When I was younger, I loved reading the Oz books. Every time I went to the library, I would immediately go to the "Baum" shelf and see if I could find any books that I hadn't read. When I finished reading the original series by L. Frank Baum, I started to dabble in the Oz books continued by other authors like Ruth Plumly Thompson. However, I never enjoyed these books as much as the original series, and I soon gave up on reading the later Oz stories.My love for the Oz books prompted me to read Katharine M. Roger's biography of L. Frank Baum. If you love the Oz books, you really should read this book. It was fascinating to learn about the different social/historical factors that influenced Baum's writing. For example, Baum was married to Maud Gage, a feminist and suffragette. Maud's mother, Matilda Gage, also was a leader in the movement for women's rights. It is interesting to see how Baum was affected by the idea of a matriarchal society and the role of women in government - only female witches have power in Oz, and the only magical male leader (the Wizard) is actually a humbug.1
I also learned in this book that Baum was a theosophist. This was particularly interesting to me and helped me place Baum within a better historical context - I already knew that theosophy was a popular religious philosophy in the late 19th/early 20th centuries (it attracted artists like Kandinsky and Mondrian). This discovery made me realize that I've never tried to place Baum in a historical context before; I've always thought of Oz books (and Baum as the "Royal Historian of Oz") as being timeless like Oz itself.
There are so many other interesting things I learned in this book: "Gump" was a slang term for "fool" between 1865 and 1920; the Woozy character was inspired by Cubism and based off of Marcel Duchamp's painting Nude Descending a Staircase; Baum was passionate about breeding fancy poultry, which ultimately influenced his development of the character Billina.2
This biography has got me excited about the Oz books once again, and I am also interested in reading the other books discussed by Rogers, particularly Baum's novels for adults and the various books he published under pseudonyms. First I think I will read The Fate of a Crown, a novel set during the 1889 revolution in Brazil (published until the pseudonym Schuyler Staunton).
Did you read the Oz books as a child? Who were your favorite characters? My favorites were Polychrome, Button Bright, and Ozma.
1 Katharine M. Rogers, "L. Frank Baum: Creator of Oz," (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2002), 79.
2 Ibid., 7, 125, 194.
Posts
9 comments:
Oh dear, I'm just getting the hang of commenting and I'm afraid I made a false move... Well, here's what I intended to say:
I read your post and just had to say something because my current humanities professor had just happened to discuss "The Wizard of Oz" in historical context. Your biography may have already mentioned some of these, but according to my professor, the book is about the economic views surrounding the presidential elections of 1890. The Cowardly Lion represents candidate William Jennings Bryan. The Tin Man represents the industries and factories of Northeast U.S., and the Scarecrow is the farmers of the Midwest.
A debated issue of the election was whether to make the change to back U.S. currency from the gold standard to the silver. Hence the Yellow Brick Road and the Silver Shoes. And since all the gold of was found in California, that state is the Wicked Witch of the West's similitude. The Emerald City (green for currency) is Washington D.C., housing incompetent wizards (politicians) who have the facade of power. Lastly, Dorothy, the poor American city, is chosen to set things in order.
This is a bit lengthy, but I thought you'd find the perspective interesting like I did.
And I admit to going through a lengthy Oz phase, but I suppose I was too much a purist to allow myself to read any Oz books that were not written by Baum. I think because he created the vision, I simply trusted him more to expound upon it.
Wow. So, I was going to write a very similar post myself in the next couple weeks! When I was a little girl I loved the Little House series and anything Laura Ingalls Wilder. I reread the series last week and it stirred my curiosity on all of it. Apparently, the series is very controversial in context of its accuracy and who actually did the bulk of the writing. I've been reading a lot of bios and historical timelines about it. I was wanting to do a post on everything I found out once I did more research. So, basically, I was so excited to read this post! I love that you care about such things.
I've never read any of the Oz books, sadly. I've considered reading them now that I'm an adult. I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. How many are there and why are there other authors that took up the stories?
Thanks for sharing, C! J was telling me that he heard the Wizard of Oz is an extended metaphor, but Rogers didn't really discuss it in much depth. (Which I think is rather curious. I wonder if she doesn't agree with it or finds the metaphor debatable for some reason.)
