] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 1 - 3, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:15:31 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: oz I have returned from three weeks in London during which I saw 21 plays, three movies and an opera. I also met with the longest term British member of IWOOC, Brian Baker, who described how he found a copy of a "Boy Fortune Hunters" volume in the window of a book shop on Charing Cross Road (he bought it). On my return I found three weeks of Ozzy Digests, and reading those was a major project, probably more brain wearying than 21 plays etc. I have not yet had time to examine the MS of Wonder City to see about the firefly fairy picture and what it may have been in the original. Sahutchi: Just what do you want to know about _Tamawaca Folks_? > > (P.S. I also saw there a Dover reprint of Dick Martin's _Cut and Assemble > the Emerald City_!!!) > > > > -- Dave > This isn't exactly a reprint, DM originally did this for Dover as well as several other Oz Titles. There is a fairly new Russian "Oz" book, this one written and illustrated by Leonid Vladimirskii, the illustrator of the six Volkov books. It is _Pinnocchio in the City of Emeralds_ in which (to judge from the illustrations Pinnocchio (made by Papa Carlo) is taken by James Goodwin (the Wizard) in a balloon to the Magic Land. Urfin Djus (or how you chose to spell it) it the villain with a mass of new wooden soldiers. I just got the book yesterday and I do not read Russian. It's good to be back. I will check _Wonder City_. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:32:52 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Many Days Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Robin - Thanks for the computerese education. It made me LOL. Regarding "Roverandom" - Wait for the paperback unless you just don't care and will buy anything JRR ever wrote. It is interesting to read for the contrast with "The Hobbit." One is a "10" the other is a "2" on "Bear's Universal Scale." Craig - I buy a lot from BOW but I haven't seen the reported flier either. Maybe Dick made it up! :) sahutchi - what is this thing you dumped on us. Why don't you offer a summary and ask if anyone really wants all this. Bell - >* How come in the book the Good Witch of the North doesn't just tell Dorothy her name is Glinda? IIRC, The Good Witch of the North (who is not Glinda by the way) thought Dorothy was a sorceress as she had managed to kill the WWE. Who knew what she was going to do next? Names have power so some practitioners conceal their real names to avoid giving an adversary power over them. Maybe GWN was just being cautious. Dave >_The Wonder City of Oz_ forcasts the election of 1996: Ozma = Clinton, This is the most monstrous and objectionable thing you have ever said on the Digest. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:04:52 -0500 (EST) From: CrNoble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-29-98 Hey folks, At the risk of sparking another political debate, I thought I'd share the following story from the Associated Press: "Heston Speaks at Blunt Fund-Raiser .c The Associated Press SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) - Charlton Heston says the Clinton White House reminds him of some characters in ``The Wizard of Oz.'' But the 75-year-old Heston told people at a fund-raiser for Rep. Roy Blunt on Saturday that ``you'll have to sort out for yourself who they are.'' Blunt, also without naming names, said some Clinton aides remind him of the Scarecrow (no brain), the Tin Man (no heart), the Lion (no courage) and the Wizard (a phony). Heston, a vice president of the National Rifle Association, said ``the fabric of our culture'' is being torn apart and that the country seems to have become ``a nation of warring gypsy camps, each with its own agenda.'' Blunt, who is seeking a second term from a conservative southwest Missouri district, also said tighter gun control laws would not have prevented the tragedy at an elementary school in Jonesboro, Ark., in which four children and their teacher were gunned down, allegedly by two young students. AP-NY-03-29-98 1336EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press. " ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:20:32 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-98 > * Why does Glinda wear that snood? She's the only adult female in the > series who does so. Is this symbolic? Does it mean that the poor dear is > repressed? > --Robin No, but if she's like my mom, her clothes are ;-). Until later, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:42:54 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz controversies and copyrights Sender: "J. L. Bell" To all who think Glinda's statement on LAND, p. 242, means that she had a notebook collecting what her spies observed about the Wizard, not a Magic Book recording all that happens in the world,... ...that would be just what Glinda wanted folks to think, isn't it? Dover may have issued MAGIC out of order because it saw two reasons this volume would be more profitable than those it skipped: 1) Dorothy and the Wizard on the front, meaning more sales 2) smaller page count, meaning less cost Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Quite true, but he does seem to have perfected a way to bring many of Oz's young men to his home to spend all their time working out. Nathan DeHoff also wrote: <> By having Kabumpo and Randy discuss the number of years he's lived at the start of SILVER PRINCESS, I think Thompson meant to prepare us to accept him as marriageable. I also sensed Randy aging somewhat, or at least emotionally maturing, over the course of the story. Thompson does much the same in KABUMPO, establishing that Pompa is not merely 18 but even older by the calendar. (I don't recall anything similar in GRAMPA, though.) Robin Olderman asked: <> He seldom calls, he never writes, he spends most of his time playing sports with his friends...what's a young teenage girl to do? Dave Hardenbrook posited: <> That explains why the only song Tik-Tok knows is, "Share and En-joy." Tyler Jones wrote: <> This was actually the only one of my deliberately provocative statements that I adhere to. Kramer carries off some nifty graphic effects, such as the meeting of Cap'n Bill and Button-Bright with their Mimic doppelgangers (MIMICS, p. 184), the reverse angle of Dorothy and the Wizard with the Hi-Los (MIMICS, pp. 92, 162), the Jones twins (SHAGGY, p.15), and the invisible barrier (SHAGGY, p. 203). Like Neill, Kramer put a lot more character into older faces (Shaggy on SHAGGY, p. 26; Wizard on MIMICS, p. 236) than into the faces of children. His Dorothy seems more changeable than Alice when she's eating mushrooms (see especially MIMICS, p. 131). I think Martin's illustrations are the most cartoony of the Oz artists, including Denslow. Three of his five Oz books, it's true, come late in his career, when many artists' ability or patience for drawing detail goes down. But even in MERRY-GO-ROUND his art looks flat to me. I admire Martin for much else, including his role in keeping up interest in Oz, his own Oz writing, and his being a better artist than Dirk, but I find Kramer a more interesting draftsman. What would be the ingredients of the ideal Oz artist? I'd blend the energy and imagination of Neill with the facial range and precision of Shanower, and add a few spoonfuls of Kramer's graphic styling. (I don't mean to denigrate Denslow, but his style is so sui generis and in many ways so 19th-century that it wouldn't blend well with others.) Bob Spark wrote: <> I read this slim volume some years ago, and found it in equal parts interesting and frustrating. Interesting because Rushdie is one of my favorite contemporary writers, because he came at the MGM movie from a non-Western culture, and because he has highly insightful things to say about the movie's opening scenes. Frustrating because over half of the book is about those opening scenes, before Dorothy meets the Scarecrow. He rushes through the rest of the movie in 15 pages. I suspect Rushdie was commissioned to write a certain number of words for BFI Film Classics, a "cookie cutter" series in which each volume may well be the same size (and each volume named after the movie it discusses). Rushdie might have had so much to say that he filled up the space he was allotted--or paid for--too quickly. That view leads me to hope that some day, in a world without homicidal fatwas, Rushdie might cast his analytical eyes on the rest of the film. Rushdie's own children's fantasy, HAROUN AND THE SEA OF STORIES, while not entirely successful, is quite good in parts. There's more than a little SKY ISLAND in its plot, though there's no indication Rushdie read that book. Indeed, he never even read WIZARD as a child--he just saw the movie. Has anyone been following the U.S. copyright bill that was passed by the House of Representatives and is soon to be debated in the Senate? After lobbying from Disney, Time Warner, and other wealthy holders of copyrights from the 1920s and '30s, Congress is on the verge of extending the term of current copyrights for twenty more years. This would, I believe, affect the ease with which Books of Wonder and other firms can reissue Thompson's earlier Oz books as they enter the public domain, and the freedom of new writers to use the characters and places she invented in those books without permission from her estate. But there's a broader philosophical issue here. Since the birth of our republic, copyright was intended to encourage the spread of ideas by giving authors a *temporary* monopoly on their expression of those ideas. The authors benefit for their lifetimes (and in most cases their children benefit as well), but copyrights were never meant to be a legacy for grandchildren and shareholders nearly a century later. Works were always supposed to enter the public domain, existing thereafter for the benefit of the public. The same thinking governs patent law. When politicians argue for a lower capital-gains tax, they insist they're not simply benefiting the already-rich, whose taxes would go down the most. Rather, those elected officials say, they want to encourage people to make new investments. The same logic should apply to copyrights. The law should be written to encourage new creativity, not reward those who live off others' creations--even if they've grown wealthy enough to lobby Congress. Otherwise, those politicians reveal that they really do mean to benefit the already-rich at the expense of the public. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 07:00:45 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - Pasta Is the palindrome true, no pasta in our favorite fairy-land? IN OZ, NO RONZONI. Earl Abbe (returning after months off-line) _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 14:23:00 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Ozzy Scrabblegram Dave L. Hardenbrook wrote: > QUESTIONS FROM ROBIN: > >* What do the Scarecrow and Scraps do all night when they're on an > > adventure together while they wait for the meat people to wake up? > > Play scrabble?? Explanatory note to Scrabblegram recepients: This is from the Ozzy Digest, another mail list I am on. Explanatory note to Ozzy digesters: about 5 times/week, I anagram all the tiles of the English language Scrabble (r) Brand Crossword Game into a topical /bon mot/. So, this comment inspired me to submit the following (parens enclose blank tiles): Jovial ingenuous Patchwork Girl and Scare(c)row of Oz arise, bide time, play text game of board and tile. I envy those unique(s)! --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 21:00:38 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Bompi >I think my connection to class and caste was somewhere along the lines of by tying the idea of leadership to animals, or nature, it made the idea of some animals being better/smarter/etc than otehrs seem inevitable and natural. For children, this could lead to false beliefs about power and ruling. You'll have to excuse me, sometimes I get a little out of control . . . Bless you, when you get out of college you will find out these beliefs are not false but "inevitable and natural." Only in school do natural things become unnatural. Some day I hope we will be able to change that. Maybe when all of the Hippies who went into teaching in the 60's are on Social Security. :) sahutchi >I haven't read _Scarecrow_ since grade 4 and need to re-read it, but I probably won't have time. Come on Scott, this is really lame. We need your insight. Read it while you are eating or performing other intimate functions. It's not that long and you have two weeks. Sheeesh. Spark - Where did you find the "Little Satan's" critique book? I have been looking for it for years. Robin - I don't know about the rest of your questions but as to the "snood," it is a real turn-on to the more mature. Put one on and check it out! Glinda is definitely not repressed. Peter - Thanks for clearing that up. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 21:41:56 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz errata Sender: "J. L. Bell" A couple of correctives to my last posting... I miscounted the number of Oz-related books Dick Martin illustrated; I should have said four of his six came later in his career. Also, as I thought I'd recalled (from having checked a copy for how it treated the Tottenhot remarks), Dover has issued RINKITINK. I saw a copy in a store this evening--color plates reproduced in black and white. So has it skipped LOST PRINCESS and TIN WOODMAN only? J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 98 15:04:41 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things PINNGARF@jkhbhrc.byu.edu raleigh@minn.net Duglor@connectnet.com Can someone E-mail the above three people and inform them that their servers are bouncing the Digest with a "Bad return address" error? If no one can get through, I will remove them from the Digest... RUSSIAN OZ: Steve T. wrote: >There is a fairly new Russian "Oz" book, this one written and >illustrated by Leonid Vladimirskii, the illustrator of the six Volkov >books... Ozma: You mean there's a parallel universe in which I never existed, the Scarecrow is still king, and everyone speaks Russian?? Wizard: And my name is J. Goodwin and not Oscar Zoraster P.I.N.H.E.A. Diggs?? POLITICS IN OZ: Craig wrote: >Blunt, also without naming names, said some Clinton aides remind him of the >Scarecrow (no brain), the Tin Man (no heart), the Lion (no courage)... Ozma: Make a note, Jellia...Another politician who has totally missed the point of _The Wizard of Oz_... TO J.L. BELL: I agree with your statements about copyright...BTW FWIW I understood that your "Topic List" was meant to be "deliberately provocative" even if some on the Digest didn't... DOVER'S MAGIC: Well, I had a chance to trot down to Borders again, and it is now Confirmed: Dover edition of _Magic of Oz_, printed 1998! IT'S A NEW BOOK!!!!!! J.L. Bell wrote: >Also, as I thought I'd recalled (from having checked a copy for how it >treated the Tottenhot remarks), Dover has issued RINKITINK. I saw a copy in >a store this evening--color plates reproduced in black and white. So has it >skipped LOST PRINCESS and TIN WOODMAN only? They also skipped Scarecrow...In fact, they published _Rinkitink_ before _Tik-Tok_! The fact they have yet to do _Scarecrow_ makes me doubt that they're going for the books for whose names or cover illos the MGM movie would have "coat-tails"...As for saving money by putting out a shorter book like _Magic_...Maybe, but why did they bother to put the money into doing the color plates in color? (They've previously reproduced the color plates in black and white in all except _Wizard_ and _Land_) ... I think they're trying to openly compete with Books of Wonder! -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 4 - 5, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 14:18:29 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-98 Robin: Live Entertainment released _The Runestone_ in 1991. I own a copy. It's not hard to find. Blockbuster probably won't have it, but I don't think I've been to a Video Update that doesn't. I'll have to go back and find my e-mail with the questions, as it dealt with characters and who they really are, and I had to return the bound Xerox copy I read. Craig: I looked, but could not find a Dover Magic of Oz at either Borders or Barnes and Noble. Too bad :( Scott ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 06:13:28 -0500 From: Richard Randolph Subject: Ozzy Digest 4-3-98 Bear - Ah, ye of little faith! :) (Thanks, Peter G, for bailing me out. Steve T. - So, what did you do for fun, while in London? :) Jno Bell - I agree with your comments regarding the illustrations of Kramer over Dick Martin. But, in your "ingredients of the ideal Oz artist", I'd also add a spoonful or two of Melody Grandy. Dick ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 07:12:01 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - Rushdie on Sale & Ads Speaking of Salman Rushdie's essay on the MGM movie, I received a film study catalog this week from Indiana University Press (www.indiana.edul~iupress or 800-842-6796). In it Rushdie's little volume is offered for $8.75 (down from $10.95). And speaking of ads, in my post in the April 1-3 Digest I see my free e-mail provider put its ad into my mailing. Sorry, I did not know that was happening. If it continues, I will find another e-mail provider. Earl Abbe _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 06:52:52 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-98 Hey Y'all, About Rushdie's "The Wizard of Oz", Bear: > Spark - Where did you find the "Little Satan's" critique > book? I have been looking for it for years. > I got it through an interlibrary loan, but Amazon.com has it for $7.96. CrNoble, I find Charleton Heston to be an odious reactionary and resent finding his blather in this civilized forum. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 18:58:49 +0200 From: Bill Wright Subject: oz digest Here is an email I received today. I'm posting it to the digest in the event anyone is interested. If so, please respond directly to Diane. Bill in Ozlo -------------------------email follows----------- Not sure you can help me but, I have two very rare editions of The Wizard of Oz I need to sell to help put kids through college. Would you be interested in considering buying them. They are in excellent condition? One Wizard of Oz Bobb Merrill Publisher 3rd printing1903 WW Denslow Illustrater One Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz 1908 John Neil Illustrater Reilly Company first edition. Diane FORSON@aol.com -------------end email----------------- ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 13:45:25 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Children of a Lesser Oz A&E Channel aired a biographic show about Marlee Matlin on Wednesday. The first acting role she had? Dorothy in a stage production of "Wizard of Oz" an a deaf performing arts school. Guess she signed OSL (Ozzian Sign Language) --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 15:14:39 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Thanks for locating and pulling out the relevant development- of-undying-Ozites quotations. // "monarchism is fundamentally a childish system" -- nicely put. Nathan DeHoff: I'd guess that painted straw would not taste good (to those with digestions set for straw), even though it worked for stuffing the Scarecrow? Robin Olderman & Dave Hardenbrook: I don't think Scrabble would do for a nighttime activity -- too hard to see the letters without lighting enough lights to wake the sleepers. (But Michael Turniansky's Scrabble-pated anagram for it is fun.) Maybe mental chess, which the Scarecrow might enjoy, although perhaps not Scraps. Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise practice acrobatics? Steve Teller: Sounds like a nicely crammed journey. Bob Spark & J.L. Bell: Yes, Rushdie's essay on the MGM "Wizard" is fascinating. J.L.'s s suggestion that it's overloaded with discussion of the opening because he was writing to a word-limit sounds plausible. He mentions in it that his portrait of Indira Gandhi in "Midnight's Children" as a green-faced witch was probably influenced by the movie. Also probably an influence was his use of winged monkeys briefly in "Haroun and the Sea of Stories." J.L. also asked if some of us are following the copyright developments. I sent a message on the topic that apparently didn't get through to Dave, so I'll repeat: The NY Times had an article Saturday about the current state of copyright debating. As was discussed here previously, the current copyright law grants copyright for a period of 75 years from the date of publication, or 50 years from the date of the author's death, whichever is longer. For works which had been copyrighted before the current law was passed (in 1976), the copyright term was extended to 75 years from the date of publication. (Previously, it had been 56 years.) The House at this point has passed a bill extending the copyright an additional 20 years (I assume that means 95 from date of publication, or 70 from date of death, whichever ditto). The Senate has not yet acted. (The 56-years-period had been in place since 1909. Previously, U.S. copyright laws had been enacted in 1831, when the term was set at 28 years plus option of renewing for 14 more; and 1790, when protection ran for two 14-year terms.) Meanwhile, it is being debated (passive tense because I can't make out from the article who is debating -- the House, a Committee of the House, or lobbyists who would like the House to take it up) that copyright should be not just extended but made perpetual. The idea of making copyright perpetual strikes me as a Bad Idea. It would grant immense benefits to the heirs of the few most-popular-properties (the Disney Corporation and the Gershwin estate would be in the catbird seat), and lower (probably small?) benefits to the heirs of the other properties. To offset those benefits, it would make the use of these properties more expensive to the general public, and would make arranging to get rights to make properties available to the gp more complicated (much more complicated? complicated enough to make some or many or most such properties unavailable?) over time, as the number of heirs to be consulted increased. Actually, even the idea of adding 20 years to the current copyright period sounds like a bad idea, on balance. (Oz fans who want to publish original Oz stories using Thompson characters, of course, have special reasons for objecting to that additional 20 years.) Do others of you have ideas about the benefits/drawbacks of the proposed changes -- and information about where comments might most usefully be sent? --- To which I'd add that I've sent letters to my senators and representative. If any of you know the names of the relevant Senate and House committees and their heads, I'd like to write them, too. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 17:41:50 -0800 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Digest: WONDERCITY PIX Before I left the question had arisen concerning the picture on pp [134-35] of THE WONDER CITY OF OZ showing a woman, persumably Jenny Jump wearing a broad brimmed hat and a cloak with wide collars speaking to a group of fairies, who have a variety of expressions on their faces. From the text of the book this would seem to be Jenny asking the Firefly Fairies to provide light to drive away the Heelers. However the Heelers and the Firefly Fairies are not in Neill's MS for the book. On page 206 there is a picture of a woman wearing the same hat and cloak speaking to two men. From the text of the book this could be Number Nine's mother and the two gnomes, except the men look nothing like the gnomes as shown on page 197 and the woman does not llok like Number Nine's mother if it is she in the back on p. 55. There is one other picture of a woman in that hat and cape and that is on the chapter head of Chapter 2 on page 25. Here it would seem to be definitely Jenny Jump. Indeed we are told "She put on a hat and a cape" on page 23. The only appearance of fairies in the MS is in chapter 1, pages 2 and 3: "She [Jenny] wouldn't go around with plain people and the thoroughbred fairies wouldn't go around with her when they fouond out that she tattled and repeated stories. For this reason she had been but out of every fairy band she had ever been connected with. Even the little Romance Club asked her to leave. The president of the club advised her to walk one way while the vice-president suggested she keep going in the opposity direcrtion to make her going as easy as possible. "This had happened before Jenny Jump had ever come to Oz, when she lived in the highlands of New Jersey under the mountains that still bear her name. Here, in abandoned mines, the fairies have built lovely little villiages connected by highways running under the stone walls. "Jenny's claim to these mountains was a very old claim and she thought the fairies should pay her rent. This was one of the biggest mistakes she made. Then she bewitched a lawyer to defend her claim. But worst of off was a large sign with her name: JENNY JUMP'S SUCCESS CO. which she put in a conspicuous place. It aroused the fairies against her so much they led her away to prison and kept her locked up for a long time and hoped she would give in, but she wouldn't. "Finally she and her sign were brought before a fairy court amd eacj of the judges put her mark on the sign, and Jenny's dream of riches was completely shattered for the fairies had proved her success was only dollars and cents-- "IT ALL EQUALLED NOTHING. "Her lawyer had been put into a deep sleep and was talking in his sleep during the trial and long after it was over. "The judgement of the court was hard on Jenny. She was banished from Jersey and forbidden ever to return. "She was an outcast." It is possible that the two page spread on [134-35] is Jenny making her claim on the fairies land or perhaps repeating stories. The picture on page 206 might be Jenny talking to her lawyer. This is only a guess, but it is the only explanation I can come up with that meets the facts of the MS. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:53:24 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest Hello Ozzy Digesters: Well, I finally got bold and put a pic of myself on my website!! So, I would like to invite you to meet me in cyberspace! The pic is a bit small because I am with some of my friends from Oz. LOL!! And, just a warning for you literary fans, this is another MGM themed Oz "thingy". In any event, I hope you will check out the page. The direct URL is: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6396/aboutme.htm I have made lots of changes to my website in the last few months and have lots of new stuff in the works! Thanks again to all of you who have sent kind emails and are regular visitors to my site! P.S. Robert Collinge: Good Luck with your 1st annual New England Oz Festival!! I will be there in "Ozzy" spirit. I would LOVE to see the Wizard of Oz on that domed ceiling! Sounds like great fun!!! And ... P.S.S. If you haven't already ... check out the Ruby Slippers Fan Club at URL: http://users.delta.com/rainbowz/rubyslipperfanclub/ ... because there you will see LOTS of interesting "stuff" about the Ruby Slippers including some pics of my Ruby Slipper's Collectibles!! Your friend from Oz, Jim Whitcomb of ... Jim's "Wizard of Oz" Website URL: http://www.geocites.com/Hollywood/Hills/6396/ ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 22:45:35 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: The Name of the Oz Sender: "J. L. Bell" Steve Teller, I'll be interested to read about whatever you unearth from the WONDER CITY manuscript. Please note Ruth Berman's link of the "firefly fairy" spread with the picture of "Number Nine's mother" with the "Nomes" elsewhere in the book. [I'd say "earlier" or "later," but with WONDER CITY it's so hard to remember.] That might be an extra clue, or an extra complication. In response to my cheeky question about the Good Witch of the North "in the book," Richard Bauman added: <> I know this is traditional in many fantasies (Susan Cooper's THE DARK IS RISING is my favorite example), but are there Baum stories in which knowing a name gives someone power over that person? A while back Ruth Berman noted how many "sketchy," unnamed characters there are in LIL WIZARD STORIES: a man, two children, a lady and her baby. She rightly saw those characters' flatness as contributing to rather flat tales. On the other hand, spare use of names distinguishes WIZARD from later Oz books, I think. In that book Baum often names characters by identity: "the Scarecrow." As in LIL WIZARD, there are creatures identified by their position within their community: Queen of the Field Mice, King of the Winged Monkeys, China Princess. There are generic crowds, like the Wizard's courtiers and the Winkies. Omby Amby and Jellia Jamb debut in WIZARD, but not by name: they're the Soldier with the Green Whiskers and the "green girl." The Guardian of the Gates also appears (and continues to guard his name tightly in later books). Even without names, however, many of the WIZARD people seem distinct: for instance, the family Dorothy meets in Chap. X, the father ill in bed and telling stories. [Remind us of any families the Baum children would have known?] Another way to measure this trend is to count how few Ozians in WIZARD have names: I think they're Oz, Boq, Nick Chopper, Gayelette, Quelala, Mr. Joker, and Glinda. That's few relative to Baum's later books. To me that pattern makes WIZARD more primal and archetypal than the other Oz books. The political struggles of Mombi, Jinjur, Glinda, and Ozma are nuanced because each is an individual. But the Good Witch of the North, the Wicked Witches of the East and West--we don't need to know anything more about them, do we? The young-child world of WIZARD becomes a bit more complex in the later books. Bompi wrote: <> As Richard Bauman says, it's "inevitable and natural" that some animals are better or smarter than others, especially in a given situation. But you're right that simple-minded extrapolations from that reality lead to the "false belief" that certain individuals should be rulers. The collective wisdom of the community is almost always better than the thoughts of even the most intelligent individual. Especially when the animals are human. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 10:38:33 -0600 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-26-98 thru 04-02-98 I'm back from Tennessee for the time being, with a few Digests to catch up with. 3/26: Mike: > Gaudapoochie? Sounds an awful lot lkike Rootie-Kazootie's dog, >Gallapoochie... If there's a connection it's Guadapoochee that inspired Gallapoochie. Guadapoochee dates back to at least the early '40s, which I'm reasonably sure Rootie Kazootie doesn't. J.L.: I can't really regard the opinions of later commentators as authoritative regarding the vegetarianism of Ozites, when the Royal Historians have described the eating of meat on several occasions. Probably the most conclusive is in _Ojo_, when Realbad kills and roasts a couple of birds and he and Ojo and Snufferbux eat them. > When she reveals her Magic Book to Dorothy, Glinda says, "it told me you >were all coming to my castle, and why" (EM CITY, p. 292). She has the same >knowledge when the Scarecrow and his party come to her in LAND--the >Scarecrow even states her reputation: "nothing that goes on in the Land of >Oz escapes her notice" (p. 238). How does Glinda come by such knowledge >without the Book? If she already has such knowledge, why would she feel the >need for the Book, and why would she be unable to track Ugu or Wutz without >it? Glinda clearly has lots of magic powers besides the GBR. In the case of Ugu, he stole not only the GBR but all her other magical equipment; there's a strong implication that once she had time to reconstruct the appropriate devices, she'd have been able to find Ozma and rescue her, but that it would take considerable time and that others might as well see if they could accelerate the rescue while she worked on new equipment. By the time of Wutz she had gotten used to relying on the GBR for her information and probably didn't have the necessary equipment or ingredients ready at hand at the time the GBR was stolen. As for the need for the book, she didn't _need_ the book any more than we need E-mail - but both reduce the amount of effort one must put into activities that are desirable, and therefore would be used when they're available. Tzvi: >I recall from one of the Oz books the Scarecrow getting wet and making a big >deal out of it (being spread out to dry etc.). I tried to remember where >this occurs, (_Tin Man_ ?) with no success. In LWS the Scarecrow comes out >of the water uneffected. It happens more than once - in _Land_ during the initial escape from Jinjur, and in _Scarecrow_ after he falls into the waterfall. There may be other occasions as well, but those are two I remember. Jeremy: >Mary Russel's book: >Personally, I never saw a moor > I never saw the sea > But know I how the heather looks > And what a wave must be . . . >(Dickinson) An amusing note on that poem: someone translated it into Spanish, and misunderstood "moor" to mean a Muslim of Spain and therefore translated it as "Moro." This led to a further mistranslation of "heather" as "pagano," since the influence of the first word caused the translator to misread "heather" as "heathen." (Something I ran across in VERBATIM once.) Dave: >_WIZARD_ PLAY: >Anyone catch the ads on American Movie Classics about the stage version >of _Wizard of Oz_ ( MGM of course :| )...Bob Dorian is obviously proud to be >in it but he doesn't say who *he* plays! (Mickey Rooney is the Wizard >and Eartha Kitt is the WWW.) My recollection is that Dorian plays the Cowardly Lion. There was a review of it in the paper yesterday (the road show is currently playing Chicago), and if it's of great interest to anyone I can dig it out - but yesterday's paper is already in the recycling bin, so I won't do it unless somebody asks. (And you need to ask before Monday night when the recycling stuff goes out to the curb.) Glinda with Jellia Jamb - or anyone, with the possible exception of Ozma - runs into the problem of strength in the opposite direction; Glinda is so much the most powerful person in Oz that she's going to dominate anytime she's onstage (which is undoubtedly why she rarely is). _Scarecrow in two weeks (or more like one, now) is fine with me. 3/29: Scott H.: In _Emerald City_ the Wizard says he gave the Sawhorse sawdust brains when he last replace his ears, and that because the sawdust was made from hard knots the Sawhorse could think out many hard and knotty problems. Since this was before LWS, we can assume that the Sawhorse was intelligent in the latter stories. (I think the brains must have run out before _Scalawagons_, though...) 3/31: Bob C.: Hope your New England Oz party goes well. (By analogy with the Oogaboos in the Northwest, should you be called the Keretarians?) Wish I could be there, but I've been traveling most of the last month and a half - or so it seems - and I want to stay home for a little while. I still have two trips to Tennessee and one to Detroit planned within the next two months. Nathan: I don't think we've ever seen Glinda's reflection in a mirror; she could be using Zixi's spell. Of course, there's the question I've raised before as to whether Zixi's spell just has the side effect of making her look old and ugly in her own eyes, although her body and face in fact retain their youth. I don't think that Zixi's apparent youth can be considered an illusion; she does too many things that would be beyond the physical abilities of a centenarian, much less someone who's lived over 600 years. It doesn't say that Randy still looks ten years old at the beginning of _Silver Princess_; Kabumpo says he must be sixteen but doesn't look it. The fact that Uncle Hoochafoo thinks he's old enough to marry - and so does he, after he meets Planetty - suggests to me that he probably looks around 14 or so. And once he's married he'll probably let himself grow another few years. Bompi: >I think my connection to class and caste was somewhere along the lines of by >tying the idea of leadership to animals, or nature, it made the idea of some >animals being better/smarter/etc than otehrs seem inevitable and natural. >For children, this could lead to false beliefs about power and ruling. Not sure what you mean. Some animals _are_ smarter than others, both within a given species and from species to species. (I mean, barring pathological cases, all dogs are smarter than all horses, and all pigs are smarter than all dogs, and all chimpanzees are smarter than all pigs, and all humans are smarter than all chimps.) "Better," of course, is a separate issue; there you're looking at a value judgment and not at an objective fact. What "false beliefs about power and ruling" did you have in mind? Robin: >* Why do Dorothy, Trot, Betsy, and Ozma never grow up? Because they don't want to. Now the question becomes, why don't they want to? For the first three the answer seems easy: who'd want to be a teen-ager if they didn't have to? Since Ozma is already a teen-ager (acto Baum), it would seem that she'd rather grow up into a twentysomething, but maybe she doesn't want to leave the other girls too far behind? (Then there's Dave's theory...) >* What do the Scarecrow and Scraps do all night when they're on an adventure together while they wait for the meat people to wake up? Talk in low voices, according to some of the books. >* How long is Gureeda s'posed to wait for Speedy to return, anyway? ILTT that Speedy returned fairly shortly after the events of his eponymous book, probably when he was about 16 or so. (I estimate him to have been about 13 at the time of the book.) We've never seen Umbrella Island or any of its inhabitants since that book (in a canonical source), so there's no reason to believe that Gureeda had to wait very long. >* Does Button Bright really get lost a lot, or is that just his excuse for escaping responsibility? I think he really gets lost a lot. >* How could owning a dishpan influence the making of cookies? Are you s'posed to bake inside the dishpan? Ugh! The dishpan is magic, and its magic permeates the kitchen it's in so that Cayke's cookies come out perfect every time. I'm sure she didn't bake the cookies in the dishpan; that's never suggested, and if she did then it would be a cookie pan and not a dishpan. * Why does Glinda wear that snood? She's the only adult female in the series who does so. Is this symbolic? Does it mean that the poor dear is repressed? Nah, it means she's an Orthodox Jew... :-) Peter G.: Thanks for the clarification on the mailing for your new Oz books. I was beginning to wonder if I'd missed an Oz Collector. Tyler: I like Martin better than Kramer too, though they're not really all that comparable. Kramer, like Neill and Shanower, was a "realistic" artist, though I don't think he was in the class of the other two. Martin, like Denslow and "Dirk," was more of a cartoonist. Either style is valid, but it's hard to compare them. I don't think Martin made Dorothy look like a Barbie doll. Like Barbie's little sister (Skipper, wasn't it?), maybe, but not like Barbie. 4/2: Craig: Heston and Blunt obviously don't understand the idea behind _The Wizard of Oz_, which was that the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Cowardly Lion _did_ have brains, heart, and courage respectively; they just thought they didn't. But it's not surprising that a pair of right-wingers would insult the Clinton administration using any metaphor they cared to. We see it often enough on the Digest, and that's even though we all make a conscious effort to avoid it. >Heston, a vice president of the National Rifle Association, said ``the fabric >of our culture'' is being torn apart and that the country seems to have become >``a nation of warring gypsy camps, each with its own agenda.'' I do find that line rather offensive. What he means is that everyone doesn't kowtow to the WASP elite any more. J.L.: Although Neill draws Tatters as quite young - he looks around 12 - there's no textual evidence that I can find that he's even a teen-ager; he could easily be twentyish. He's called the "young prince," but that could apply to any age up to thirty or so. And finding a princess to marry is one of his goals on their journey, so it must be that the other Ragbadians think of him as of marriageable age. > When politicians argue for a lower capital-gains tax, they insist they're >not simply benefiting the already-rich, whose taxes would go down the most. >Rather, those elected officials say, they want to encourage people to make >new investments. The same logic should apply to copyrights. The law should >be written to encourage new creativity, not reward those who live off >others' creations--even if they've grown wealthy enough to lobby Congress. >Otherwise, those politicians reveal that they really do mean to benefit the >already-rich at the expense of the public. Benefiting the already-rich at the expense of the public is the goal of all Republican and most Democratic politicians, since the already-rich are the ones who finance their campaigns. They'd rather not reveal that goal if they can help it, but if they have to they will. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 98 00:45:05 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things "OZ ON CHARON" UPDATE: Just thought I'd mention: Ann Druyan is apparently currently on tour, along with being preoccupied with the latest lawsuit against the Sagan estate (from Random House), so I don't know when if ever I'll get a reply from her. POLITICS: Sorry to be a spoilsport, but Ozma has requested that I ask Ozzy Digest members to move the discussion of gun control and/or Charlton Heston to private E-mail. Aujah: Who the hippikaloric *is* Charlton Heston anyway?! Aurah: He's the guy who always says, "Go ahead, make my diurnal anamoly!" Aujah: Are you sure?? I thought that was Clint Westwood! Audah: *I* thought that was Shwartzaneggar... Aurah: No, no! *He's* the guy who always says, "Au revior, baby!" GAMES STUFFED PEOPLE PLAY: Ruth wrote: >I don't think Scrabble would do for a nighttime activity... >Maybe mental chess, which the Scarecrow might enjoy, although perhaps >not Scraps. Why do you surmise that the Scarecrow would like chess but not Scraps? >Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise >practice acrobatics? Provided that they have night vision... COPYRIGHTS: Thanks, Ruth, for the info. on the new copyright legistlation. Ruth wrote: >(Oz fans who want to publish original Oz stories using >Thompson characters, of course, have special reasons for objecting >to that additional 20 years.) Or Neill's characters, especially. (Hippikaloric, if this law passes we may have colonies on the moon before Neill's characters go PD!) >To which I'd add that I've sent letters to my senators and representative. >If any of you know the names of the relevant Senate and House committees >and their heads, I'd like to write them, too. Try , search for word/phrase "copyright"... ILLUSTRATORS: Dick R. wrote: >But, in your "ingredients of the ideal Oz artist", I'd also add a spoonful >or two of Melody Grandy. Make that five rounded tablespoons! :) I'd even place Melody above Shanower! (Melody's illios are maybe not as intricately detailed, but they are IMO much more Ozzily whimsical!) GLINDA: David H. wrote: >>* Why does Glinda wear that snood? She's the only adult female in the >> series who does so. Is this symbolic? Does it mean that the poor dear >> is repressed? >Nah, it means she's an Orthodox Jew... :-) Naw! Glinda is a druid (reformed)! :) :) "THAT FAMOUS PINBALL SMILE": David H. wrote: >Since Ozma is already a teen-ager (acto Baum), it >would seem that she'd rather grow up into a twentysomething, but maybe she >doesn't want to leave the other girls too far behind? (Then there's Dave's >theory...) BTW, some of you guys think *my* ideas about Ozma are ultra-heretical...? The Adepts have just come to me with their new theory that Ozma is in fact leading a double life aboard a big red spaceship on which she has a degree in astronavigation, refers to the Sawhorse as "Trumper", has as her favorite snack a glass of Ozade with a bowl of cottage cheese with pinapple chunks in, and has contrivened fairy law and gotten emotionally involved with a guy whose favorite catch-phrase is "Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas"! :) :) :) Jellia: Geez! The things Dave writes when it's two in the morning and he's punchy! :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 6 - 8, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 23:50:13 -0500 (EST) From: ZMaund Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-98 Greetings: My wife this morning gave birth to a healthy baby girl: "Veronica Maund." In haste, Patrick ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:09:51, -0500 From: NQAE93A@prodigy.com (MR ROBERT J COLLINGE) Subject: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Jim W., David Hulan, and others: Thanks for the well wishes for the NE Oz party. We have close to 70 people registered as I write. >Hope your New England Oz party goes well. (By analogy with the Oogaboos in the Northwest, should you be called the Keretarians?)< We thought of doing this but could not come up with anything. Which book are the Keretarians in? I checked the northeast corner of the Oz maps, and didn't see anything we thought we could use. There is always next year. For those of you interested in the National tour of "The Wizard of Oz", you should check out www.ozontour.com . It gives bios of all the actors. Bob C. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:27:05 -0400 (EDT) From: CrNoble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Bob Spark, My intention was not to invoke your resentment. I doubt you disagree with Charleton Heston's philosophy any more than I do. I usually post Oz-related stories to the Ozzy Digest when I see them. I do this in the same spirit as I performed my former career as a journalist - to inform and educate about current events, in this case a story with an angle relevant to members of this forum. Again, sorry to offend. Craig Noble >I find Charleton Heston to be an odious reactionary and resent finding his blather in this civilized forum. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 13:44:08 -0700 From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff Subject: Ozzy Digest John Bell: The Tin Woodman's name is not mentioned in _Wizard_. I believe that it was used in the stage play, but it was not mentioned in the books until _Land_. Since Dorothy knew Nick's name in _Ozma_, I suppose we can assume that he told her sometime during the story, but Baum did not reveal this to us. Copyrights: I do not really have anything to add, but I am also against the extension of copyrights. My initial reaction was that it would hinder my ability to use copyrighted Oz characters in my own writings, but, on a less selfish level, the arguments that other Digest-ers have come up with are quite valid, IMHO. David: >I think the brains must have run out before _Scalawagons_, though... Along with Ozma's, Glinda's, Dorothy's, Besty's, Kabumpo's, etc. IMHO, Neill wasn't that effective at portraying already established characters, but he was pretty good with his own. Dave: >>Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise >>practice acrobatics? > >Provided that they have night vision... I believe that the Scarecrow can see in the dark in _Wizard_. Scraps probably doesn't have very good night vision, though, since she has to rely on Bungle's in _Patchwork Girl_. -- Nathan Mulac DeHoff vovat@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ "All I know could be defaced by the facts in the life of Chess Piece Face." ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 14:53:50 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-98 Bear: I'm in trhe last month of a semester with fifteen credit hours, that's why I can't read as much (unrelated to school) as I would like. I've never figured out why someone would want to make himself look like an ignoramus by saying the Scarecrow has no brain, etc... Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:34:33 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 James: From that picture you look like you could be Patrick Maund's brother! ;) On the Road to Wizdom... Against all Oz (1989) 1989 Directed by Mike Mallare Written by L. Frank Baum (books) Produced by Debbie Marzulli for On the Road to Wizdom... Against all Oz (1989) (1=awful, 10=excellent) Wiz, The (1978/II) 1978 Color Genre/keyword: Musical / Documentary / fantasy / still-photography / photography Directed by Susan Simmons Cast (in alphabetical order) Hinton Battle .... Scarecrow Dee Dee Bridgewater .... Glinda, the Good Witch of the South Andr5 De Shields .... The Wiz Tiger Haynes .... Tin Man Mabel King .... Evillene, the Wicked Witch of the West Stephanie Mills .... Dorothy Nancy .... Toto Phylicia Rashad .... Munchkin/Field Mouse (as Phylicia Ayres Allen) Ted Ross .... Lion Otis Sallid .... Chorus Clarice Taylor .... Addaperle, the Good Witch of the North Tasha Thomas .... Aunt Em Written by L. Frank Baum (novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz) William F. Brown (play) Donna Cribari Cinematography by Martha Swope Music by Charlie Smalls Luther Vandross (song "Everybody Rejoice") Film Editing by Donna Cribari Links with other titles Those of you impressed with Rana Haugen's Jellia portrayal will be happy to see that she was in an independent film in 1996, _Disturbing the Peace_/American Dream_, by Thomas Patrick Smith. Hopefully, this last one might irritate some people: Hollywood Road to Oz, The (1990) (TV) 1990 Language: English Cast (in credits order) Charlton Heston .... Host Written by L. Frank Baum (novels) Links with other titles features Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The (1910) His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz (1914) Magic Cloak of Oz, The (1914) Patchwork Girl of Oz, The (1914) Wizard of Oz (1925) Wizard of Oz, The (1933) Wizard of Oz, The (1939) Wiz, The (1978/I) Return to Oz (1985) Dreamer of Oz, The (1990) (TV) BTW, what's great about _The Runestone_ is not its simple horror plot, which it does well. It is its satire in its treatment of the rest of the elements, views on art and relationships, etc. Great filmmaking from IWOC's own Willard Carroll (of the Oz Kids fame, in his live action debut). I think he might have a cameo in the film. I know Tom Wilhite does. He's shown smashing into a mural with a sledgehammer as part of an art museum's fundraiser gimmick. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 21:34:45 +0000 From: Christopher Straughn Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Comments: Authenticated sender is Vegetarianism in Oz: I personally like Maguire's idea in _Wicked_ that there are the talking, human Animals and the dumb animals. C.S. Lewis used the same idea in the Narnia stories. The idea of meat growing on trees is also very interesting but the whole incident with Realbad and the birds sort of disproves the idea. Maybe he had to shoot to get the meat out of the dead-bird trees. Chris Straughn Bonan Tagon! ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 22:58:56 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Pasttime for the Scarecrow and Scraps: Doing the Twist, perhaps? Copyright Eternal: Yikes! No more fan writing for us--at least not overtly . . . Until later, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:50:05 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Bob - Thanks for the tip on the Rushdie item. I'll order it. Now Bob, you recently gave us a load of socialist blather (on which I bearfully resisted commenting) so you can't object to a little bit of "odious reactionary" blather.:) Ruth - I just don't understand your objection? If you create something it should be yours to dispose of as you wish. If you leave it to someone and they try to sell it for too much, no one will buy it. Let the market take care of the problem. If Thompson's heirs don't want anyone using her characters, fine, let's make up some new characters. We need new ideas, not retreads of old ones. If the dog owns the manger, he has a perfect right to sit in it. However, dogs can't eat straw. Steve - Why are we having a discussion of "Wonder City" when we are currently on Scarecrow? JL Bell - Just call me Bear. Hmmmm, are you making an argument for government by opinion poll or just for Democracy? David - I don't think you understood the comment about "gypsy camps' but I'll let that pass. And so no one feels unoffended, Dave, it seems a bit disingenuous of you to ban comments after so many have already been made from one pole of the politcal spectrum. Sigh. Conservatively, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 11:54:34 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Interesting point that many of the characters in "Wizard" are presented by titles or descriptions rather than names. It seems to me, though, that titles like "Queen of the Field Mice" and descriptions like "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" are closer to names (being distinctive identifiers) than they are to the kind of namelessness represented by the "Little Wizard Stories" with "a woman" or "a man" or "a Winkie child." (In some books, Baum moved from a descriptive identifier to using the description as a name, as when a shaggy man becomes the Shaggy Man, and is addressed as Shaggy Man, or Shaggy for short, by his friends.) Steve Teller: Thanks for the added Jenny Jump information. I'll have to take a look at that chapter heading. David Hulan & Mike Turner: The resemblance of Guadapoochee and Gallapoochie isn't as close as it looks if you leave off the "poochie," which is just a diminutive for "pooch" in the sense of "dog." Checking a dictionary, I see that "pooch" in that sense dates from 1924 and is of "origin unknown". Dave Hardenbrook: I have a feeling that Scraps doesn't have enough patience to enjoy chess. Needing night-vision for activities like night- climbing -- I don't think night-vision would be needed. It's not as if Scraps or the Scarecrow would be injured if they missed a branch and fell. