its consequences portrayed, in a Fairyland, this is where it belongs; such certainly does not belong in Oz. For questions about DVD, I commend you to: http://www.dvdresource.com/dvdfaq/dvdfaq.shtml I can't pretend to be Ken Cope Someone who pretends to be Ozcot Studios Someone else pinhead@ozcot.com Or so my pretend friend tells me --The Rutles ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:22:42 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-29-97 I suspect one would find less distress among Oz fans had a book suitable for children been written in which Ozma married Dorothy. The notion, never even needing extrapolation, that Ozma/Tip has a love for Dorothy that is transcendent, completely unrequitable and pure, is far more romantic and chivalric than any story could possibly be which ended with Ozma's line, "Yes, dear reader, I married him." Ozma or Glinda will attain the state of wedded bliss about the same time that Captain James T. Kirk bears Spock's love child. The only place in which those events will ever occur is in the realm between outright copyright violation, and uninspired maggotry in the corpus of a deceased author's public domain creations. It will never occur in my library or browser cache. Stick around, and I'll tell you what I really think. A fairy tale wedding for two of the 3 most sparkling gems in the Crown of the Land of Oz is a tale I would read only if it flowed from the pen of L. Frank Baum. It was certainly beneath the wit of Ruth Plumly Thompson, whose unceremonious dispatching of Mombi marks her nadir as a hack. As a premise, I think it ranks right down there with standard Saturday morning cartoon fare. (You've seen the cartoon at least once in every series. The principle characters go to the country to visit the farm, where they're abducted by aliens to fill out a cosmic menagerie, and have to win a game of baseball with the other aliens to regain their freedom. They had a little fun, and they learned a valuable lesson too. Such a plot is invariably the work of writers who are willfully thumbing their noses at the franchise they rely upon to provide a day job and office in which they covertly pen their masterpieces, some of which are published or filmed.) It isn't the tale so much as it's the telling. Why hobble yourself? Is it so you can say that people didn't like your book because of its premise, so that you won't have to worry about people not liking your book for its writing? You can, and should, write anything you find yourself moved to write. You obviously can't let the discouraging words of the only group of people conceivably even _remotely_ interested in reading your book dissuade you. Maybe next, you can do a sequel to Walt (too dead to have his name removed) Disney's _Hunchback of Notre Dame_ where Quasimodo kills Kevin Cline and marries Esmerelda. Just don't expect to gain any sympathy when you try to blame the audience for rejecting it. It isn't about how much you love your ideas, it's about how much your ideas are loved by others. Oh, never mind. Oz, to the extent that it exists as a franchise, is fairly open. Marrying off the principals closes it to the further exploration of others as finally as if you had killed them off. Baum tried to close the tale of Oz by having Moriarty toss it over the waterfall, with no more success than Arthur Conan Doyle had. Essentially, Miss Manners would say that you have violated the accepted mores of those who share worlds by failing to provide a plot reset button at the end of your tale. Neil Gaiman can kill off characters in the 70 plus comic books comprising the saga of _The Sandman_, even if they are by his definition immortal and endless, and he can do that because he's a great writer. JMS can close an arc in B5 because he is also a great author, and it happens to be his story. Star Trek is a franchise. Superman is a franchise. Superman has married Lois Lane, and Lana Lang, and Lorelei Lee, and every poor girl cursed with double L initials and will do so for as long as Superman comics are sold...But then the RED KRYPTONITE ALWAYS WEARS OFF! _The Books of Magic_ is a comic book series commenced by Neil Gaiman and continued by author John Ney Rieber into something like issue #42. It concerns the adolescence and awakening of young Tim's foretold potential to become the greatest Magician the world has ever known. If he ever grew up, or experienced much other than the most chaste of blushing fumbling with a succubus-with-a-heart-of-gold, or resolved such tension with Molly, (who has been cursed most cruelly by Titania, queen of Faerie...) it would be a story that would irrevocably change the nature of the characters and shut off potential avenues of exploration for the inevitable future writers who will want to make unique contributions that define and refine the characters. That Rieber has such consideration for future authors, and for the franchise which he has positively extended rather than adulterated, certainly marks him as a gentleman, someone who can share a tale with others, with class. I collected "Oz" books not written by Baum originally for Neill's illustrations, and can almost stand to read Thompson's work. I can appreciate some of it more because of her reflection of the flavor of the time during which she wrote for Oz, the twenties and thirties, than for what she contributed to the series' expansion and continuation. Mostly what she contributed was the exploitation of Oz as a franchise, opening it up in future to fan fiction, a form of participation in a spectacular fantasy world. For me, _Glinda of Oz_ was the last book in the series. The way we each choose to explore Oz, and keep it alive for ourselves, is a highly personal thing. Just because I say I love Oz, it does not follow that I am going to automatically appreciate everything you have imagined about it while imagining you were under its spell. Others' mileage may vary. Doylies must be fun to some, but Baumies to me have so far, been mostly Bombs. The exception that gets my indulgence, generally, has been translation to new media, or new visual interpretation. I liked _Wicked_ better than anything since _Glinda of Oz_, but then, that wasn't an Oz book, was it, any more than a book containing the story of Ozma's wedding would be. Ozma belongs to Dorothy and to all who love her, and to nobody exclusively; Oz is immortal and endless. Anybody who tells a tale in which Oz ceases to be, or in which characters act in ways untrue to their nature, is not a compelling liar. I always look forward to a good seductive lie, but there is nothing more seductive about the lies of certain marriages in, or deaths of Oz, than the tale of Kirk and Spock's lovechild. If, by some remote chance, I spy any of the above mentioned tales for sale on the remaindered shelf in the Unbordered, Ignoble Barne of Books, I will lament the loss of perfectly good trees, and will not trade portraits of dead presidents for any of them. The extent to which such items move in the marketplace is a measure of the decline of civilization, a mark descending rapidly at the rate at which perfectly good children's books are crowded off the shelves by the crap published by the 800 ton Mouse. I celebrate blasphemy and sacrilege as much as does the next time-traveler stuck in a world bound by ninth century mores while happily exploring the spectrum of being fully human. When it comes to Oz, I accept no substitutes. For some silly reason, I prefer my Oz unadulterated. That, in addition to the discriminating tastes of even the most fanatical Oz fans, is the hurdle presented to any writer who would consider telling such a story. Then again, the notion is little more creatively bankrupt than the Oz Kids cartoon series... I can't pretend to be Ken Cope Someone who pretends to be Ozcot Studios Someone else pinhead@ozcot.com Or so my pretend friend tells me --The Rutles ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:53:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Re Disney: I am speaking of the Baptist Church's views on, yes, the _moral_ quality of modern Disney films. Beats me. May all things Great and Ozzy be yours, Jeremy Steadman http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:53:22 -0500 (EST) From: BluOrchid2 Subject: What a Day! I just had the most incredible experience.....and I have to tell you all about it. Over my lunch hour today I went to a Hobby Lobby store to buy some supplies for the Dorothy stockings that I make. I presented a rain check for a lower price on the ruby jewel stones, which turned out to be expired, at which point the cashier called the store manager. He and I began talking about how many of these stones I was buying at a time (100's), and how many more I needed. We discussed various ways of getting me what I needed at the best possible price. After about 15 minutes of chitchat, he said, "Well, just out of curiosity, what is it that you are using these for?" I explained that I make Christmas stockings that look like Dorothy's foot wearing the ruby slipper, and that these stones cover the part of the stocking where the ruby slipper is. He responded, "My great-grandfather wrote 'The Wizard of Oz.' " I'm sure I looked like a complete idiot for about 2 minutes while my chin was on the floor and I couldn't speak, let alone think straight! He said, "You know, I really believe in the 6th sense...I mean here we are, chatting about these stones for 15 minutes, and it turns out you are using them to make Dorothy stockings." CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT - I mean, the complete irony and coincidence of it all!!! When I could finally speak coherently again, I said, "Well, what is your name?" And he said, "Greg......Baum." I'm just still dumbfounded. I took it as a sign that I was destined to make these stockings. :-) http://members.aol.com/SantaSox Lora ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 21:03:05 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Melody >Even Baum married off characters. Pon & Gloria. Quelala & Gayelette (no mention made of her losing any of her magical powers simply because she married.) Ah, and how about Uncle Henry & Aunt Em? And other married couples we meet in the Oz books? As long as the author doesn't barge into the characters' bedrooms, Oz books featuring marriage will still be G-rated. I agree with you completely. My objection was not based on an expectation of bedroom scenes. However, none of these are entities of the "level" of Glinda, much less Ozma. My sense of this continues to be that Baum would be appalled at the idea. However, I'm willing to read Dave's book, if it ever becomes available, and revise my opinion accordingly. :) I was looking for an analogy and thought of Gandalf. Unfortunately, he had that problem with the Balrog, IIRC. If he hadn't, to me it would be like someone writing a story where they marry Gandalf off to some sorceress. This line of thought caused me to observe that, to my knowledge, no one has written a book based on LOTR. Anyone know of any? Unlike Baum, and Conan Doyle, maybe he hasn't been dead long enough. Will there be a Middle Earth Digest one of these years? Remember AOL-sufferers, I have used Compuserve for over five years with nary a glitch. It remains $9.95 per month for basic service. I would be happy to have them send any of you the start-up disk. Compuservatively, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:54:33 -0800 From: Robert Schroeder Subject: Ozzy Digest *That Ozzy Feeling* I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you and Melody, Dave. This book sounds wonderful. I'm a sucker for a love story (this from a person that just polished off *Taltos* by Anne Rice, *My American Journey, the Colin Powell Story* and *My Side* by Ruth Gordon in the last week. My hand Borders was out of Ozzy Books...new shipment next week! *Rosie on Halloween* BTW....Happy Halloween!! Did anyone catch the *Rosie O'Donnell Show* today (tis a benefit of being gainfully unemployed, being able to watch talk shows all day). Rosie's theme was the Wizard of Oz (1939 Movie) with Rosie, the band and crew dressing as characters from the movie. Rosie made a really good Dorothy, John McD (the band leader and pianist) was Scarecrow, Lion played the sax, Tinman on the guitar, Glinda on the drums, and the crew dressed as Flying Monkeys and Munchkins. The *highlight* (besides the special appearance of the Village People) was a duet between Rosie and Bette Midler, with Bette being the Wicked Witch of the West (in pink no less). They sang a medley of *If I only Had A ...* which Pheobe Snow sang on the 1995 Wizard of Oz in Concert special..... Well...back to the gobins at my door..... ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:58:27 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Well, I'm Home Alone again this weekend. Last week they found new cancers in my mother-in-law's lungs and abdomen, so my wife is out there with her trying to help her decide what to do. The alternatives are neither one very good. Bob Spark: Bear should probably have said that tattoos are a military or '90s thing, rather than a WW II or '90s thing, although they've also been popular with bikers all along. (Remember the old song from around '55, "Black Denim Trousers," that had the line, "On the muscle of his arm was a red tattoo,/ A picture of a heart saying 'Mother, I love you.'") J.L.: The Sawhorse has a purely utilitarian role in many Oz books - _Tin Woodman_, for instance, or _Glinda_ - but I consider his roles in at least _DotWiz_, _Lost Princess_, and _Wonder City_ to be as significant as Button-Bright's in any book but _Scarecrow_, and in _Land_ and _Scalawagons_ to be as significant as Button-Bright's in _Scarecrow_. YMMV. > Omby Amby's an interesting addition, though his role in action is >usually minor (OZMA being an exception). Usually, but not always (and Button-Bright's is usually minor, too). He's mostly just along to make up the numbers in _Emerald City_, and just acts as a police force in _Patchwork Girl_, but he's the one who advises Dorothy to go to Glinda in _Wizard_, is a major character in _Ozoplaning_ (though under an assumed name), and is the motivating force behind the major subplot of _Lucky Bucky_. > Two signficant recurring characters neither of us mentioned: Toto and >Polychrome. The latter is actually the person I think rivals Button-Bright >in playing major roles in plots without becoming the protagonist or title >character of her own canonical book. Agreed that Polychrome is another one who probably surpasses Button-Bright in playing major roles without having a book of her own or being the central character of one. Her role in _Road_ is certainly equivalent to Button-Bright's; her role in _Tik-Tok_ is comparable to his in _Scarecrow_; and her role in _Tin Woodman_ is well beyond any other role Button-Bright has. And she turns up in several more books as a minor character, usually to help get someone across the Deadly Desert. (_Purple Prince_ and _Lucky Bucky_ come to mind, and I think there were others.) > More on Button-Bright: On his inteligence, let's remember the >Scarecrow's hilarious response to meeting him in ROAD. And his choice of >how to test the magic umbrella--asking it to fly him to Chicago--doesn't >show much thinking ahead. Well, he's still pretty young - probably no more than 8 years old. Strong forethought isn't very typical of that age. (And he first tested the magic umbrella by asking it to take him to Buffalo; Chicago was later.) Bill in Ozlo: Thanks for the information on voting for the Oz newsgroup. I'll try to do it today. Dave: >MORE AOL HEADACHES: >As you can see in todays messages, some people are having problems again >with AOL...If anyone can offer a solution... They could get themselves a different ISP, as I did. AOL's problems seem to be primarily with E-mail, and I understand you can get free E-mail through juno.com; if you're having problems with AOL then adding juno.com just for E-mail might be worthwhile. I don't think there's anything you, Dave Hardenbrook, can do about it. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 15:08:50 -0500 (EST) From: Saroz Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-23-97 Scott: << This would not work for any of them in my novel, except if one were to illustrate one of Tip's dreams. >> I don't even want to know what kind of dreams he has.... :-/ Sarah ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:35:24 -0500 (EST) From: JOdel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Sky Island is one book that I had never encountered before. I quite enjoyed it, but find that in retrospect I have little to say regarding it. I do see that Button-Bright comes across as having at least normal intelligence in this book, pointing up the theory that he must indeed have been very young in Road. Also that we _might_ assume that more actual time has passed between the events of Road and those of Sky Island than can be explained by their copyright dates. (Did Baum's forward to Road offer a teaser to the events to be revealed in the upcomming City? He sometimes did that, and if so we could possibly interpret this as an indication that the events of ALL the books may have taken place considerably earlier than their publication would imply.) As to his wardrobe, I think it is only his notable "pure dumb luck" that saved him from tripping off into some magical adventure or other in a velvet Fauntleroy suit, since I'm convinced that he would undoubtedly have had one... As to Ozian marriage customs, I'm sorry, the whole thing sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. So far as any of the the FF ever shows us, Ozian "love" is little more than a friendly preference with mildly romantic, sometimes faintly sticky overtones, and "marriage" might just as well be a legal process for ensuring that one gets a companionable roomate, and an excuse to throw a big party. (You always get the impression that Pompadore and Peg's baby girl was special-delivered to them by the stork.) If I was determined to work myself up into a flury of indignation, it would be over the poor form displayed in insisting on discussing books which are not published yet. I would be very glad to read That Ozzy Feeling. I would probably enjoy the story. I do not antcipate that it would treat the subject of Ozma and Glinda's marrriages in any other than an appropriate context, in keeping with Baum and Thompson's precedents. I do think that the idea makes it inconvenient for anyone else who ever plans to try to write an Oz story, in that they will be put, willy-nilly, into the position of having to either set it into a period before the marriage, (approximately a 90-100 year period A.D.-- after Dorothy, that is) which, as time passes, will start feeling decidedly crowded since it already contains virtually all of the known Oz stories that already exist as well as any new ones, or it will put the author into the position of having to use someone elses' coppyright characters. Which means that anyone who wants to write a story and make it compatible with post FF writing will have to ask you permission to use the characters of Dan and/or Zim for anything beyond an acknowlegement in passing. At the very least, this is inconvenient. At a tolerable worst it is inconsiderate. (At an intollerable worst, it is a power ploy. But I do not really believe that eiter Dave or Melody is making a power ploy.) What it cannot help but being is an introduction into the chronology of a point of schism. If ToF is published, future works will have to be either compatible or incompatible (deliberately or otherwise) with the events therin. While an author will not be asked to decide whether he or she must take sides on the issue in all of their future works, they will necessarily need to make this decision for each piece of work they plan to write. This is hardly a development which the majority of fans and prospective fan-writers can reasonably be expected to welcome, and the probability that the actual story introducing it will be very well handled and very well written, indeed, if anything, only makes it worse, since it will be all that much harder to discount or ignore. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 21:22:30 -0500 (EST) From: Ozmama@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 Jared and JoDel: Try downloading the DIGEST in a flash session (under your Mail menu...tell it to activate flash session). Then, once it's done that, either go to the Mail menu and select Read incoming Flash mail, double click on the DIGEST, and read it. If that doesn't work, and if you have a pc, pull down your File menu and select Open. Look for C\AOL30d\Download directory in the dialog box of files. Right click on the file you want to view and select Quick View Plus from the menu that appears. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 22:12:59 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: OZ AND BEYOND and Beyond Sender: "J. L. Bell" Yesterday I received Michael O. Riley's OZ AND BEYOND from the University Press of Kansas. Today it rained. So, now that I've read the book, I'm interested in what other readers think of it. Riley spends much of his book summarizing Baum's Oz and borderlands stories, noting differences among them in how magic works, what's special about Oz, and so on. I sense that this group periodically discusses the same inconsistences. To the bare list Riley adds his argument that those changes mirrored Baum's changing wishes for his fairyland. I enjoyed seeing that development over time; I knew most of the inconsistencies, but I hadn't explored the *patterns* they reveal. The book's organization also helped me piece together how Baum worked in his most fantastically productive years (1900-1906). For instance, I knew that he originally wrote RINKITINK as a stand-alone book, but I didn't realize that manuscript was his first about Nomes. Nor did I connect its insertion into the Oz series in 1916 to Baum's ill health and the struggles of his film company. I also enjoyed finding out (or rediscovering) that the famous maps of Oz and surrounding countries printed in 1914 included regions on which Baum hadn't yet published. He may have had these names in notes, but I like the thought of him plucking them off his map when he needed a setting. Those maps are crucial to Riley's main thesis, which concerns the gradual defining of Oz and its continent as "space." Riley's focus on "space" fits growing schools in literary criticism and social history. And, as he points out, consistency is especially important for a fairyland to maintain verisimilitude (the "three-dimensionality" that Warren Hollister said should be librarians' "Fifth Criterion"). This space can be fairly concrete for Riley. He suggests that Oz originally represented some undiscovered area or form of America itself, and that only when Baum went west to California did Oz move farther away, to the Nonestic Ocean. Riley's emphasis leads him to some interesting readings. He suggests that PATCHWORK GIRL is a recasting of WIZARD because (in part) both start in the Munchkin Country, move to the Emerald City, then out to the Winkie and Quadling Countries. In considering (and rejecting) this idea, I realized my own readings focus more on character and plot than space. (In those respects the two books are quite different. Ojo needs to grow psychologically, but Dorothy doesn't. And his search for a list of items is more like OZMA's ornament-hunt than the WIZARD's quest for home.) At times, Riley puts too much weight on landscape descriptions. He writes that in MERRY-GO-ROUND Robin's first impression of where he landed as like "pictures of England" shows that the McGraws depicted Oz as a "European landscape." But isn't Robin seeing the fox-hunting grounds of View Halloo, not Oz as a whole? The McGraws' Easter Bunny and circlet-guarding machine actually echo two of the elements that Riley says make Baum's books so American. (I in fact agree that MERRY-GO-ROUND, with its knights and nannies, is as much English as American; I just think Riley chose the wrong evidence.) Riley ties the growth of Oz to Baum's own experiences and the 19th-century American landscape he saw vanish. He leaves it to others to discuss the effects of social and historical environments: Chicago's turn-of-the-century utopianism, the World War, suffrage, racial attitudes. And we could, I think, learn more about Baum's Oz from changes in characters and quests than from whether the mud in the road is really purple. Nevertheless, this was a provocative and enjoyable rainy-day read. Methodologically, I envy Riley's freedom to discuss Baum's life and motivations. Studying at the American capital of deconstructionism in the 1980s, I was marked down for even hinting that Lewis Carroll had a plumbable *intention* [horrors!] in writing THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK. Finally, OZ AND BEYOND is a nicely designed volume. Its pages reproduce many illustrations from Baum's books, both as decoration and within Riley's argument. (The two maps of Oz from TIK-TOK are unfortunately switched. And some of the full-page drawings appear on a light gray screen, which reduces their legibility.) One of those full-page illustrations leads me to a question for the group. ROAD TO OZ, page 193. Top of the frame. There seems to be a statue of Jack Pumpkinhead on a ledge of Ozma's palace. But who's shown next to him? Could that be Roquat? J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 01 Nov 97 19:52:02 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things REGARDING _THAT OZZY FEELING_ AND QUESTIONS OF CONTINUITY: JOdel wrote: >I do think that the idea makes it >inconvenient for anyone else who ever plans to try to write an Oz story, in >that they will be put, willy-nilly, into the position of having to either set >it into a period before the marriage, (approximately a 90-100 year period >A.D.-- after Dorothy, that is) which, as time passes, will start feeling >decidedly crowded since it already contains virtually all of the known Oz >stories that already exist as well as any new ones, or it will put the author >into the position of having to use someone elses' coppyright characters... I guess what I can't understand is why two non-Canonical Oz books contradicting each other would be so horrible and tragic, since they are all equally "apocrypha" (I'm learning not to regard that as a dirty word) anyway. I have to say that this is the main reason that I am not as enthusiastic about the HACC as I used to be -- Because, with respect and high regard to Tyler and Chris, I feel that it sets up an atmosphere that says "If you write a book that cannot be reconciled with other books, some of which are yet to be written, then your book has no right to exist." I certainly don't think Tyler and Chris ever intended this, but it is the unfortunate side-effect of the HACC that I perceive. As a result you can argue, "You can't write a book in which a major Oz character gets married or otherwise undergoes a growth in character because it shackles other writers." In imposing these restrictions, I feel that *I* am the one who is being shackled! -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 2, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 06:59:27 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 All, It seems to me that recent digests have taken a turn for the better. More erudite. Keep up the good work, everyone. > The Sawhorse has a purely utilitarian role in many Oz books > - _Tin Woodman_, for instance, or _Glinda_ - but I consider > his roles in at least _DotWiz_, _Lost Princess_, and _Wonder > City_ to be as significant as Button-Bright's in any book > but _Scarecrow_, and in _Land_ and _Scalawagons_ to be as > significant as Button-Bright's in _Scarecrow_. YMMV. It's curious, but I was just ruminating about both the Sawhorse and Button-Bright. In many ways they have always seemed to me to exist for the same purpose, that of impartial observer, observing and commenting on the irrationality of the situation and it's participants. Some deflation of pretentiousness is always welcome, and I enjoy it. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:41:25 -0500 (EST) From: Saroz@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Robert: Yes, I caught Rosie by accident on Halloween...and I now have that episode on tape (except for most of the opening Rosie/audience member interaction). The Tin Man was the sax player, actually, and the Lion played the guitar. Also, the Wicked Witch of the West was also a band member...Bette Midler played the Witch of the _East_ ("But you only see her socks!" "I rest my case."). I wonder why there wasn't a Wizard.... Sarah Hadley ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 13:50:57 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Ken: I agree with you that the last true Oz book was Baum's final one. I know I will never meet up to such a standard--and the fact that I obviously try is just for the enjoyment it gives me (to try) and the hopes that someday I may come close. Yes, if one wants to read a true Oz book, I don't recommend my attempt. But if you want to read a "fun" attempt at one, mine would be acceptable (I think), and perhaps some other author's would be more so. Just a thought. Dave: Hope your M-i-L's okay. I know how I'd feel in your place . . . --Jeremy Steadman, hopefully http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 P.S. I'm constantly improving the web page above--I've added graphics now, for exanple, cartoonish though many of them be. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:14:36 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" JOdel: >(At an intollerable worst, it is a power ploy. But I do not really believe that eiter Dave or Melody is making a power ploy.)< Your concerns are understandable. And you're right--we're not. The solution is to give an established Oz character a reclusive mate who never interferes with them, so they can carry on pretty much as they did before. A jealous spotlight-hogging control freak, on the other hand, would definitely cause the problems you mention. Ozma & Glinda are already well-tied-down by their kingdoms. A mate surely would not tie them down much further than Baum, Thompson, etc have 'em already. When I brought back Tippetarius as a real boy in his own right in SBM1, it was with the intent that other Oz writers could now have him as a character in their books if they wanted, without having to pay me anything. (No power ploy there!) They don't even have to pay or ask for permission to mention Mombi's Tip-Ozma use of her Switcheroo Spell in their books. That is, unless I drop dead and a greedy relative demands permission & payment for their use. Those who want to believe that the events of "Ozzy Feeling" "really" happened (if "Ozzy Feeling" is ever published) have my permission to mention Zim if they want (Dave can decide what to do with Dan) but they don't have to. Zim: Did Columbo's wife ever appear in his television series? Dave & JOdel: The stipulation that series characters never change or grow is in itself a shackle on writers. That's what I liked about Star Trek-The Next Generation--the characters, though only O'Brian married, did change and grow. Picard learned to like, or at least tolerate, children, Data learned how to be more human, Riker became more mature, Barclay became less shy and nervous, etc. :-) Bear: Maybe Gandalf never found the right sorceress... ;-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:50:38 -0500 From: Richard Randolph Subject: Ozzy Digest 11-1-97 Lora (BluOrchid2): If the manager of the Hobby Lobby store was a TRUE relative of LFB, he would have insisted you buy SILVER jeweled stones, not ruby ones! ;-) Dick ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 02:33:39 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 To: "Dave L. Hardenbrook" Gordon: >I've been thinking about Button Bright's real name. Saladin Paracelcus de >Lambertine Evagne von Smith. Saladin and Paracelsus are easy enough >identifications, and "Smith" at the end of all those ringing, illustrious, >aristocratic foreign names is a very funny touch. But Lambertine Evagne >is not as clear an allusion. I believe it is a fanciful Frenchification of >the name Johann Lambert (Welsh : Evan; Russian: Ivan; "French": Evagne; >English: John; German: Johann). Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-77) was a >distinguished German physicist, mathematician, and astronomer who >discovered a method for measuring the intensity of light. Named for him is >the lambert, a physical unit of--what else?--brightness. Interesting speculation, and given Baum's interest in things scientific it might even be true. Of course, as I've pointed out before, "von Smith" is an unlikely combination, since "von" is normally followed by a place-name and "Smith" is an occupational name. (Most surnames fall into one of four categories: occupational, like Smith; patronymic, like Johnson; descriptive, like Brown; or place, like Washington (town) or Fields (generic place).) My guess is that since Button-Bright admits that he has more names that he can't remember, there's another name or three between the "von" and the "Smith", e.g. "von Hindenburg ibn-Saud Smith." Bob Spark: > I enlisted in 1959. I guess you could say that I was in the "brown >boot (not shoe) army as I was issued brown boots which I was immediately >required to dye black. I don't recall the green class A uniform jacket >being referred to as a blouse, but the upper garment (shirt) of the >fatigue uniform was. I wasn't quite sure when the changeover happened; I wore an OD uniform and brown shoes through my ROTC days, but graduated in 1958. I did a year of grad school and then spent another several months waiting around to be called up; by the time I went on active duty in early 1960 we had the green uniforms and black shoes. Ken C.: I'll have to look for that Fairy Tale movie - is it something I should look for at video rental places, or is it currently playing at theaters? (I think I'd have noticed if it were the latter, but maybe not; I've been to two movies in theaters in the last two years, which gives you an idea of how closely I observe such things.) I'll check for _Stardust_ as well. I loved the Gaiman-Pratchett collaboration _Good Omens_, though from what I've read of the two working separately I think it resembled Pratchett more than Gaiman. OK, so you don't accept anything anyone but Baum has written about Oz. Your privilege. I think you went on about it at somewhat more length than was necessary, but I'm hardly one to criticize anyone else for going on at great length about anything. :-) Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy Oz stories by other people (including ourselves) will continue to disagree with you and read them anyhow. Jeremy: >Re Disney: >I am speaking of the Baptist Church's views on, yes, the _moral_ >quality of modern Disney films. Beats me. Is the Baptist Church critical of modern Disney _animated_ films, or is their objection to the numerous live-action films that aren't G-rated that have come out from the Disney studio? (And to various TV programs on ABC, which is now part of Disney?) I ask for information; the stories I've seen have mostly indicated that it was the latter - and Disney Corp.'s homosexual-friendly policies - that they objected to, but it's not something I've followed closely. Lora: What a cool thing to meet an actual descendant of LFB himself (and not at an Oz convention)! (I hope that he really was a descendant and not just someone with the same last name who was doing a bit of self-aggrandizement.) Bear: I think no one has written a book based on LOTR because Tolkien did such a thorough job of defining his world and limiting any possible writing about it by others. I think I even used this as an example a month or so ago; one of the good things about Baum's rather sketchy (and sometimes apparently contradictory) description of Oz is that it leaves so much room for later writers to fill in the blanks. In this respect Oz is much more like Sherlock Holmes than like LOTR. >Remember AOL-sufferers, I have used Compuserve for over five years with >nary a glitch. It remains $9.95 per month for basic service. I would be >happy to have them send any of you the start-up disk. I remember a glitch on Compuserve not more than 2-3 months ago that had a number of people frustrated thereby. It's not nearly as erratic as AOL, but "nary a glitch" is remembering through rose-colored glasses. Joyce: It's not necessary to assume that much more time passed between the events of _Road_ and those of _Sky Island_ than between the publication of the two books. Button-Bright seems to be about four in _Road_ and about eight in _Sky Island_, and there were three years between their publication. But as I've said before, I don't think _Road_ actually took place later than about 1904, 1905 at the latest, which would mean that in fact _Sky Island_ would take place well before its publication date. >As to his wardrobe, I think it is only his notable "pure dumb luck" that saved >him from tripping off into some magical adventure or other in a velvet >Fauntleroy suit, since I'm convinced that he would undoubtedly have had one... Well, he was going out on a rainy day, and his nanny knew he was going out; if he'd been in velvet she'd probably have made him change. I don't think her employers would have been kind to her if he'd ruined a velvet suit. >As to Ozian marriage customs, I'm sorry, the whole thing sounds like a tempest >in a teapot to me. So far as any of the the FF ever shows us, Ozian "love" is >little more than a friendly preference with mildly romantic, sometimes faintly >sticky overtones, and "marriage" might just as well be a legal process for >ensuring that one gets a companionable roomate, and an excuse to throw a big >party. (You always get the impression that Pompadore and Peg's baby girl was >special-delivered to them by the stork.) It's a picture and not text, but have you checked the color plate of Files and Ozga going down the Hollow Tube in _Tik-Tok_? I think there's been a complete consensus among those of the rest of us who write Ozian books and stories that whatever Dave and Melody do with Ozma and Glinda will be ignored, however good the story might be. The HACC is a Tyler Jones/Chris Dulabone creation, and they can decide whether "That Ozzy Feeling" or other books will become part of it - but that's their decision, and it need mean nothing to anyone else. (Most of the stories I want to write will take place before "TOF" anyhow, as I understand their idea, but if I want to write one set in a later time I'll do it, and ignore their book.) J.L.: I commented on _Oz and Beyond_ a few weeks ago, but generally agree with your take on it. Riley liked some books better than I did and some less (I think he greatly underrates _Lost Princess_, which remains my favorite Baum Oz book), but I thought he had the right basic idea. The figure next to Jack Pumpkinhead in the illustration on p. 193 of _Road_ certainly looks like a Nome, but it's too small for me to be able to make it out for sure. Anybody with an early edition before the plates started wearing have an opinion? David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 97 18:03:26 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things BAUM BUGLE: I got the Autumn '97 Bugle yesterday. Looks good! But is that _Oz: The American Fairyland_ video really *$49.95*???? AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! "JUST ONE MORE THING": :) Zim the Flying Sorcerer wrote: >Did Columbo's wife ever appear in his television series? Good point, Zim! :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 3, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:41:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Dan and Zim Will NOT Be Ignored! (Ozzy Digest) Just a quick note: In contrast to David, I do not intend to ignore the Hardenbrookian modifications to Oz in Lurline's Machine. However, I have no plans when I get back to editing _Woozy_ to have Oz in the same condition as that in which Dave leaves it... scoodler 1: Yes! Then there IS a chance that we will be able to turn Dan into gumbo! scoodler 2: Don't be silly! He'd make a much better goulash. Aaron. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@ymail.yu.edu North Antozian Systems and The Martian Empire ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 00:52:26 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Ozian Standard Time: Aside from an apparent lack of a need for Daylight Savings Time, most of the evidence indicates that the east-west dimensions of Oz are not sufficient to warrant more than one time zone. Ken Cope: Hmmm, interesting idea about Dorothy and Ozma. Have you, by chance, been sneaking a peek at some of March Laumer's writings? Given your writings yesterday, I would tend to doubt it, since if I accept your words as genuine (and I do), then you would view Laumer as the anti-Baum or, dare I say it, the JOE CAMEL of Oz. Joyce: Currently, _Road_ has been assigned the year 1904 in the HACC, five years before its publication and _Scarecrow_ has been assigned 1909. It is to be remembered that books 2-9 of the FF had to be squeezed to allow for non-aging of the children who made return trips to Oz. _Sky Island_ has not been given a year yet. It is likely that it took place shortly before _Scarecrow_, perhaps in 1908. That would give Button-Bright four years of aging, which should be enough. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them. Dave: I must admit that this is an unfortuante effect of the HACC. In listing books that are textually consistent with the FF, those books themselves become part of the timeline and, with dozens of authors over a period of nearly one hundred years, some are bound to contradict one another and this has already happened a few times. I suppose the HACC can be viewed as the most common thread of Ozzy history (or perhaps as the path-of-least-resistance). The truth is that I myself am beginning to question the validity of the HACC as the "official" or "main" thread. Maybe all Oz books that are textually consistent with the FF should go into the list with no concerns about how post-FF books affect each other and are accurate to one another. Some will and some won't. Authors have, are now and will continue to write Oz books based on they want to and they will choose to be accurate with FF and non-FF books as they choose. The idea of hundreds (eventually) of Oz books, all written to be consistent with each other may be an ideal state, but it is simply not attainable. Let me say that, IMHO, some of the best-ever Ozzy writing comes from books that are not in the HACC and I look forward to reading _That Ozzy Feeling_. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 02:57:16 -0500 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: OZZY Digest Hello, I just returned from the EAPSU Conference and I must say my illustrations presentation went well, and I answered a lot of questions afterwards. The only trouble is that I opened the doors to a thousand more ideas that I want to look into. Oh well, that's what I am here for I suppose. Now, I can catch up on my Digests and, with EAPSU off of my shoulders I can relax about the rest of the work. I can't believe this semster is already half over!!?? October 25-27: Gordon & Ruth: The ideas you both discuss about patching and mismatched halves reminds me of two things. One, Manichean Philosophy, and two, Shel Silverstein's _The Missing Piece_. Bear: About Heart and Oz . . . Sorry I didn't get back to you, but as I said, I was at the conference. Ruth pretty much summed it up, for the most part. I won't drag on. October 29: Bear: I agree with all of your comments, but I do have to say my parents never rented me a room, I played with Barbies until I was in eightht grade, and my father actually had to sit me down and explain why the boys didn't want me to play tackle football anymore! I always asked my students where they were goig when they informed me of their "going with someone." I don't think I have an objection to romance in Oz, because romance, at least to me, still retains the magical connotation. When I think of romance I think of something along the lines of chivalry and quixotic adventures. From what Dave has explained about the book, I think this is what Dave & Co. are referring to. I don't think any of the children's fairy tales that have the prince and the princess living happily ever after are sexual. Gender stereotypic maybe but not sexual. In fact, that's what my illustrations work is exploring - the gender roles created by children's illustrations. No matter how much I love Oz and it's magic, I found amaxing parallels between the illustrations and representaions of women in other sources of the times. I think there is plenty of romance in Oz already, look at _Speedy_. Besides there is romance in adventure. Furthermore, call me pessemistic, but romance doesn't seem to happen much any more, so maybe I associate it more with fairy tales, and for that reason can't relate the sexual examples of todays society to the concept of romance of fairy tales. I don't think Dave and Co. are talking about writing another adult version of Oz; I took it as an exploration of the romantic qualities of Oz. Nathan: Of course I did! I was just overwhelmed with names and illustrations. Sorry. I'm surprised it took people so long to notice. Well, I'm off. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep up with the Digests at lot easier. :-l Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:00:07 -0800 From: Wm D Ryan Subject: OZ -- What else is there? Hi Thought you might be interested in a little trivia. You n=might already know it. The name OZ came when Baum was writing his fairy tale, he got the name OZ from the encyclopedia. His encyclopedia set included many books ond one of those books had the title OZ for contents "O to Z". I hope you find this interesring, I did 20 years ago when it was told to me by my Grandfather. And as we all know, Grandfathers do not lie. Check my site out at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/5251/ Also, I do wish to subscribe to your OZ digest. Thanks Wizard of DOS ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:32:22 -0600 From: Richard_Tuerk@tamu-commerce.edu (Richard Tuerk) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-02-97 On 11-02-97 David Hulen wrote: >I think no one has written a book based on LOTR because Tolkien did such a >thorough job of defining his world and limiting any possible writing about >it by others. I think I even used this as an example a month or so ago; one >of the good things about Baum's rather sketchy (and sometimes apparently >contradictory) description of Oz is that it leaves so much room for later >writers to fill in the blanks. In this respect Oz is much more like >Sherlock Holmes than like LOTR. Michael O. Riley's new book from University of Kansas Press, _Oz and Beyond: The Fantasy World of L. Frank Baum_, does an awfully good job of tracing Baum's changing conception of the Land of Oz. According to Riley, it evolves from being a relatively small place in the early Oz books to being a much larger place in the later Oz books. Riley theorizes that Baum made it large with vast unexplored areas after he cut it off from the rest of the world yet as a result of pressure from readers, his publisher, and his pocketbook, decided to continue writing Oz books. He felt that any more Oz books would have to be set almost entirely if not entirely in Oz, so he gave it the vast unexplored areas in which he could set new adventures of the sort we find in _The Tin Woodman of Oz_, _The Lost Princess of Oz_, _The Magic of Oz_, and _Glinda of Oz_, adventures that involve at least in part exploring previously unexplored areas of Oz. As far as I can tell, Riley presents sound evidence to support this theory. Later writers about Oz, like Ruth Plumly Thompson, Riley argues, basically accepted Baum's later idea about Oz, although some, of course, reconceived Oz altogether. I'm right now reading _Wicked_. That book pretty clearly uses the later idea of Oz's being tremendously vast but reconceives large protions of the geography and history. Rich Tuerk ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 16:28:53 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-02-97 There's all this funny white stuff coming down out of the sky and covering the trees and ground...never saw the like in Santa Ana! :-) Bob Spark: > It's curious, but I was just ruminating about both the Sawhorse and >Button-Bright. In many ways they have always seemed to me to exist for >the same purpose, that of impartial observer, observing and commenting >on the irrationality of the situation and it's participants. Some >deflation of pretentiousness is always welcome, and I enjoy it. That's seemed to me more the province of the Sawhorse than of Button-Bright; do you have specific examples of the latter in mind? (He frequently says that people shouldn't get upset because things always work out OK in the long run, but that's not exactly the same thing.) Dave: >I got the Autumn '97 Bugle yesterday. Looks good! But is that _Oz: The >American Fairyland_ video really *$49.95*???? AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! Ayup. But you have to expect that for a very professionally-produced video that's going to have a quite limited market, I'm afraid. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 10:30:59 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Bear: There's no professional "Lord of the Rings" world fiction because the books are under copyright. There's been some fanfiction about it (I don't know of any book-length, but various short stories). But most of the speculations about Tolkien's world have been published as appendix- style articles. I think this is partly because the example of the appendices provides a good model for doing it that way, and partly because Tolkien's work isn't exactly formed into a series the way the Holmes, Oz, "Star Trek," etc., stories are -- there are some individual stories that link up into a history, but don't have the same characters, and only the two stories of "The Hobbit" and "TLotR" where the characters overlap much. And "TLotR" ends with the disappearance of most of the major characters into a transcendental world. In terms of the world of the stories, it would be possible to imagine a romance for Gandalf -- the Elf Earendil marries the Vala Melian, as detailed in "The Silmarillion." And Gandalf is himself a Vala. Such a romance would probably have to take place in the ages before "The Hobbit," as there's scarcely time for it while he's investigating the One Ring, or in the interval after his resurrection and before the voyage off beyond the horizon at the end. But the example of Earendil and Melian is presented as something extremely rare, with no other examples in the history of Middle Earth, so in addition to the problems of making such a romance artistically convincing, it would be difficult to make plausible "historically." The artistic problems, of course, are major ones, including such matters as making it plausible that the character would fall in love with anyone at all, and making a love- interest-character interesting enough to be plausible in the role and attractive enough to win over the readers who would rather keep the unattached major character unchanged from the original author's depiction. Ken Cope and Joyce Odell: Interesting point that marrying off a series character limits the options for future story writers. This doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Fan-stories don't all have to follow the same plot-track. I don't think it's bothered readers that Moriarty is revealed in "The 7% Percent Solution" to be a harmless math teacher, and his criminal genius Holmes' delusion, where in John W. Gardner's Moriarty books, he's revealed to be a gangster with no real mathematical ability. On the other hand, I suspect these came out from two different publishers. Individual (professional) publishers may well want to offer their readers a coherent (sort of) storyline on such matters. Among fan publishers of stories about tv characters, however, it's quite common to find several incompatible versions of love-lives for the favorite characters, each version accepted as that individual fan's view of it and enjoyed by the readers. But professional may not want to ask their readers to be so accommodating about keeping track of multiple futures. David Hulan: The other books where Polychrome puts in a brief appearance are "Grampa" and "Wonder Book." She gets mentions in "Kabumpo" and "Ozmapolitan," and an endpaper apperance in "Royal Book." The "Fairy Tale" movie Ken Cope talked about is currently in the movie theaters. I haven't so far gone to see it and suspect that I don't want to, because I don't think I could get around the inaccuracy of presenting the children's fairies as "real" fairies and their photographs of them as genuine (if I understand the reviews correctly, that is how they're presented). In fact, the photographs were exposed as faked -- although Doyle himself, I believe, never accepted the proof of the photos' fraudulence. (And if they're going to call the character Arthur Conan Doyle, they could probably have found an equally fine actor who looks a little bit like him.) On Oz romance as more than mild and companionable -- besides the "Tik-Tok" picture you mention, there is the text's portrayal of Pon's depths-of-despair in "Scarecrow" at the prospect of losing Gloria, surely too extreme for a mild or merely companionable relationship. (Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?) J.L. Bell: Interesting comments on Michael Riley's book. I haven't finished reading it yet, so can't compare reactions yet. Dave Hardenbrook: Yup, the videotape really is that expensive. It is probably a good videotape, but I decided it was too much of a budgetbuster for me to get. ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 97 15:39:08 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Zim: Hmmm...Interesting that the Scoodlers do not propose turning *me* into soup... Glinda: Of course not, my dear...Scoodlers would never *dare* try to make soup out of the creation of an established and respected Oz author... Woozy: Of course, Aaron could go over to the _Red Dwarf_ universe and get The Inquisitor to erase Zim and Dan from history altogether... Dan: ARRRRGHHHHH!!! Zim: Fear not, Daniel! My magical herbs are far more potent than Mr. Inquisitor's Time Gauntlet...Or most anything else... :) :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 4, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 15:39:47 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-29-97 Tyler: I believe Baum stated more than once that it was the Wizard who built the Emerald City where there had previously been only a rustic castle and various sundry surroundings. David: Why don't you come to Indiana? Except in the Chicago and Louisville Metro areas, and in Posey at the bottom corner, there is not time change. :-) Bear: I'm 21, and I think a lot of the things you say are disturbing, especially parents getting after-prom hotel rooms for their kids, which if I have heard about, it never registered. I do see it as a problem. In _Tip of Oz_ there is a semi-implict sexual relationship of this nature, but the reader cannot know, because I don't know and wouldn't ask because it is not my place as a royal historian. There are actually several couples, but this is all ambiguous, of course. A child certainly wouldn't recognize any of this, or so I would think. Dave: Remember Salman Rushdie is also an Oz fan who appeared in _The Whimiscal World of Oz_ because he wrote a book-lenght analysis of the MGM film for that series where a critic analyzes a single film. One of the Focus On books or something. I might write on on _Evil Dead II_ if I could get paid for it. That reminds me. The IMDb credits Robert A. Baum as being in that documentary. Is this actually Robert A. Baum Jr (they will remain listed as two different people, otherwise). Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 16:31:52 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Sarah: Tip's dream is actually a bit like the climactic scene of _The City of Lost Children_ combined with that of the ending of _Zardoz_, in a much more G-rated manner. He dreams a mysterious young woman with a zoetrope has made them all age to skeletons, set to the allegretto from Beethoven's 7th symphony. Is that so bad? I don't think Tip would dream what you are thinking. I didn't at his age. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 16:49:34 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 J.L.: According to Justin Schiller, Bil Osco's porno never made it past the trailer stage which he saw. He also saw the R-rated cut of _Alice in Wonderland_ directed by Bud Townsend. Osco also produced _Flesh Gordon_. I'm ashamed that I found a tape in my garage this morning that my Dad had obviously put on the shelf, that was filled with German pornographic shorts. I kept watching because I recognized the music. At first I thought it was cribbed from Goblin's score to _La Via della Droga_, but after hearing a bit more, I realized it was _Evolution_ by Giorgio Moroder, a piece I may not think about the same way again. There was some weird stuff in that video, featuring women discovering idiotic new uses for common househould items. I felt quite dirty after seeing this crap. erhaps it was a good thing that this seemed multiple generations from PAL, as the picture was not nearly as clear as it could have been. I don't know why he wastes what little money he makes on this crap. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:00:17 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-31-97 I think if Oz is in our world than part of it would have to cross the International Date Linw, which would have to be reconfigured if this existence of Oz was made public. :-) Dave: Th unusual nature of _That Ozzy Feeling_ compared with other recent works from major publishers that it has been compared with (Maguire, Frarmer, Ryman) suggests it would have an easier time finding a publisher on that angle than would _Tip of Oz_, which I don't think is in any way heretical (I am not a naysayer to your book so long as it stays outside the "real" continuity) but is, rather, a serious and personal work that stays true to the Oz of Baum. Most non-canonical Oz books have had more of a Thompson flavor to them, while this goes back to early Baum. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 20:32:14 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: TODAY'S OZ GROWLS Sender: Richard Bauman Another nuclear detonation by Ken! I am humbled before the Master. David - Yeh, "Something, something and tatooed." Most of us older folks remember that associated with the military, but I didn't think I would bring it up. I meant that tatooes had some cache and attention in the world during WWII and now in the 90's. In between they were just sort of around, IIRC. Robin - Thanks for another wonderful example of why I have a MAC and use Compuserve. Continued sympathies.... :) I'm beginning to be concerned for Dave and Melodies feelings here. Relax, we still have freedom of speech in the U.S. (Well, except at many universities.) Your marriage idea makes me think of the mushy green beans my Mother served me. I told her, "OK, I'll eat the things, but don't expect me to like them." Sarah - Of course, the Wizard is behind the scenes. He is the producer who put together this show (Rosie), which I have heard, has blown all the other "Children of Donahue" away. By the way, a curse on all of them! :( David - You don't know about "Fairy Tale" because you avoid TV. It has been advertised considerably lately. Also, my Sunday magazine section had a very favorable review. David - If you don't see something it doesn't matter what color your glasses are! :) See comment to Robin above. :) Clearly, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:25:07 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Gandalf and his women: It is to be remembered that Gandalf was not really human. He was an Ainur, similar to an Angel. Therefore, he may not have had the same feelings as the rest of us. Ozma is a fairy, but she was also born human. --Tyler ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 08:04:07 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-10-96 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bear: Additional thought: Tom Bombadil of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" is spoken of as even more of a magical being than Gandalf. (Tom is one of the few beings who cannot be affected by Sauron's rings--not even the One.) In marrying Goldberry, the River Daughter, he presumably married a magical being like himself. On Sky Island: If, as Rosalie says, Button-Bright's umbrella is powered by live fairies, they must be pretty dumb. It is shown (and this is what propels our heroes into their predicament) that once the Umbrella is given an order, it carries it out to the letter, ignoring any more orders until it has completed its mission. Seems that Button-Bright's umbrella is probably powered by the magical equivalent of an automatic pilot instead of intelligent beings. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 09:06:26 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest A drawback to worktime email access is that I can't check references at home until a bit later, and memory can mislead. So I have to correct two points from yesterday's posting. One is that Melian didn't marry Earendil -- she married King Thingol, and it was one of their descendants (Elwing) who married Earendil. When I looked for references on the Cottingsley fairies, I couldn't find much, and realized I was repeating second-hand info. So I phoned up Peter Blau (which means it's still second-hand, but much better second-hand), and learned from him that the authoritative debunking was much later than I thought, long after Doyle's death. In 1982-83 a series of articles in "British Journal of Photography," on "that Astonishing Affair of the Cottingsley Fairies," written after careful examination of the negatives, showed that they photos were faked. About the same time, the girls (by then old women) were interviewed by a newspaper and admitted that the photos were faked (except the double exposure -- what they meant by excepting that, I don't know). One of the two still said that the fairies were real, although the photos were faked, and the other declined to say if she thought the fairies were real. Peter thought the movie delightful (in spite of its various inaccuracies), so I probably will try to go see it. There was also, a little earlier, an article debunking the photos (but without access to the negatives) by Martin Gardner, in the 1976 anthology "Beyond Baker Street," and reprinted in his "Science Good Bad and Bogus." Lisa Bompiani: Er -- that was Gordon Birrell who explained the resemblances to "Heart of Darkness." J.L. Bell and David Hulan: That little figure in the "Road" illo could be Roquat, but it looks to me as if the pointy bit at the top is a hat rather than a hairdo. Maybe "Guardian of the Gates" (although Neill didn't otherwise draw the Guardian as knock-kneed)? Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 10:34:33 -0500 (EST) From: BluOrchid2@aol.com Subject: For Ozzy Digest I am a fan of the movie, but have not yet read any of the books - I know, that's probably blasphemy around here, but I do want to change my sinful ways! LOL Would someone please submit a chronological list of the Baum books, so that I may read them in proper order? Thanks so much. Lora ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:05:24 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Aaron: >Just a quick note: In contrast to David, I do not intend to ignore the >Hardenbrookian modifications to Oz in Lurline's Machine. However, I have >no plans when I get back to editing _Woozy_ to have Oz in the same >condition as that in which Dave leaves it... Fine, do so if you like. Since I have no notion when I might be able to read _That Ozzy Feeling_, or even _Locasta_, I'm not going to let it affect my writing. (The fact that I have, optimistically, maybe 25 years of writing life left vs. your likely 60+, might have something to do with this as well.) Tyler: >Ozian Standard Time: >Aside from an apparent lack of a need for Daylight Savings Time, most of >the evidence indicates that the east-west dimensions of Oz are not >sufficient to warrant more than one time zone. It seems unlikely that Oz would need more than one time zone - in fact, it seems unlikely that all of Baumgea, if you accept the Haff-Martin map, would need more than one time zone. Time zones average a bit over 1000 statute miles E-W at the equator, and 500 miles even at the latitude of Seattle. But Daylight Savings Time and time zones have little to do with each other. The lack of snow in Oz, even though it's in the middle of a sizable land mass, probably means that it's at a fairly low latitude where the change in length of day through the year is small, if it's on an Earth-type planet at all (which is questionable). Another alternative could be that Oz is on a planet with no axial tilt (there don't seem to be any seasons to speak of), which again would mean there's no point in DST. I think your estimates of 1904 for _Road_, 1908 for _Sky Island_, and 1909 for _Scarecrow_ sound about right. I'd actually prefer to move them all about a year earlier yet, but I can live with those dates, and if you're trying to cram in all the non-FF, but FF-consistent, books that take place between _Ozma_ and _Emerald City_ then it's probably necessary to allow that much time. My feeling, often expressed, is that any book that's consistent with the FF is Historically Accurate enough for me. To hold otherwise would hamstring other authors too much, and there's no Official Publisher any more to define whose books are Official and whose are not. And as you say, consistency with the FF is not at all a measure of how well-written or enjoyable a book is. It's something like height and weight - on average, taller people will weigh more than shorter people, and on average I enjoy FF-consistent books more than those that aren't, but the heaviest person around is probably not the tallest one, and vice versa. Ruth: >Bear: There's no professional "Lord of the Rings" world fiction because >the books are under copyright. Is that true? I thought LotR itself was PD in the US (though not elsewhere) because of a loophole in the old copyright law. Did it get re-protected somehow? If the "Fairy Tale" movie actually presents the fairies in those photos as real, then it's certainly inaccurate. It's pretty obvious they're faked just from looking at copies of the photos, and IIRC somebody even dug up the book they'd been cut out of. (Not the physical book, but another copy with identical fairies in identical poses.) Still, it could be an amusing movie if I ever have time to go to a movie while it's still playing. (More accurately, if Marcia ever has time to go to a movie while it's still playing. I have plenty of time, but the theaters around here aren't open in the daytime, and when Marcia's home I don't want to go off and leave her.) Hard to think that that picture in _Tik-Tok_ was an accident; Neill had to be aware of where he'd put Files's hand. But a joke, yes. I'm surprised nobody at R&L caught it and made him change it. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:06:57 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Ruth: > On Oz romance as more than mild and companionable -- besides the "Tik-Tok" picture you mention, there is the text's portrayal of Pon's depths-of-despair in "Scarecrow" at the prospect of losing Gloria, surely too extreme for a mild or merely companionable relationship. (Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?)< Thanks for pointing that one out, too. Congratulations on your Bugle article. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:05:44 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Bompi: > I think there is plenty of romance in Oz already, look at _Speedy_. Besides there is romance in adventure. Furthermore, call me pessemistic, but romance doesn't seem to happen much any more, so maybe I associate it more with fairy tales, and for that reason can't relate the sexual examples of todays society to the concept of romance of fairy tales. I don't think Dave and Co. are talking about writing another adult version of Oz; I took it as an exploration of the romantic qualities of Oz.< And thanks to you, too, Bompi! (Hey, Dave! How about all these nice folks willing to give "That Ozzy Feeling a chance!) :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:03:45 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Tyler: >Let me say that, IMHO, some of the best-ever Ozzy writing comes from books that are not in the HACC and I look forward to reading _That Ozzy Feeling_.< Thank *you,* Tyler! :-) (And JOdel, and David Hulan, and.....) :-) :-) Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:06:05 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Ruth: >And "TLotR" ends with the disappearance of most of the major characters into a transcendental world. < Which fits the description of Tir na n'Og of Celtic legend. Thanks for pointing out that example of a Valar marrying an elf in Silmarillion--especially since I've never read that one myself. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:07:56 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Robert Schroeder: >I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you and Melody, Dave. This book sounds wonderful.< Thanks for your vote of confidence. I hope it lives up to your expectations. Melody Grandy ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:07:35 -0500 From: "Melody G. Keller" Subject: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 Sender: "Melody G. Keller" Dave: >Zim: Hmmm...Interesting that the Scoodlers do not propose turning *me* into soup...< Scoodler 1: Not a chance, Mr. Super-Skinny! A soup made of *you* would be all bones! Scoodler 2: Yeccch! Melody Grandy :-) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 97 11:30:05 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things TIME ZONES: If we assume the IWOC maps are to scale and we extrapolate my values in the Ozzy FAQ for Oz's size, then Baumgea is about 250 miles across, well within the limits for a single time zone. Even using David's values should work out. As for Dayling Savings Time, the Ozites probably just don't see any point -- Heaven knows I sure don't... _THAT OZZY FEELING_: I just want to second Melody's appreciation toward those who have expressed support, or at least open-minded neutrality, to _That Ozzy Feeling_, even though I have already contacted many of you privately... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 5, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 17:18:29 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-97 > David: Why don't you come to Indiana? Except in the Chicago and > Louisville Metro areas, and in Posey at the bottom corner, there is not > time change. :-) > This is also true of Arizona, which part of the year has the same time as California and part of the time has the same time as New Mexico. (Of course Tyler knows all about this.) > > David - You don't know about "Fairy Tale" because you avoid TV. It has > been advertised considerably lately. Also, my Sunday magazine section had > a very favorable review. > I wonder if the favorable reviews "Fairy Tale" has received, and most of the ones I have seen are mixed at best, come from reviewers who do not know that the famous photographs have long been proven to be fakes. The film apparently tries to have it both ways. > > Clearly, Bear (:<) > > > > I think there is plenty of romance in Oz already, look at > _Speedy_. Besides there is romance in adventure. > _THAT OZZY FEELING_: > I just want to second Melody's appreciation toward those who have expressed > support, or at least open-minded neutrality, to _That Ozzy Feeling_, > even though I have already contacted many of you privately... > > -- Dave To put my two cents into the romance question: True, there is romance in TIK-TOK IN OZ and SCARECROW OF OZ, both of which were adapted from pre-existant theatrical or cinematic works, and true, there is romance in several of Thompson's books e.g. KABUMPO, GRANDPA, and SILVER PRINCESS. But in all those cases the romance is between characters who were created for the specific books and had not previously appeared (except for Randy in SP). The romance that some people object to is with an established major character from previous books by another author. Some readers would consider this encroaching upon someone else's territory. If R. L. Stevenson wants David Balfour to grow up and have a romantic encounter, that is his privilege, it is his character. If J. M. Barrie wants Wendy to grow up and have children of her own, that is his priviledge. But does anyone else have the right to marry off Peter Pan? BTW: As one person who *has* read THAT OZZY FEELING, I would like to say that I enjoyed it very much, and that it really constitutes SEVEN BLUE MOUNTAINS Book III, and I hope I will be available for general reading--but let's get SBM II out first. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 17:30:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-02-97, 11-03-97, 11-04-97 Catching up here! The 2nd-- Re the Baptist Church and Disney films: I am not the person to ask as to the BC's rationale (I personally am happily atheist). I get that info from a Baptist friend of my sister's; I do not know what type of Disney film she refers to. The 3rd-- Lisa B: Re "going"--I shared your confusion about the meaning of this obscure phrase that meant nothing and refers to even less. (I still don't see the point, even if I've come to get the gist now.) The 4th-- Re Freedom of Speech at Universities: Bear, you claim that FoS is suppressed at many universities. At Berry (which is not a university, but a mere college), I have observed and heard about certain religious and political viewpoints being suppressed here, so I think you have a valid point. However, I think the atmosphere of suppression is far less than in other places. Daylight Savings Time: It makes sense to me. Having lived in various places in the Eastern and Central time zones (and having visited the Mountain zone) I can only dread what it'd be like if one zone were chosen for the entire country. One size does NOT fit all! By the way: My web page is still defitely UNDER CONSTRUCTION and therefore will change at least weekly (often daily). --Jeremy Steadman http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:17:41 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11/3/97 and 11/4/97 David Hulan, > > It's curious, but I was just ruminating about both the > Sawhorse and >Button-Bright. In many ways they have always > seemed to me to exist for >the same purpose, that of > impartial observer, observing and commenting >on the > irrationality of the situation and it's participants. Some > >deflation of pretentiousness is always welcome, and I enjoy > it. > > That's seemed to me more the province of the Sawhorse than > of Button-Bright; do you have specific examples of the > latter in mind? (He frequently says that people shouldn't > get upset because things always work out OK in the long run, > but that's not exactly the same thing.) Sorry, you are absolutely correct. That aphorism of Button-Bright's was what I had in my so-called mind at the time. > I am a fan of the movie, but have not yet read any of the > books - I know, that's probably blasphemy around here, but I > do want to change my sinful ways! LOL Would someone please > submit a chronological list of the Baum books, so that I may > read them in proper order? Thanks so much. > > Lora > Lora, Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder, at least around here. There's room for all points of view (although that doesn't preclude the occasional argument). Here are a few websites with a great deal of information on Baumology: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9075/ http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/index.html http://www.NeoSoft.com/~iwoc/ I'm sure that you will have other replies. My list is certainly not a complete one, but it does contain sites with a plethora of valuable information. Welcome aboard! Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:13:56 -0800 From: stlove Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-97 BluOrchid2@aol.com wrote: >Would someone please submit a chronological list of the Baum >books, so that I may read them in proper order? I posted such a list just days ago. Please visit: -- Scott P.S. Dave, I apologize if I've presumed wrongly by sending you my reply. Please let me know if there's some other vehicle by which I should address the Ozzy Digest. ____________________________________ Scott Love scott@tiktok.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:03:26 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Scott: The WIzard himself said that he built the Emerald City, or at least bossed the job. In _The Lost King of Oz_, Pajuka confirms that there much of the city was new and that in his day there was only a small castle. Given the population of the Emerald City (50,000), it seems reasonable to assume that th green area supported a high population, if not urbanized, probably scattered in farms and little villages. It seems unlikely, even in Oz, that the Wizard built the whole city and then went around and drummed up 50,000 people to come and live there. David: Yes, the plethora of non-FF books at that time require a little bit wider spacing in the Baum 14. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:13:39 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman David - It's 75 F right now, 5 pm, in Palo Alto. And not a cloud..... :) Bob > _Oz: The American Fairyland_ video really *$49.95*???? Just wait until it is remaindered. :) Ruth >The artistic problems, of course, are major ones, including such matters as making it plausible that the character would fall in love with anyone at all, and making a love- interest-character interesting enough to be plausible in the role and attractive enough to win over the readers who would rather keep the unattached major character unchanged from the original author's depiction. Dave, are you listening? :) :) Ruth - >Pon's depths-of-despair in "Scarecrow" at the prospect of losing Gloria, surely too extreme for a mild or merely companionable relationship. (Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?) Do you mean the color plate on p. 129 where Pon is giving her a chaste little peck on the cheek? Surely not? Lora - See Dave's FAQ. Welcome to the "Real Oz World." David >Hard to think that that picture in _Tik-Tok_ was an accident; Neill had to be aware of where he'd put Files's hand. But a joke, yes. I'm surprised nobody at R&L caught it and made him change it. To what picture are you referring? Hmmmm. Maybe Ruth and David have some special editions that I haven't seen? Egad, maybe plates have been stolen from my editions. What an awful thought. I'll have to check the BOW's. Worriedly, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:13:52 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: A Skeptical Enquirer in Oz Fairy Tale opened in theatres a week ago last Friday, in San Francisco anyway. They are apparently relying on rave reviews to promote the film rather than spending Disno-bucks on advertisement. When released on DVD, I'll buy it, and place it on the shelf next to the book by Terry Jones, _Lady Cottington's Pressed Fairy Book_. There is not much point in making a film in which Houdini, gone all James Randi, shows Doyle what a twit he was for being duped by little girls who are soon to leave their childhoods behind at 12 to work 16 hour days in a mill. The filmmakers acknowledge in a cunning manner the probable method by which the photos were faked, but forced me in a diabolically clever sequence to admit that it would be beside the point of such a thoughtful film to dwell on it overmuch. I thought Doyle was quite a bit more massive than O'Toole's reediness, but his is a compelling presence anyhow. If Peter O'Toole doesn't look enough like Doyle, Harvey Keitel's Houdini will more than make it up to you. He was forced to forego an earlier opportunity to portray Houdini, and in this film eagerly sketches quite the portrait. The period details are intoxicatingly vivid. I found myself both wanting to have lived in that time, and grateful that I hadn't. No fairies were harmed in the making of this film, so far as I could tell, and they came right out in the credits and acknowledged that trick photography was employed! It is the conceit of the film to tell the tale as what might have been, had it been true, now that 80 years of compositing technology can be compared to the state of the art in the era of the Oz Film Manufacturing Company. Did you ever get the feeling That the Truth is less revealing Ken Cope Than a downright lie? Ozcot Studios And did you think your head was hip pinhead@ozcot.com To certain things it's not equipped To qualify? --The Rutles, Shangri-la ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 22:36:27 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: feeling on OZZY FEELING Sender: "J. L. Bell" I was considering THAT OZZY FEELING (of which I'm as ignorant as almost everyone else here) and the Centennial Book Contest's criterion that the story fit with "Baum's concept of Oz." I concluded that Dave and Melody are at least *courageous* in having it measured by that yardstick. Yes, couples fall in love in Baum's books--as I said before, those couples usually show up in stories that he adapted from the stage or screen (i.e., with adult audience-members in mind). And married couples are plentiful, from Em and Henry to Nimmee Ammee and Chopfyt; indeed, they tend to come off as more realistic than poor Pon and cardboard Gloria ("Oh no! Princess Gloria's heart has been frozen!" "How can they tell?"). But Ozma and Glinda are two of Baum's powerful, wise, ageless virgins, along with Maetta, Aquareine, Zixi, Reera, the Adepts, and so on. Isn't one of the foundations of his magic land, I thought, that such women are beyond the grasp of men and beyond any weak desire for men? And then I remembered Gayelette. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:04:44 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Sorcery's Apprentices in Oz In my previous blast of bombast from the flaming papier-mache head... I wasn't brief, but I thought I had said more than "I don't like non-Baum Oz." You're all certainly free to enjoy writing it, as long as you don't mind my explaining why I really couldn't stand another, wafer thin bite. You can keep the bucket... You're welcome to disagree with this at greater length or less, whichever you prefer. I prefer argument to contradiction. I sought to contrast the saga of _The Royal Wannabes in Oz_ with creations that are more centrally organized for multiple contributors. Oz precipitates and anticipates all of them. It could be said that the Oz series makes a huge contribution to the form of the fantasy universe with multiple recurrent characters, to which much present serial entertainment seldom acknowldedges debt. What Baum began, his publishers made their best effort to perpetuate, with incredibly mixed results. With dueling central clearing bodies these days, you're on your own, and it's up to you as to whether or not you want to branch off into alternity or stay consistent with the contributions of others. If you stay TOO consistent with the famous forty, you should expect a lawsuit. If you differ TOO drastically, you stray into "Wicked" territory at one extreme, where you will at least be creating something original. At the other extreme, you are proposing drastic revisioning of what (arguable) continuity can be said to exist. Between those extremes bubbles a tepid, vapid brew. Welcome to post modern civilization, where ambrosia must compete for shelf space with artificially sweetened soda pop. There isn't enough caveat emptor to go around. I suppose I most heartily agree with Dave when he describes the shackling effect of the HACC. I consider everything purporting to be "an Oz book," that wasn't written by Baum to be apocryphal, having nothing to do with the Oz that I recognize. Others raised on Thompson to whom later, Baum was an alien flavor have their own problems in this regard. So why bother remaining so consistent as to not contradict anybody? Too many lack wit, condescend, or promote a worldview that seems to me to conflict with Baum's, or otherwise show how little they understand about Oz, or magic. Should such work crowd Baum's off the shelf? I don't automatically dislike non-Baum Oz, I just find my tolerance for it to have worn exceptionally thin. I'm the last to criticize the notion of a series, but come now, after a few of Baum's best, there are other books and authors in the library suitable for permanently warping a child's mind. I have pointed to one author who steals from the dead far more liberally, Neil Gaiman. The characters from mythology, fable, the Bible, Shakespeare and Baum, and his publisher's comic books, are flavors in a brew all his own, one that presumes familiarity with its ingredients, and/or incites sufficient curiosity in the reader to inspire him to identify each flavor by sampling it in the original. I remember reading, on my paperback of Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien's plea to the reader to read his, and no unauthorized edition of his work, if you have any respect for a living author. Perhaps Tolkien was wise to close Middle Earth away from this world, and wise to raise such an editor in Christopher. C. S. Lewis drew his tale to a close. Baum left his world open, and contemperaneous, and its continual exploitation has taken many forms, not uniformly bad. One more keenly appreciates Baum after wading through enough imitations. Perhaps he was successful in closing Oz to the outside world at the end of The Emerald City of Oz, to the extent that its true nature appears to remain invisible to all who would reflect it in their clouded glass. That is the kind of respect a great author can command from beyond the grave. So we have Thompson's continuity, and MGM's, and Disney's, and yours, and Oz Squad's and Wicked's and Was's and mine. James Thurber considered the Oz books finished after two had been published, and disregards the rest. There is no compelling reason to be true to anything but one's own personal vision. The more outrageous the better. Please, have at least some vision; strive to understand the characters and scenaria you choose to plunder when you chose not to create your own. Have some idea outrageous enough to transcend the borrowed props you move about while illuminating your theme. All the information at my disposal about Laumer has been gleaned from this Digest, and my description of Ozma/Tip has nothing to do with him. Illustrations such as the one on the back cover of Road to Oz, or Dorothy and Ozma's perpetual kiss inside the covers of The Emerald City of Oz don't translate well from a more innocent time to this one. I purposely referred to chivalry. One never married one's true object of love. That which is forever denied, is that much more desirable. Ozma/Tip's heart belongs to Dorothy, a future princess rescued by the fairy princess from Langwidere's tower, at the commencement of their first adventure together. And Dorothy, "as soon as she heard the sweet voice of the girlish Ruler of Oz knew that she would soon learn to love her dearly." I cannot see any evidence in Baum that Ozma/Tip is older than at most, 12 to Dorothy's 8 or 9, if there is even that much of an age difference with Dorothy perhaps having had a birthday or two, nor do I see any reason for two young girls who enjoy having boys' adventures together (I mention it to refer to Baum's iconoclasm) to grow up when they can be forever young. As I was trying to explain to an aging member of Alcor who expects to have his severed frozen head revived on an L5 colony someday, people are not as eager for immortality as they are for perpetual youth. I am certainly not attempting to describe the nature of Ozma and Dorothy's fast friendship as sexual. (Adults usually impose that interpretation on innocence, and usually to no good end.) Nor am I declaring Ozma's gender ambiguity to be of central importance. It's certainly problematic, along with her physical youth, when a marriage proposal is at issue. Ozma and Dorothy are fortunate to have Glinda, and a chastened fraud of a Wizard, for positive adult surrogates to protect them from such nonsense. Is the counsel of elders heeded except in violation of the terrible prohibition? In many magical traditions, the transmutation of sexual energy into power is a common theme. Baum's Ozma is an immortal magical being who transcends gender. The hermaphrodite is a powerful symbol of mastery and attainment, the marriage of the Sun and Moon, preceded by death. Archetypally, a marriage ceremony is a funeral for the death of maidenhood. To what Hades will Persephone be bound? These are powerful magics. Their mastery separates the sage from the student. If you are willing to be sufficiently outrageous with your ouvre, my attention is yours. I don't want to visit Oz to find out that the perfect child ruler of fairyland grew up and got married, and it will take mastery of a magic most rare to convince me that it happened. I see nothing so wrong with the status quo in Oz that would require such a drastic remedy, while purporting to be a children's book that was true to the spirit of Baum. Or, to be brief-- If it ain't broke, why fix it. That's enough Jiminy Cricket from the evil propagandist for now. As I recall, the cricket got no medal for his efforts, just hammered. Where did I hide those volatiles... Please prove me wrong, and assure me by your work that my fears are groundless. Ken Cope Ozcot Studios pinhead@ozcot.com -- "Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort. If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:34:30 -0500 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: Ozzy Digest Hello, I hope everyone voted today . . . Melody: No problem, I think _TOF_ sounds intriguing. Ruth: Sorry, I guess that's what I get for responding so late at night/early in the morning. :-) I was just happy to see someone knew where I was heading; some folks around here thought I had finally carried the Oz thing too far, but I (once again) showed them that I was not alone! Anyway, thanks Gordon! I have to admit, this fairy tale movie has me thrown for a loop, too. I guess if it's not advertised during football, TLC, History Channel, or the like I just don't see it. I'll have to check it out. Until later . . . Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 04:20:28 -0500 (EST) From: Saroz@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-03-97 On Jack and the Nome: I just got in my Road first ed (which my bookseller wanted to repair before I took it home), and checked page 193 for the Nome/Jack conspiracy. ;-) That does indeed look like a Nome, but another possibility is that the figure is no more than a grouchy Munchkin/Winkie/Ozian with a tall peaked hat and a bushy set of whiskers. Which is entirely likely. Sarah ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:12:30 -0500 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-01-97 Ken Cope wrote: >Ozma or Glinda will attain the state of wedded bliss about the >same time that Captain James T. Kirk bears Spock's love child. You are probably aware, but many digesters may not be, that there _is_ a considerable body of fanfic (mostly by women) involving a gay relationship between Kirk and Spock. It is frequently referred to as "K/S fiction", which has led to the generalization "Slash fiction". >Superman has married Lois Lane, and Lana Lang, and Lorelei >Lee, and every poor girl cursed with double L initials and >will do so for as long as Superman comics are sold...But >then the RED KRYPTONITE ALWAYS WEARS OFF! Actually, Clark Kent and Lois Lane are married in the comics, and it is quite clear that this one is real, and for the long haul. (The new blue-and-white look and "energy" powers, on the other hand, I give another six months at the most.) Richard Bauman wrote: >I was looking for an analogy and thought of Gandalf. Unfortunately, he had >that problem with the Balrog, IIRC. Yes, but the Powers decided that he still had a job to finish, and sent him back as Gandalf the White. >If he hadn't, to me it would be like >someone writing a story where they marry Gandalf off to some sorceress. That would be difficult, as he departs Middle Earth at the end of the book, on the same ship as Frodo. >This line of thought caused me to observe that, to my knowledge, no one has >written a book based on LOTR. Anyone know of any? Unlike Baum, and Conan >Doyle, maybe he hasn't been dead long enough. Will there be a Middle Earth >Digest one of these years? I'm not sure about the 1st edition of "The Lord of the Rings", which slipped into public domain in the USA thanks to the arcane and barbaric US copyright laws of the period; perhaps its status was normalized. (It was the outcry over this that led, after over a century of disgrace, to the US joining the civilized world in these matters.) But the rest of Tolkien's oeuvre, at any rate, will be protected for decades to come. That does not mean that no Tolkien fanfic exists. I myself am guilty of "A Hobbit in Oz" (Munchkin research-table winner, '95, but inelligible for Oziana for the above reason). But, apart from the occasional jeu d'esprit such as mine, there is little of it, probably because the Tolkien corpus is so intimidating and so thorough. // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:11:59 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest David Hulan: "Lord of the Rings" lost the U.S. copyright protection on its original text, but most publishers, I think, want to keep the option of having a world market, and are reluctant to take on projects that could not legally be sold elsewhere. The professionally-published Sherlock Holmes pastiches didn't start appearing in quantity until the British copyright ran out, although the copyright on all but the last couple of Holmes collections had run out in the U.S. some years earlier. (In fact, the last collection, "The Casebook of SH," is still under U.S. copyright protection for a few years yet.) Melody Grandy: Your suggestion of some kind of autopilot operation for Button Bright's umbrella sounds plausible. But perhaps a largely automatic operation is consistent with Rosalie's claim that it is fairy- powered -- there might be some kind of safeguarding that would cut in to ring an alarm to call for attention when the umbrella operator is being thrown off from a height that wouldn't cut in for second-guessing on a destination. (Perhaps there is a way to change destinations in mid- airstream if only Button Bright knew it, although maybe it would be more likely to be itself some kind of automated control procedure rather than needing direct attention from fairy guardians.