10 Comments

Comment I was going to leave on the foreword, but it didn't have comments enabled:

These days, if you mention adaptations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the first one to spring to mind is usually the massively popular 1939 film. But the *first* massively popular adaptation was the stage version Baum mentions in the foreword, which opened on Broadway less than three years after the book was published.

It made a lot of changes, of course, due to the practicalities of live staging or in deference to the tastes of theatre-going audiences. Live animals can be chancy, so Toto was written out and Dorothy was instead accompanied by a cow named Imogene, played by a man in a cow suit. Also written out, if you can believe it, was the Wicked Witch of the West -- the entire quest to the land of the Winkies was thrown out and replaced with a new plot involving palace intrigue in the Emerald City.

The success of the show had a lot to do with Baum deciding to write a second Oz book, and with the form the sequel took -- starting with it being conceived as (per the subtitle, and as also alluded to in the foreword) "an Account of the Further Adventures of the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman": Fred Stone as the Scarecrow and David C. Montgomery as the Tin Woodman were the breakout stars of the stage show. There are other aspects of the novel, which we will see as we go along, that make me suspect that Baum included them with an eye on what would look good on stage. (Though if he was hoping the stage adaptation of Marvelous Land would get some built-in heat by featuring the return of Montgomery and Stone, he was thwarted by his own success -- they weren't available to reprise their famous roles in the new play, because they were busy playing them in the original show, which was still running.)

Expand full comment
author

I am considering opening the main Table-of-Contents post for comments. The reason I don't is because I want it to be used as a placeholder for people looking to get to a particular chapter and not get distracted by comments.

Perhaps I'll open it up to a poll in the next Oz Gazette in June.

Expand full comment

Two of my favorite characters have been introduced. Or, maybe one-and-a-half?

Expand full comment

Absolutely! When I first read this book nearly 60 years ago as a boy of 8 or 9 years, I identified so completely with Tip that he has stuck as possibly my favorite fictional character even now. To such an extent that I still use his name as my moniker in some online forums.

Expand full comment

The design of all the houses in the illustration is certainly a Choice.

Expand full comment

A good one, I think. We are not in Kansas, after all...

Expand full comment

I'm not against giving them a different aesthetic, I just think it's a bit weird that they all have exactly the same look and that that look is ":grimace: emoji 😬 being mugged at gunpoint".

Expand full comment
May 7, 2023·edited May 7, 2023

Fair. Also, that is a marvelously evocative turn of phrase. No pun intended. That said, I think they're SUPPOSED to be smiling.

Expand full comment

So what would the difference between a witch and a sorceress and a wizardess be? Post your theories (or the truth if it's something that gets elaborated on)

Expand full comment

Tbh it doesn't seem very "good" to put a blanket ban on all other witches in her territory

Expand full comment