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 09:43:44 -0700 From: "Peter E. Hanff" Subject: Help requested for a colleague Dave and Ozzy Digest readers: A colleague in Massachusetts has asked for help in identifying the book described as follows: Hey, Peter. My sister is trying to remember a book she read about six or seven years ago. Can you help her out? A high-school aged attendant discovers that one of the patients is in fact Dorothy, and traces her family history. Figures out that Baum had been a school teacher in Kansas and had Dorothy as a student. The book also brings in Judy Garland's family life and the filming of the movie; also a segment about AIDS. Sound familiar? I must confess to being not-well-read in modern Oz-related tales, and this rings no bells with me. Can someone help me provide an identification? Thanks, Peter Hanff ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 17:32:58 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-98 Ruth: >Do others of you have ideas about the benefits/drawbacks of the proposed >changes [in copyright law]-- and information about where comments might >most usefully be sent? The benefits, it seems to me, are entirely to people who had nothing to do with the creative process that brought the work about, but are fortunate enough to be either corporately or genetically descended from those who did. The drawbacks are to everyone else who'd like to be able to experience the copyrighted work unhindered. Steve: Thanks for the quotes from the _Wonder City_ MS. It does sound as if it doesn't resemble the published book very much... J.L.: I don't recall Baum ever implying that knowing someone's name gave someone else power over him/her. But it's a pretty common concept in European (and probably other) mythologies, so he might have had it in the back of his mind even if he never made it explicit. Dave: >GAMES STUFFED PEOPLE PLAY: >Ruth wrote: >>I don't think Scrabble would do for a nighttime activity... >>Maybe mental chess, which the Scarecrow might enjoy, although perhaps >>not Scraps. > >Why do you surmise that the Scarecrow would like chess but not Scraps? Ruth can answer for herself, but the Scarecrow has generally seemed more interested in purely intellectual pursuits than Scraps - who's clever, but who doesn't seem to have a very long attention span. >>Or maybe they'd both quietly slip outdoors and climb trees and otherwise >>practice acrobatics? > >Provided that they have night vision... We know Scraps has good night vision (it's mentioned in both PG and LP), and considering his long night-and-day walk in _Royal Book_, the Scarecrow probably does as well. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:47:26 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz copyrights Sender: "J. L. Bell" Today I received the Dover new books catalogue listing MAGIC. The entry is illustrated not with the cover but with a picture of Prof. Wogglebug dancing with a ruler (not Ozma, a yardstick). I've never seen this art before; it must be one of the book's color plates. That implies the press is highlighting color for $7.95 as a selling point--a likely reflection of Books of Wonder's impact. The copy, incidentally, says the book "introduces a host of new characters, including the Glass Cat, the Hungry Tiger, little Trot, Cap'n Bill, and others." Oops. Beside the new book Dover features its editions of WIZARD, OZMA, EMERALD CITY, DOROTHY & WIZARD, ROAD, and ZIXI--I can't fathom a reason for that assortment if the press has other Baum titles in stock. The same catalogue lists a $1.00 abridged edition of WIZARD and a $2.95 FAVORITE STORYBOOK CHARACTERS PAPER DOLLS featuring Dorothy and Toto (after, but not by, Denslow). Dick Randolph wrote me: <> I realized after I'd posted my recipe that I'd unwittingly confined myself to the artists who illustrated canonical authors: Denslow, Neill, Morgan, Kramer, Dirk, and Martin. I meant no slight to Melody, whose drawings I've admired since they first appeared in OZIANA. Steve Teller, thank you for delving into Neill's original WONDER CITY manuscript once more. After reading the extract you returned with, I feel that we should stop asking you to do such research except in emergencies--reading too much of that draft must be painful. I can too well imagine the despair at Reilly & Lee as that manuscript came in and the holiday season rolled closer and closer! Passages like, "But worst of all was a large sign with her name: JENNY JUMP'S SUCCESS CO. which she put in a conspicuous place. It aroused the fairies against her so much they led her away to prison and kept her locked up for a long time and hoped she would give in, but she wouldn't. . . ," sound like a strained inside reference to Neill's neighbors. One observation on our original query: Whether the picture on WONDER CITY, pp. 134-5, of the young woman in the cloak was originally meant to show Jenny. Neill's statement, "she [Jenny] and her sign were brought before a fairy court and each of the judges put her mark on the sign," tells us that Neill saw all the fairy judges as female--which implies [but by no means requires] the entire fairy band was female, like Baum's fairies of Burzee. The winged crowd in the double-page spread seems to include males. Another hint that the two mysterious illustrations came from an unknown project. As for Glinda and her snood, one of the seminal images for my centennial Oz manuscript was the thought of the sorceress so upset that locks of her hair were actually falling out of her hairnets--oh, the horror! Dave Hulan wrote: <> All politicians in democracies, regardless of party, want votes. Votes can be bought with expensive campaigning, but only when we voters are willing to sell. Jenny Jump bargained for Ozians' votes, but she at least gave each person a new outfit in return (presumably an outfit with only one shoe). Today too many of us let our votes be sold by broadcasters because we: a) let thirty-second ads make up our minds instead of researching candidates and developing reasonably coherent political philosophies. b) don't hold those broadcasters to fulfill public responsibilities in return for exploiting the public airwaves. Nevertheless, politicians do respond to blocs of voters. Which brings us to the copyright bill now being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Apologies to the non-American readers of this digest.] The bill has two parts. The latter relates to musical performance (remember last year's flap about royalties for campfire songs?). The first part is what affects the publication of Oz books new and old: the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. (Before his death Rep. Bono, a copyright holder, proposed a similar bill.) The bill "extends the duration of copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, to the life of the author and 70 (currently, 50) years after the author's death," and "the duration of copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works or works made for hire [i.e., for organizations] on or after such date to 95 (currently, 75) years from the year of the first publication, or 120 (currently, 100) years from the year of creation, whichever expires first." That means that any new Oz books--Gini Wickwar's, for instance, or Dave Hulan's or Melody Grandy's, or for that matter my unpublished manuscript--would probably enjoy copyright protection twice as long as WIZARD did. The bill also "extends the duration of copyrights in their renewal term at the time of the effective date of this Act to 95 years from the date such copyrights were originally secured." This affects the Thompson and Neill copyrights whose clocks are running out. GIANT HORSE, for instance, was supposed to enter the public domain in 2003; under the bill, that becomes 2028. Bucky and Davy Jones wouldn't be public-domain characters until 2037. These extensions are of course supported by such entities as Disney (first Mickey Mouse cartoon would otherwise go into the public domain in 2004); the Hemingway heirs and his publisher, now Viacom (SUN ALSO RISES in 2001); the Gershwin estate ("American in Paris" in 2003); and others. Unfortunately, Europe has already extended its copyrights by 20 years. That makes it much harder for the US Congress not to give works created here the same protection. If you have opinions about this bill, to whom can you write? All congressmen have the same vote, but certain of them are likely to have more influence on this issue, and if they represent you they should know your opinion. The House bill was introduced by Rep. Coble, and cosponsored by Reps. Frank, Conyers, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Cannon, McCollum, Canady, Berman, Boucher, Lofgren, and Delahunt. Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the corresponding bill in the Senate. It has cosponsors in Leahy, D'Amato, Thompson, Abraham, Feinstein, Mack, DeWine, Torricelli, and Hagel. The bill will first be debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here are its members (note that the chairman and the ranking Democratic member are both sponsors of the bill): Republicans Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, Chairman Strom Thurmond, South Carolina Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Fred Thompson, Tennessee Jon Kyl, Arizona Mike DeWine, Ohio John Ashcroft, Missouri Spencer Abraham, Michigan Jeff Sessions, Alabama Democrats Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Delaware Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Dianne Feinstein, California Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Richard Durbin, Illinois Robert Torricelli, New Jersey As I said above, politicians listen to voters in their districts--if enough of them are talking. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 00:26:56 -0400 From: Lisa Bompiani Subject: Ozzy Digest X-Sender: bompi@mail.microserve.net To: DaveH47@delphi.com Hello, I'm sorry that my posts have withered again, but I stabbed myself in the hand (yes, I did) while trying to fix the sink over the weekend. No, I wasn't being careless, but the utility knife, the pipe, and I were not getting along. Alas, the plumber had to come to the rescue and typing is rather painful. However, I wanted to respond to a few points. Dave Hulan: >Not sure what you mean. Some animals _are_ smarter than others, both within >a given species and from species to species. (I mean, barring pathological >cases, all dogs are smarter than all horses, and all pigs are smarter than >all dogs, and all chimpanzees are smarter than all pigs, and all humans are >smarter than all chimps.) "Better," of course, is a separate issue; there >you're looking at a value judgment and not at an objective fact. What >"false beliefs about power and ruling" did you have in mind? Yes, some animals are smarter, . . . I recognize that and that as Bear said the inevitability and naturalness of some people ruling and others beign ruled, but I think that the repetition of this ruler/ruled motif in stories which do not deal with the more judgemental (sp) aspects of the issue can lead to the development of false or skewed beliefs concerning who should or should not possess power. Well, off to bed. I hope to offer more next time. Peace & Love, Bompi ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 98 12:23:05 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things SCRAPS, CHESS AND COPYRIGHTS: I accept everyone's reasoning at why Scraps is probably no Judith Polgar... I'm just relieved that no one tried to assert that "Girls don't play chess", because they do. Thanks J.L. Bell, for the info about the members of the Senate and the Copyright Bill... LETTER TO THREE OZ AUTHORS: Did anyone else who submitted a manuscript to the Oz Book Contest receive a letter from a Jay Delkin in Canada to the effect that he wants us to send him excerpts from our manuscripts for a compilation to be displayed at future Oz conventions? I don't mean to sound like a suspicious paranoid, but does anyone know who he is? Is he indeed a member of the IWOC? What does everyone think about his proposition? BTW, speaking of the conventions, when is the deadline for signing up for the Winkie Convention? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 8 - 9, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:49:44 -0700 From: "Stephen J. Teller" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 > > Steve - Why are we having a discussion of "Wonder City" when we are > currently on Scarecrow? > This was in response to a query that was on the Digest before my trip, and was continued during March. I was not trying to open a "Wonder City" discussion. > Hey, Peter. My sister is trying to remember a book she read about six or > seven years ago. Can you help her out? > > A high-school aged attendant discovers that one of the patients is in > fact Dorothy, and traces her family history. Figures out that Baum had > been a school teacher in Kansas and had Dorothy as a student. The book > also brings in Judy Garland's family life and the filming of the movie; > also a segment about AIDS. > > Sound familiar? > > I must confess to being not-well-read in modern Oz-related tales, and this > rings no bells with me. Can someone help me provide an identification? > > Thanks, > > Peter Hanff > The book is WAS by Geoff Ryman. It was published in 1993. > Steve: > Thanks for the quotes from the _Wonder City_ MS. It does sound as if it > doesn't resemble the published book very much... > > David Hulan > The text was greatly changed between the MS and the published version. Actually there is a lot in common. > From: "J. L. Bell" > One observation on our original query: Whether the picture on WONDER > CITY, pp. 134-5, of the young woman in the cloak was originally meant to > show Jenny. Neill's statement, "she [Jenny] and her sign were brought > before a fairy court and each of the judges put her mark on the sign," > tells us that Neill saw all the fairy judges as female--which implies [but > by no means requires] the entire fairy band was female, like Baum's fairies > of Burzee. The winged crowd in the double-page spread seems to include > males. Another hint that the two mysterious illustrations came from an > unknown project. > The "her" may not imply that the entire band was female, but that Neill was not a very good writer and did not have a solution to the indefinite pronoun problem. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > > LETTER TO THREE OZ AUTHORS: > Did anyone else who submitted a manuscript to the Oz Book Contest receive > a letter from a Jay Delkin in Canada to the effect that he wants us to send > him excerpts from our manuscripts for a compilation to be displayed at future > Oz conventions? I don't mean to sound like a suspicious paranoid, but > does anyone know who he is? Is he indeed a member of the IWOC? What > does everyone think about his proposition? Jay Delkin is a long time member of IWOOC and was a member of the Board of Directors for many years. He also submitted an MS for the Centenniel Book Contest, which did not win. He was a professor of Mathamatics at London, Ontario but is now retired. He is probably quite sincere in wanting to have a compilation of contest submissions. He has attended, I believe almost every Ozmapolitan convention since I have been going (1966). He is a very nice person who loves finding contradictions in Oz books. He is also, lioke me, fond of bad jokes. (I had first written "He is fond of bad jokes, like me" but decided that was ambiguous. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 06:56:24 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Craig Noble and Bear, You both are absolutely correct. My comments were ill advised. I should practice "biting my tongue". It was one of those instances where I immediately wished I could have reached out into the ether and pulled my message back but, alas, such things are not possible. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 07:59:17 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Howdy, > descriptions like "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" are > closer to names (being distinctive identifiers) Am I confused? For some reason I equate the "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" with Oomby Amby (sp?). > I stabbed myself in the hand (yes, I did) while trying to > fix the sink over the weekend. Bompi, you have my sympathy, but how does one fix a sink with a utility knife? Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 11:50:28 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest Patrick Maund: Congratulations on Veronica! Bear: You think copyright should be perpetual? Seriously? If you're consistent enough to think that patents should also be perpetual, we can just call it a disagreement and leave it at that. If you think patents should be limited (as they are), then the same arguments apply to copyright. Peter Hanff: The book about Dorothy as mental patient was "Was" by Geoff Ryman (1992). Lisa Bompiani: Sympathies on the hand injury! J.L. Bell: Much thanks for the information about the appropriate committee. The information that Europe has added 20 years to their copyright, though, makes me suspect that the U.S. might as well go ahead and do it, too. There are some advantages to trying to keep in step with world copyrights -- I'm not sure they're enough to offset the extra costs to the general public in paying for the royalties to go the estates of dead authors, but it would at least offset them partially. If Peter Glassman has time to put in an opinion, it would be interesting to know if he thinks that it would be possible for him to go on reprinting Thompson's books if they stay in copyright. The relevant questions would be: would Dorothy Maryott be willing to have them reprinted in return for some reasonable royalty payment (I'd imagine she would); and would adding the cost for a reasonable royalty payment make the books expensive enough to drive away enough customers to make the project too expensive for a publisher to take on (that sort of question can't be answered without trying, but Peter probably has enough experience to make a likely guess). In terms of people who want to write stories using RPT's characters, of course, the 20 years of extra copyright protection means an extra 20 years before any such stories could be published. Which wouldn't particularly matter if Bear is right in thinking that all such stories would be artistically worthless, but the example of, say, David Hulan's and Melody Grandy's Oz retreads suggests that some of the stories involved might be well worth reading. Of course, there's a small ethical problem in going against an author's wishes, in this case, RPT's wish, which Dorothy Maryott is following, not to have her characters written by other authors. But author's wishes are routinely ignored when enough readers disagree with them: sometimes the heirs side with readers (or are willing to if given enough financial incentive), and sometimes the readers just wait it out till the copyright lapses. Biographies of the poet Matthew Arnold (who didn't want any done) have been published illustrated with relevant quotations from his works, most readers of Henry James read the early, less wordy editions and not the re-writes James did late in life, and various unfinished or unpolished last works their authors didn't want published have been published. Getting at unpublished works, of course, can't be done without cooperation from the heirs -- although I notice in J.L.'s summary an interesting detail that I haven't seen in the newspapers, putting a cap of 120 years on the protection for unpublished works. (I think that's the first time a limit has been put on that.) Dave Hardenbrook: Jay Delkin is a long-time IWWOC member, has had work published in the "Bugle" and for a while was an editor of it. Displaying excerpts from private Oz mss. at Oz cons sounds like a nice idea. (Jay would probably be trustworthy even if it might be possible to abuse having or displaying such a set of excerpts, but I can't offhand think of any likely abuses. Publishing the set without the authors' permissions is an obvious possible abuse, but it doesn't sound like a likely one.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:19:37 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest p.s. On second thought, Jay Delkin wasn't past "Bugle" editor, but past "Oziana" editor. Dave, if you're writing him, you might ask if he has comments on benefits of having U.S. copyright in step with other parts of world. He had to ask the authors of the Great Detective in Oz stories to refer to the character by title only, and not use the name Sherlock Holmes, as I recall. Holmes as a character at that time had come into public domain in the US, as the earliest Holmes stories came into US public domain (publication plus 56 years), but the character and the stories were still under copyright in the British Commonwealth, including Canada. (By contrast, my "Sherlock Holmes in Oz" appeared in the first "Oziana" without problems, under a US editor.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 14:48:20 -0500 From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Patrick: *Congratulations!* Bob C.: The Keretarians are in HANDY MANDY. It's the northeasternmost identifiable kingdom in the Munchkin Country on the Haff-Martin map, although Melody's Seven Blue Mountains are even nearer the northeastern corner. Nathan: >>I think the brains must have run out before _Scalawagons_, though... > >Along with Ozma's, Glinda's, Dorothy's, Besty's, Kabumpo's, etc. IMHO, >Neill wasn't that effective at portraying already established >characters, but he was pretty good with his own. Agreed, especially regarding Kabumpo, whose character didn't even resemble Thompson's version. Ozma, Glinda, Dorothy, and Betsy didn't seem particularly stupid in Neill's books (where they appeared, which wasn't all that much, except for Ozma), but they didn't follow Baum or Thompson's versions very closely. Jenny and Number Nine and Bucky and Davy were definitely Neill's best characters, though, and I'd like to use them myself if they go PD before I'm beyond writing. (However, if this copyright extension goes through there's not much chance of that; 95 years from _Wonder City_ I'll be 99 years old, should I live so long...) Bear: >David - I don't think you understood the comment about "gypsy camps' but >I'll let that pass. I think I did, but if you want to discuss the matter let's do it in private E-mail. J.L.: >I realized after I'd posted my recipe that I'd unwittingly confined myself >to the artists who illustrated canonical authors: Denslow, Neill, Morgan, >Kramer, Dirk, and Martin. I meant no slight to Melody, whose drawings I've >admired since they first appeared in OZIANA. Morgan? Who he? (Or she?) Also, you had Shanower in your original list but omitted him from this one, though he's illustrated non-canonical works by canonical authors Neill and Payes. I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that the entire fairy band in Burzee was female. While the fairies all seem to have female form most of the time, Areol takes on male form before giving the cloak to Fluff. ILTT that fairies don't actually have a gender as we know it, but that their forms are under their control at all times. They usually manifest themselves in female form in Baum's books because that's how most people thought of them around 1900, but it isn't inherent in their natures. (Which may explain why it was so easy for Mombi to turn Ozma into a boy. OTOH, this would shoot a big hole in Dave's book where Ozma gets married...) Pity; neither of my senators is on the Judiciary Committee of their respective houses. Still, I'll write them and my congressman, who isn't a bad sort as Republicans go. Bompi: Ouch! Sympathies, and I hope your hand heals quickly. Dave: Yes, I got a copy of that letter from Jay Delkin. He's a long-time IWOC member, and was editor of OZIANA for several years before Robin took it over. His offer is legitimate enough, I'm sure, though I don't know whether I'll act on it or not. If I send anything it'll be a part that I'm going to cut from it in the process of revising it for BoW, since I don't want any potential copyright problems. The flyers with info on the deadlines for the various conventions this summer haven't appeared yet, so I can't give you an exact date, but the deadline for signing up for Winkies is usually around the end of the first week of June. It isn't imminent, anyhow. (Have you checked the IWOC Web site? It might be listed there.) David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 16:34:47 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Nathan: The Tin Woodman was called Niccolo` Chopper (accent grave in Unix). This means Steven Alquist screwed up by calling him "Nicholas" in _Oz Squad_, but Alquist also had Dorothy say "I'm pregnant" on the last page of what he foreworded would be the last issue, at least for the time being, which has not resumed at present. I remember seeing Jay Delkin's name on ballots for representatives, and I think I met him at the convention last year, but I haven't gotten a notice from him yet. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 19:31:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: oz news TBS will premiere THE WIZARD OF OZ on its network on November 21st, 1999, the year of the film's 60th anniversary. CBS will air the film for their final time on May 8th. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 20:06:39 -0400 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Ruth Berman wrote: > David Hulan & Mike Turner: The resemblance of Guadapoochee and > Gallapoochie isn't as close as it looks if you leave off the "poochie," > which is just a diminutive for "pooch" in the sense of "dog." Checking > a dictionary, I see that "pooch" in that sense dates from 1924 and is > of "origin unknown". > (Assuming she meant me....) Well, of course I know, and I'm sure Dave knows that poochie means dog. But that doesn't just mean you can leave it off. It is significant in the fact that both choose to use it, and not some other "dog word" (like fido, canid, woofwoof, etc.). In other words, do use your example, "antidisestablishmentarianism" and "disestablishmentarianism" also don't look very much alike, if you leave off the "establishmentarianism", which of course, just means the doctrine of the establishment. See my point? I think in these particular cases, "Guadapoochee" was trying to sound Amerindian, and "Gallapoochie" was trying to be the same kind of Seussian that "Rootie Kazootie" and his girlfriend (whose name escapes me at the moment) were. On copyright extension: as I mentioned a long time ago when the subject first came up, the great story "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson (I believe) in the book of the same name, addresses this very issue of congress trying to extend copyrights into perpetuity, and the protagonist (an artist) trying to convince her congressperson why this is a bad idea. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky Oz sighting: a bumper sticker for a stay at home mom's group had "'There's no place like home' -- Dorothy had the right idea" ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 20:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: CrNoble Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Patrick Maund: Congratulations on the birth of Veronica! Craig Noble ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:01:15 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Sure Peter, that sounds like "Was" a really ugly book. Geoff Ryman used Oz to demonstrate his considerable pathology. You are way ahead having missed it. Bell >As for Glinda and her snood, one of the seminal images for my centennial Oz manuscript was the thought of the sorceress so upset that locks of her hair were actually falling out of her hairnets--oh, the horror! This is a joke, right? This is followed by some really gratuitous political comments. I thought we had agreed to avoid this type of thing. I don't think we can ever break Hulan of this, but I have hopes for you. Regards, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 22:01:39 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz, WAS, and what will be Sender: "J. L. Bell" Peter Hanff's colleague's sister wondered about this plot: <> This is WAS, by Geoff Ryman, or a reasonable facsimile of it. I just finished reading it for the first time. Thanks, Nathan DeHoff, for the reminder that <> That cuts the number of Ozians named in WIZARD down by one, and a major one at that. On that topic, Ruth Berman wrote: <> We can make a useful distinction between names (Tattypoo), definite-article designations (the Good Witch of the North), and indefinite-article designations (a good witch). Most Oz books operate at the first level; WIZARD at the second; LIL WIZARD at the third. After his first Oz book, Baum moved several characters from the second level to the first by making their designations into names (Shaggy, as you point out, and Wizard) or giving them names (Nick, Omby Amby). I think that creates a friendlier Oz, but a less archetypal one. Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Is it too early to point out that in SCARECROW he needs Glinda to provide a light for him on his walk to Jinxland? I think our discussion of what Scraps and the Scarecrow do when the lights go out is missing an important element: not all nights are equally dark. In our electrified world, we often forget that the darkness varies by the Moon's size, the cloud cover, and trees. On some nights we can read; on others we can't see where we put our feet. And a rural society like Oz, or like Roselawn, would be quite aware of those differences. Farmers would plan to harvest on nights with a full Moon. Lovers would dance by its silvery light. And, with any almanac, the Scarecrow could conceivably schedule a chess game. Richard Bauman wrote: <> I suppose this is in response to my statement. "The collective wisdom of the community is almost always better than the thoughts of even the most intelligent individual." I had no idea that opposing autocracy would cause comment. But for the record let me repeat my support for government through the all-important opinion polls of regular popular elections. The closest we have to <> in the U.S. is the popular referenda instituted by states in the West during the Populist era, and now more popular there than ever. In the discussion of copyright term extensions, Bear also wrote: <> What exactly do copyright holders create? It's not a "thing," like a clay pot or a better mousetrap. It's the expression of an idea in reproducible form--a form most often meant to be sold to other people. Why should those others, having obtained the expression of your idea, not reproduce it, change it, and/or sell it again? After all, many would say, "If you *buy* something it should be yours to dispose of as you wish." The reason is because that unauthorized reproduction--which, we mustn't forget, is market-driven--would quickly make publication unrewarding. That, in turn, would cut down on the spread of ideas and information, weakening society. Therefore, the drafters of our Constitution instituted the copyright. Our society thus created an *artificial* right (no copyright exists in nature); it skews the market for publishing rights to benefit the creator. Our society also protects each author's copyright by providing courts of law to punish transgressors. No individual action nor market could do that. Because society created and preserves the copyright, it can define that copyright within time for maximum benefit. In striking the balance of individual reward and public gain, protection for one full generation after the author's death is long enough. Extending the copyright term (i.e., the artificial right to prevent peers of the creator's *grandchildren* from reproducing a work) doesn't spur new creativity or spread information--it brings no benefit to society at all. These are not new ideas. The question of copyright was widely debated throughout the Enlightenment. The libertarians were then *opposed* to the notion. Thomas Jefferson wrote against the Constitution's principle of intellectual property in both patents and copyrights. (There are two mighty ironies there. First, of course, Jefferson's livelihood depended on land property, which he didn't create, and human property, which meant taking the creations of others. Second, he ended up running the U.S. patents office as Washington's Secretary of State.) J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 23:06:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Orange5193 Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest/ submission. To the question of Nick Chopper's name: >The Tin Woodman's name is not mentioned in _Wizard_. I believe that it >was used in the stage play, but it was not mentioned in the books until >_Land_ "Nick Chopper" did indeed occur first in the Baum/ Tietjens/ Sloane musical, actually first as "Niccolo Chopper" (as part of Cynthia Cynch's dialogue intro to "Niccolo's Piccolo") and then later by Nick himself. While I'm at it, being new to the group, I'll introduce myself. I'm James Doyle of Houston, an Oz fan now for 32 of my 41 years who has recently returned to Oz after a long absence. I'm a proofreader by trade and a composer as well, having recently finished a full-length music score for "His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz". I'm currently re-reading the Baum books in order (up to Emerald City at this point) and have been over the last 2 years been assembling a revised performing version of Baum's 1902 Wizard musical (if nothing else, the pantomime music which opens the show really needs to be preserved). It's a pleasure joining the group. James "But on the piercing piccolo, my highly gifted Niccolo Could charm with much celerity, a melody divine Defying fell malaria, he'd execute his aria With marvelous dexterity, each night at half past nine" (1902 Macdonough/ Sloane) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 05:47:13 +0000 From: Scott Olsen Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Anyone catch Jeopardy the other night? I seldem watch it, but I was channel surfing and managed to see the "final Jeopardy" answer. When I saw that the category was "Children's Books and Authors", I said "Baum". As fate would have it, the "answer was "This author also created another two-lettered land called 'Ix'". One person answered Baum, another Dr. Seuss, and the other C.S. Lewis.... Re: Copyrights At first I supported the extension, which I understand is mostly being pushed by Disney to protect its early films. (By the way, it's my understanding that the situation as it exists now does NOT give others the right to make "Mickey Mouse" films, etc., only the right to issue prints of "Steamboat Willie" without paying Disney.) Anyway, like I was saying, I supported this at first, until it was pointed out to me that Disney made a lot of money (and, in fact, was able to prosper and become very successful) because they made motion pictures from stories and subjects that were in the public domain (i.e Snow White, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, etc.) In fact, I remember reading that that was the main reason Maud Baum refused to deal with Disney in the 1930's. Another way to put it: How much longer will we be unable to sing "Happy Birthday" without paying a royality? All for now, Scott Olsen ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:20:58 -0600 (CST) From: Ruth Berman Subject: ozzy digest pps Some further musings on copyright. I said that the 120 years "since creation" would put a cap on the copyright protection for unpublished works, but looking again I see that it doesn't apply to unpublished works generally, but to anonymous/pseudonymous/works-for-hire. It occurs to me, though, that there's a significant change in the copyright expiration limits from whichever expires *later* to whichever expires *first*. This change means that in many cases the actual increase in copyright term would not be a full 20 years. If the death- year+x and copyright-year+x+25 average out to the same thing, that doesn't make much difference, but my impression is that enough authors do enough of their works before the last 25 years of their lives rather than during the last 25, to make death+50 on average a longer term than copyright+75. How much longer, I don't know, but I'll guess an average of 5-10 years longer. If so, a change to "whichever expires sooner" means that the actual increase in copyright time would average 10-15 years, not the full 20. The authors of works published before 1976 (and the corporations with works-for-hire works) do get a full 20 year increase, but the extra lets them catch up with the (probable) average extra time the death+50 group had been getting. In RPT's case, since she died in 1976, if the death+50 protection of 1976 had been made retroactive to works copyrighted earlier, all of her Oz books would still be under copyright and would remain so until 2026, instead of running out between 1996-2014. The new bill would apply to her Oz books as publication+95 copyright protection, which would mean that the copyrights would run out from 2016-2038 -- or, on average, just about the same as would have been the case if the death+50 protection had been applied to all existing copyrights instead of to the new ones only. I'm not sure that the general extension of copyrights is equitable, but it looks as if some extra protection for the pre-1976 (and corporate) copyrights probably is. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:27:11 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Dave wrote: >Did anyone else who submitted a manuscript to the Oz Book Contest receive >a letter from a Jay Delkin in Canada to the effect that he wants us to send >him excerpts from our manuscripts for a compilation to be displayed at future >Oz conventions? I don't mean to sound like a suspicious paranoid, but >does anyone know who he is? Is he indeed a member of the IWOC? What >does everyone think about his proposition? Member: yes. Regular at MunchCon. Past director. "L. Frank Baum Award" '86. Proposition: I'm certainly considering it. ------ On another matter, everyone run out to your favorite comicbook store and get the current issue of "Pinky and the Brain" (with the "Jaws" parody on the cover). In the second story, the Brain tries to take over Oz. (The "Oz", oddly enough, of '39 _and_ '85.) // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:21:16 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: >Scraps >probably doesn't have very good night vision, though, since she has to >rely on Bungle's in _Patchwork Girl_. Well, why shouldn't a magic cat have better night vision than a magic human? // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:01:56 -0500 From: jwkenne@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-98 Tyler Jones wrote >The only >complaint I have about Dick Martin is his tendency to have Dorothy look >like a Barbie Doll. Not fair! His "look" was pretty much set in the 50's, at the same time the Barbie Doll was created. (An unfortunate period for women's looks -- pretty much all the hairstyles and makeup ideals were simply hideous, and American women were pretty much expected to be either plain housewives, cute -- but no more than cute -- virgins, or blousy, brainless, but great-looking -- and almost invariably blonde -- sluts. ) // John W Kennedy ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 14:34:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Patrick: Congrads! Lisa Bompi: Ouch! I feel for you. (I literally felt for you last summer--I don't know if you were on the Digest at the time--when I sliced the skin off the fronts of three fingers. Nothing so deep as you imply--not a stab, just a slice--but painful nonetheless. I know what it's like trying to type like that, too--not easy!). Dave: Yes, Jay Delkin is indeed a member of the IWOC. (I don't remember how I remember that, but I do.) Until next time, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 23:09:10 -0700 From: ozbot Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-98 Non Oz-copyright question-- Is it true Disney, etc. are afraid of the copyrights running out on Mickey Mouse, etc? Wouldn't this have been created as a work-for-hire and thus owned by the corporation? (Or, if not true with this specific example, what about copyrights owned by companies? How would a copyright run out if the "creator" i.e. the company isn't "dead?") In the Disney case, however, wouldn't the *film* itself be the only thing copyrighted? Mickey Mouse as a symbol is a trademark, right? But his appearance in film is part of a copyrighted package. If the FILM's copyright expires, then the only danger to the proprietors is in the film's free and public distribution. Likewise, the characters themselves as they appear in other stories/films would still be copyrighted, such as Oz writers now treading a fine line in how they portray the non-PD/PD Kabumpo. In any case, feel free to respond to me in private e-mail, as this can get quite non Ozzy to talk about I am sure. On an Oz related subject-- Is there a good source (and what is its availability) for an "index" of sorts to Oz characters and their appearances in the Oz books (major and guest appearances, too.) It's something I'm pondering on doing for a website of mine I'm developing. Thanks! ozbot Danny Wall "I think I should understand that better," Alice said very politely, "if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it." "That's nothing to what I could say if I chose," the Duchess replied, in a pleasant tone. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 98 13:44:24 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things MGM'S _WIZARD_ ON TV: Mark Anthony Donajkowski wrote: >TBS will premiere THE WIZARD OF OZ on its network on > November 21st, 1999, the year of the film's 60th > anniversary. CBS will air the film for their final time > on May 8th. The End of An Era...But why is Turner showing it on TBS and not TCM, where it would be commercial-free?? Ozma: Unless he wants it to be available to as many people as possible... Jellia (Who doesn't have cable): Then why did he buy if off of CBS to begin with??? A REMINDER: We start discussing _The Scarecrow of Oz_ on Monday... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave ************************************************************************ Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "We have enough food to last thirty thousand years but we've only got one After Eight mint left. And everyone's too polite to take it." -- Holly the computer, from _Red Dwarf_ ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 10 - 12, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:25:47 -0400 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Sender: Tyler Jones Ruth: I have a bad feeling that the copyright law eventually will be extended into perpetuity. Despite things such as John Bells comment that Monarchy is a childish system, the idea of right-of-birth appeals to many people on a deeply emotional level. That is, if John Smith is noted in some field of achievement, then John Smith, Jr. becomes the heir apparant to that field. There are numerous examples, but I'll forego them here. John Bell: When Glinda mentions that her Magic Book also told Dorothy WHY she was coming as well as the fact itself, is the closest evidence we have in the FF that the Book can interpret intentions and thoughts as well as actions. For example, there's be a world of difference between these two statements: 1. Nog-Nog the magician is doing magical research. This comment, after all, may appear hundreds of times when commenting about fairyland. 2. Nog-Nog is preparing a magical spell with which he intends to turn all the Ozzy citizens into sludge and then bring in his own people so that Oz will become a vast slave labor camp making pre-fab homes. Bear: I'm not sure where you were going on your copyright comments. I can see the arguement as far as physical property. For example, the chair I am sitting on has been in our family for five generations. I would heartily be against declaring the chair to be in the Public Domain and passing it around the neighborhood. An idea, though, it is bit more tenuous. While I am in favor of the creator owning it for all of his life, and perhaps letting his children reap some of the windfall, I just can't see ownership of an idea passing down through the generations unto the end of time. One of the problems wiht this is that after about a dozen generations, hundreds of people could claim ownership of a story or a character. In order to use these, all of them must be tracked down and gotten to sign on. This would be economically infeasible. I suppose that copyrights could be willed to one person, just like any other property, so that there would always be one person (or trust) with control, but in the case of stories and fictional characters, I still can't agree that they should be copyrighted forever, or even more that 75 years, mainly because I don't believe that a copyrighted story or character is property in the normal sense. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 06:34:09 -0700 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-98 James, > It's a pleasure joining the group. It's a pleasure having you as a member. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:51:39 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Steadman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-98 Neill's bane: There was a great debate going on at the time he wrote _Wonder City_ which divided the country into two factions, pronoun and anti-noun. Sorry, Jeremy Steadman, jsteadman@loki.berry.edu (kiex@aol.com during the summer and school vacations) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 "Whenever I try to recite Murphy's law, I get it all wrong." ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:38:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Druyan Voyager Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, Charon, and Oz [I received this E-mail in reply to my letter to Ann Druyan concerning "Project Oz on Charon" -- Dave] Dear Mr. Hardenbrook, Ms. Druyan has received and read your e-mail. She is traveling presently and has asked me to respond to your request. Unfortunately, she is completely oversubscribed with other obligations and is unable to participate in your Oz proposition. She wishes you luck with the project and sends her very best wishes. Cordially, Karenn Gobrecht Executive Assistant and Office Manager ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:16:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Ozmama Subject: Ozzy Digest 4/10 Dave said:<> Scraps, who does have cable, replies: Money? Scarecrow: How perceptive of you, Miss Patches, m'dear! Ozma (in very small voice): Oh. I'd forgotten those commercial thingies. How sad. --Robin ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:27:42 -0700 From: Robert Schroeder Subject: Ozzy Digest stuff... Ok, so I'm a little behind in reading the "Digest". In fact, I'm a little behind in reading anything Ozzy right now. I took a detour thru the Ol' South and read "Gone With The Wind" and "Scarlett", and then had to catch up with Anne Rice, reading her newest book "Pandora" (one of the best in the Vampire Chronicles IMHO) and looking forward to her new book on Armand. But anyway, here goes: Congrats on the new daughter Patrick! May Ozma smile upon you and Veronica in this wonderful time! OZ ON TOUR Thank you Bob C for passing along the URL for Oz on Tour. I made it to the site and began to scream with delight. Eartha Kitt as the WOW and Mickey Rooney as the Wizard! What a wonderful cast....and then the screams grew louder as I learned the show will be in San Antonio this August. Apparently, my summer is now planned, all of it having to do with the theater. First on my agenda is a return to Tuna Texas for "Red White and Tuna" (if you haven't seen this show DO IT! Tuna TX is the third smallest town in Texas, where Patsy Cline lives on and the Lions Club is too liberal. All thirty residents are played by two men, Joe Sears and Jason Williams.) then off to see "Angels in America" (both shows), "Annie", "Once Upon A Mattress", "Chicago" the musical "Texas", "Rent", and now, a trip down the Yellow Brick Road. Who could ask for anything more, except maybe winning the lottery..... A few digests ago, someone mentioned a version of the music from WOZ done by Bobby McFerrin. Can you pass along more info. I love Bobby as well as the music from the movie. Is this the version that Scott Hamilton skated during the recent "Skate Debate". Scott did a wonderful routine, playing ALL the characters, except the WOW, which was played by a huge hat that descended over Scott. When the hat came up, Scott was wearing ruby red skates and did a moving dance to "Rainbow". Enough for now! Except I want to wish all a Happy Easter and Happy Passover! Robert ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:54:36 -0400 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Sender: Richard Bauman Ruth >Bear: You think copyright should be perpetual? Seriously? If you're consistent enough to think that patents should also be perpetual, we can just call it a disagreement and leave it at that. If you think patents should be limited (as they are), then the same arguments apply to copyright. After I have lived in my house for 50 years can you come over and take it from me? I don't know Ruth, I would like to hear an argument FOR "taking" other's intellectual property. I had patents at GTE. However, when I went to work there I agreed to turn over any such to them. They went to all the work of going from a disclosure to the final patent. That takes years. For each patent they gave you $100, a nice plaque, and a dinner. That seemed fair to me. And, no, I don't see why patents are limited either. Someone has put in a lot of time, money, sweat and tears to produce something. Time passes and someone else can come along and "take" it for free. Just doesn't seem right to me. Please enlighten me. J.L. >In striking the balance of individual reward and public gain, protection for one full generation after the author's death is long enough. Who says it is long enough? "Public gain?" Who is that? The patent/copyright doesn't revert to the government (public), it is fair game for anyone who wants to exploit it without having done one thing to create it. >Extending the copyright term (i.e., the artificial right to prevent peers of the creator's *grandchildren* from reproducing a work) doesn't spur new creativity or spread information--it brings no benefit to society at all. I see, you are going to justify "taking" by claiming it "spurs new creativity or spreads information." This is just more sophistry to support what is nothing more than theft. Observe how we are getting used to such arguments. There is a swamp behind your house so the government "takes" it to protect some newt. Hey they are just doing it to protect the species for "the common good." What if it's your house? Also, JL, you are getting on in years, probably using up more medical assets, maybe not enjoying life as much. For the "common good" would you mind if we "snuff" you to reduce the financial load on the younger generations? Do you think this is a stretch? I sure don't. WOW! JWK - Tell us how you really feel about women in the 50's. We sure had a different experience. What else is new..... Sigh. Discouraged Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:23:24 -0400 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz and the public domain Sender: "J. L. Bell" A quirky question for all: Did the instrumental rock group the Ventures ever record a version of "Over the Rainbow"? Steve Teller wrote: <> To which I say, thank you for carrying on the discussion we've had, especially from the higher knowledge base afforded by your copy of Neill's first draft. Merely because we're scheduled to discuss SCARECROW next week strikes me as no reason to object to a discussion of WONDER CITY. Indeed, ILTT most of the people on this list are able to carry on different discussions simultaneously. And therefore I'll continue. You pointed out a third picture of a young woman in cape and floppy hat: the chapter opener on p. 25. I agree this is recognizably Jenny. The horizontal lines at the bottom of this picture and its overall style indicate it was drawn alongside the other chapter openers. But there's one odd difference: this is the only chapter-opening illustration which contains Neill's signature. (Three others--pp. 62, 125, 162--have his initials.) Might that hint Neill was self-conscious about this drawing as he tried to integrate the old "firefly fairies" image into this book? You also pointed out <>. That women is wearing a broad hat, though in a different style from Jenny's on p. 25. For a Munchkin matron, she looks young. Again, I wonder if Neill chose those details to allow him to use an old drawing to show the same character later. We'll never know. Of Thompson's still-copyrighted works Ruth Berman wondered: <> I expect Ms. Maryott would be agreeable, since the Thompson estate made such a deal with Del Rey. Whether it would be affordable for a publisher is another question; it proved not to be for Del Rey. Standard hardcover royalties start at 10% of the book's purchase price. About half of that price goes to the publisher (Books of Wonder's actual share from Morrow for Thompson books may make the following math even more ominous). Thus, royalties on a hardcover sale take at least 20% of a publisher's revenue. In other words, if BoW were paying standard royalties on its upcoming reissue of KABUMPO, it would need 25% more revenue. Selling 25% more copies would be desirable but difficult, as I'm sure the firm's selling as many as it can already. Raising the price 25% would bring it to nearly $29, well above the price ceiling booksellers perceive over children's books. A higher price would cut the sales, meaning higher printing costs per book, meaning an even higher price--a vicious cycle that could put an end to BoW's hope to make these books available with color art restored for a new generation of readers. That is, assuming that the BoW imprint is operating like most small-run presses: on the margin of profitability. Ruth wrote: <> One classic case is Margaret Mitchell, who never wanted a sequel to GONE WITH THE WIND. Her heirs commissioned SCARLETT and others because they saw money--lots of money--to be made. After, I think, 2011 (2031 under the proposed new law) they won't have the monopoly on those sequels. Another sort of shenanigan came from the James Joyce estate, which endorsed a new version of ULYSSES--with a new copyright--when the old one was about to expire in 1989. The "improvements" in that version were roundly attacked by scholars as going against Joyce's intent, and it seems to have been withdrawn. (Meanwhile, the price of the original ULYSSES has gone down as other publishers have brought out their editions.) I recall reading an extract from a Thompson letter to Reilly & Lee speaking of how only she should use her characters. Yet Neill used Sir Hokus and Kabumpo. The McGraws mention Hokus in MERRY-GO-ROUND. Did they need only the publisher's permission? (R&L owned the original copyrights.) Dave Hulan wrote that Neill's <> I agree, though a glimmer of the Elegant One's vanity comes through when he meets Davy Jones and discovers he's not the biggest thing around (LUCKY BUCKY, p. 282). Ruth Berman also wrote: <> Interesting point. The first two Oz authors show the potentially large discrepancy between America's pre-1976 copyright law and today's. Thompson, having written her most valuable books early and dying late, would have gotten more from the current arrangement of death plus 50 years. Baum, writing late and dying relatively young, would actually have gotten longer protection for his later Oz books from the old term of 56 years. The 1976 law's extension of current copyrights to 75 years was intended as a bridge from one system to another, however. It wasn't meant to grant every copyright-holder the same windfall, just longer protection than they'd had before so none would complain. If we consider copyright through the metaphor of a contract, Baum and Thompson both went into a deal with U.S. society for up to 56 years of copyright protection. Both lucked out with more time, though only Thompson lived to see it. The same contract metaphor shows the dubiousness of the current extension: without giving anything new to the public in return, holders of old copyrights want more than they contracted for, more even than the extra they received in 1976. Scott Olsen wrot