Anyhow, I think that's really fascinating way to look at the book. I want to reread the Oz books and pick up all of the political/philosophical underpinnings that I missed as a kid.
I...liked the Oz books. But not a lot. I read 3-4 of them, and enjoyed Ozma quite a bit, but essentially I like Oz like I like...Yellow Submarine. Or the Phantom Tollbooth. Somehow, the extreme whimsy and word play diminishes what qualifies as a compelling read. To me. And I recognize I'm a bit alone in this one.
Also? A certain mother of yours told me to ask you about your experience at parochial school. ???
E, I loved Laura Ingalls Wilder as a kid too. I'm excited for that post!
L. Frank Baum died just before he turned 63, after suffering from health issues (primarily a lifelong degenerative heart condition). He wrote Oz books up until the end of his life, and Glinda of Oz was published posthumously. I found Roger's paragraph describing Baum's death to be especially poignant and moving. He lapsed in and out of consciousness on 5 May 1919, but occasionally woke and told his wife that he loved her. On 6 May, he woke up again and his lips moved. "He murmured something indistinct and then clearly spoke his last words: 'Now we can cross the Shifting Sands.'"(Rogers, 239). (The Shifting Sands were part of the desert which completely surrounded the country of Oz.) I love that Oz was such an integral part of Baum's life that he mentioned Oz with his dying breath.
Anyhow, to answer your question, E, Oz books were still in high demand after Baum died. For this reason, many people tried to continue the Oz legacy and write more books. Even within the past twenty years, books like Gregory Maguire's Wicked have been written (although this book is based more on the 1939 movie with Judy Garland than on Baum's vision). Truly, Baum left a lasting legacy in the world of fiction.
I am surprised that you don't like the Oz books too much, Ant Bee! But I can see what you're saying about the fanciful nature of the writing style, etc. As a kid, I remember thinking that the character Scraps (the Patchwork Girl) was exceedingly whimsical, almost in an annoying way. I wonder if I still would think that.
Anyhow, I love the Oz books just the same.
C, I went back to Roger's book to see if I could find anything out about the interpretation you mentioned. I found a lengthy discussion of this analysis in an endnote, and Rogers argues that she finds this theory to be far-fetched (which explains why she didn't discuss it in the main body of her book).
Rogers is skeptical of Harry M. Littlefield's "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism" because the theory contradicts all of Baum's known political views. He supported the Republican Party (not the Populist Party) and opposed free silver when he was was a newspaper editor. He also published pro-Gold Standard verses in 1896. She also refutes part of Littlefield's interpretation of the Tin Man - although she agrees that industrial workers were arguably reduced to machines (like the Tin Man), she does not think that the tender-hearted character could be interpreted as dehumanization (Rogers, 265).
She also mentioned another analysis by John G. Geer and Thomas R. Rochan, who take Littlefield's ideas further with their "William Jennings Bryan on the Yellow Brick Road." This is a different interpretation than the one you mentioned (I'm sure there are several interpretations out there), because Geer and Rochan think that Dorothy represents Bryan. They see Dorothy's various difficulties in Oz representing Bryan's presidential campaign in 1896, while Dorothy's ultimate success refers to Bryan's victory in 1890. Rogers thinks that this analysis is also far-fetched and argues that if anyone represented Bryan, it would be the Wizard who also came from Nebraska (Rogers, 266).
Anyhow, I think that the ideas you presented are still interesting, but I wanted to share what Rogers thinks. Personally, I think I'm inclined to agree with Rogers. She points out that she agrees with Michael Gessel's argument against Littlefield's theory - it is illogical for Baum to include a political parable in one novel and not in any other. Anytime Baum did make any political reference in his books, it was extremely clear (Rogers, 266).
Nonetheless, I think it's great that the Oz books are taken seriously by scholars and literary critics, don't you? :)
Yeah, I can see how some of the parallels could be faulty. I don't know if I trust this professor's opinion thoroughly, but he likes to talk as if he knows what the symbolism ought to be. I do think it's great that there can be this kind of depth and controversy in a classic children series.
I actually spoke to dad about it,and I was surprised that he has an opinion concerning "Oz". He's convinced that L. Frank Baum's works are full of political implications. Maybe he would find interest in your book as well. :)
Post a Comment