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:44:25 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Electronic auction house offering Wizard of Oz game... Just in case no one said anything yet, I wanted to mention that the electronic auction house, eBay has a WOZ board game for sale. See http://iguana.ebay2.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1708493 for more info and pic. (personal to Alan: they have a LOT of board games, starting bids for some VERY cheap. might be worth checking out for your collection) --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky, still reading VERY old e-mail... ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 97 12:29:32 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things WHAT ARE MY "RIGHTS"??: Steve Teller wrote: >If J. M. Barrie wants Wendy to grow up and have children of her own, that is >his priviledge. But does anyone else have the right to marry off Peter Pan? Well, in that case I would argue: Did Ruth Plumly Thompson have a "right" to drastically alter (essentially expunge altogether in fact) L. Frank Baum's character known as the Good Witch of the North in _The Giant Horse of Oz_? Bear (responding to Ruth) wrote: Ruth >>The artistic problems, >>of course, are major ones, including such matters as making it plausible >>that the character would fall in love with anyone at all, and making a >>love- >>interest-character interesting enough to be plausible in the role and >>attractive enough to win over the readers who would rather keep the >>unattached major character unchanged from the original author's depiction. >Dave, are you listening? :) :) I think -- and I hope those who have read _That Ozzy Feeling_ would agree -- that Melody and I have given Ozma and Glinda mates that are totally worthy of them. Dan worships Ozma, and Zim is at least equally devoted to Glinda... In regard to the original author's depiction if Ozma et. al., I still argue that there is *nothing* in the original author's (i.e. Baum's) depiction of either Ozma or Glinda that precludes either of them from falling in love. In fact, I'll put a challenge to anyone on the Digest to find the passage in Baum which states unambiguously either "Ozma cannot fall in love", "Glinda cannot fall in love", or especially the global "No magic-worker can fall in love" (As J.L. Bell points out, what about Gayelette??)... Just because Baum didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't think it could ever happen...That's _Argumentum ad Ignorantiam_, a fallacy that could be used to "prove" anything is "blasphemous" on the grounds that Baum didn't definitely say that it wasn't. Therefore I could argue that _Silver Princess in Oz_ is heretical becuase it features someone from "Anuther" planet and there can't be extraterrestrials in Oz because Baum didn't say there ever *could*... >>(Actually, I think the picture was either a joke or an accident -- >>otherwise too sexy for a children's book illo?) >Do you mean the color plate on p. 129 where Pon is giving her a chaste >little peck on the cheek? Surely not? I think she's refering to the color plate in _Tik-Tok_ in which, in the midst of the "Terrible Tumble Through a Tube", Files' arms are around Ozga's...IMHO "sexy" is overstating it a bit... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, E-Mail: DaveH47@delphi.com URL: http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ Computer Programmer, Honorary Citizen of the Land of Oz, and Editor of "The Ozzy Digest" (The _Wizard of Oz_ online fan club) "When we are young we read and believe The most Fantastic Things... When we grow older and wiser We learn, with perhaps a little regret, That these things can never be... WE ARE QUITE, QUITE *** WRONG ***!!!" -- Noel Coward, "Blithe Spirit" ************************************************************ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 6, 1997 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 19:35:25 +0000 (GMT) From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-97 Scott H.: >Tyler: I believe Baum stated more than once that it was the Wizard who >built the Emerald City where there had previously been only a rustic >castle and various sundry surroundings. I don't think Baum ever referred to a rustic castle on the site of the EC. In fact, as far as I can remember the only reference to anything specific existing on the site of the EC was to the Forbidden Fountain, though in _Land_ Glinda refers to Ozma's father as having been the ruler of the EC. The city as it existed in the time of _Wizard_ was built at the behest of the Wizard, though; possibly when the wicked witches conquered Oz they destroyed the city that Pastoria (or his father) had ruled. It's unclear whether Pastoria himself ever actually ruled - Ozma's account in _DotWiz_ seems to indicate that he didn't, but in other books it appears that he did. (If you accept Thompson then he definitely did, but Baum is more ambiguous.) >David: Why don't you come to Indiana? Except in the Chicago and >Louisville Metro areas, and in Posey at the bottom corner, there is not >time change. :-) I think you're confusing me with Earl. I approve of Daylight Time; I just wish more clocks were like the ones in my computers and changed themselves automatically (or at least had a button you could push that would make the one-hour change either way, rather than, as in the case of a couple of my clocks, having to be manually advanced 23 hours in the fall). There may be some parents who rent after-prom hotel rooms for their kids, but I don't think it's anything like the common practice Bear makes it out to be. And either Portland was a lot purer place than Hopkinsville, KY, in the early '50s, Bear wasn't aware of what was going on around him at the time, or his memory of the time is failing. It wasn't all that wildly different from today - in degree, maybe, but not in kind. For instance, three girls out of my high school class of 72 got pregnant while they were in high school and before they were married, and my class wasn't that unusual. One 14-year-old girl and her father were arrested when the police found a line of young men waiting outside their house and learned that the father was collecting $5 each from them to have sex with her. It's true that in those days publicity about such things was kept down compared to now, but they happened then too. And it's true that the girls who got pregnant either went out of town to have the babies and put them out for adoption or married the father rather than having the baby openly out of wedlock and raising it as a single parent. There's no question that hypocrisy was greater then; I'm less sure that morality was. Bear: >David - You don't know about "Fairy Tale" because you avoid TV. It has >been advertised considerably lately. Also, my Sunday magazine section had >a very favorable review. Unless it was advertised during a football broadcast I wouldn't have seen an ad on TV, it's true. (Well, maybe if it were on the Weather Channel.) And even if it were there's good odds I wouldn't have seen it, since I don't even watch football that much. Melody: I'm not sure Tom Bombadil is more of a magical being than Gandalf - just a different kind of magical being. Gandalf and Sauron are the same kind of magical being, differing in that one is good and one is evil, but both originally being Valar - equivalent to angels in Judeo-Christian-Islamic theologies. Tom Bombadil seems to be an earth spirit; not greater or less than the Valar, but different. Button-Bright's umbrella seems to be powered by the magical equivalent of a computer. It does what you tell it, but it does _exactly_ what you tell it, not what you meant to tell it. And it does everything serially. Ruth: You undoubtedly have a better copy of _Road_ than I do, so I'm sure you're right that the pointy thing on top of the mysterious figure next to Jack is a hat and not hair. Maybe just a generic Munchkin? Lora: Chronological list of Baum books (add "of/in/to Oz" to all titles): Wizard, Land, Ozma, Dorothy and the Wizard, Road, Emerald City, Patchwork Girl, Tik-Tok, Scarecrow, Rinkitink, Lost Princess, Tin Woodman, Magic, Glinda. That's the order of writing and probably the order they happened in Ozian history, though there's some room for doubt among the later books. If you have Web access, though, I recommend you go to Dave Hardenbrook's web site and read his FAQ, which will tell you a lot more about the Oz books. (And I envy you being able to read the books for the first time! Though it seems to be true that many people who first encounter them as adults aren't that impressed, alas. I know my wife isn't.) ***********Possible slight spoilers for Baum books********** Mini-essay: Speaking of the order of the Baum books in Ozian history suggested to me that I ask the Digest if anyone can fill in the few gaps in establishing the chronological order of the events in the books. The main line, with at least one point of justification (events refer to the situation at the beginning of the book unless otherwise stated): 1. Wizard: (Wizard is ruler) 2. Land: (Scarecrow is ruler) 3. Ozma: (Ozma is ruler) 4. Dorothy and the Wizard: (Wizard is not in Oz; Ozma has Magic Belt) 5. Road: (Shaggy Man is not in Oz; Wizard is) 6. Emerald City: (Dorothy is not resident in Oz; Shaggy Man is) 7. Patchwork Girl: (Dorothy is resident and only mortal child in Oz) 8. Tik-Tok: (Betsy is not resident in Oz) 9. Scarecrow: (Trot is not resident in Oz; Betsy is) 10. Rinkitink: (Trot and Betsy are resident, so follows Scarecrow. No latest date that I know of; could follow all other books.) 11. Lost Princess: (Trot and Betsy are resident, so follows Scarecrow. Frogman is not resident, so precedes Magic and Glinda. Tin Soldier not mentioned when it would be logical to put him in a search party, so probably, but not certainly, precedes Tin Woodman.) 12. Tin Woodman: (Trot and Betsy are resident, so follows Scarecrow. Tin Soldier unknown, so precedes Magic. Probably follows Lost Princess, q.v.) 13. Magic: (Frogman and Tin Soldier are known, so follows both Lost Princess and Tin Woodman. No latest date I know of, could be last historically.) 14. Glinda: (Frogman is known, so follows Lost Princess. Could be before or after Tin Woodman and Magic.) It appears that the two possibly out-of-sequence books are _Rinkitink_ and _Glinda_, unless someone can think of textual evidence that ties them down more firmly. I know of no reason to think _Rinkitink_ took place at any time other than between _Scarecrow_ and _Lost Princess_. However, Ozma's behavior in _Glinda_ seems somewhat suspect to me; she seems wiser in _Tin Woodman_ and _Magic_, and there is also the factor that Captain Fyter is charged with keeping the peace in the Gillikin Country at the end of _Tin Woodman_, yet he is never mentioned as a possible resource when trouble brews up in the Gillikin Country in _Glinda_. These are hardly conclusive, but are a slight indication that the events of _Glinda_ might have taken place between _Lost Princess_ and _Tin Woodman_ rather than after _Magic_. Unless someone remembers a reference that I've forgotten that places it in writing sequence. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:43:57 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 Hello Digesters, (speaking non-gastronomically), > I remember reading, on my paperback of Fellowship of the > Ring, Tolkien's plea to the reader to read his, and no > unauthorized edition of his work, if you have any respect > for a living author. Perhaps Tolkien was wise to close > Middle Earth away from this world... Not to be a nit-picker, but I believe that particular plea was against the purchase of unauthorized editions of his work published in America for which Tolkien received no royalties. About the resistance to the idea of romance and marriage for both Glinda and Ozma, I recall having the same feelings about Polgara (as did Garion), but wasn't Durnik a perfect choice? I just finished reading Baum's _Animal Fairy Tales_ , purchased from IWOC. I was enchanted by them. They remind me quite a bit of Kipling's Jungle Book although there are differences. That analogy was discussed in the introduction. Quite a change of pace from OZ, but still appropriate for children and at least one adult (me). If indeed _That Ozzie Feeling_ in reality constitutes _The Seven Blue Mountains of OZ book III , I want to add my plea for the publication of SBM II first. If not, never mind (to quote Emily Letitia from Saturday Night Live, I believe). Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:07:13 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-05-97 (second thoughts) Hi! Just an afterthought. I would have really preferred not to have heard about Zim and Glinda before I had the opportunity to read it for myself. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:27:43 -0500 (EST) From