"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," L. Frank Baum
Published 1900
Edition read: "The Annotated Wizard of Oz"
Michael Patrick Hearn, ed.
Copyright 1973
Started: 1/2/09
Finished: 1/6/09
There's a lot of classic fiction out there that I haven't read. So I either front (""Anna Karenina"? Fuck yeah, that's my shit"), don't give a shit ("Atlas Shrugged"), or have it on some nebulous list that doesn't actually exist ("Lord of the Rings," which I've actually attempted to read at least three times now and have concluded is kind of boring without having Elijah Wood giving Ian McKellan longingly gay looks). But somewhere along the way it occurred to me that I've never read L. Frank Baum's original "The Wizard of Oz." In fact, nobody I know has, despite their reputation as being superior examples of children's literature. Obviously, everyone under the age of 100 has seen The Movie at least twice, or at least "The Wiz," and I suppose a lot of today's younger males have jerked off to Todd McFarlane's "Twisted Land of Oz" Dorothy figure in the same way that our fathers did while watching the the Judy Garland film. But no one's actually read the book.
Or, rather, books. There are actually over forty Oz books: the first fourteen were written by Baum; after his death in 1919, the series was "officially" continued by various other authors. Combined, they comprise the Famous Forty (thanks, Wikipedia!) and are considered canonical; eventually, the world of Oz fell into the public domain and became fair game for any shmuck with a typewriter and/or a penchant to use too much pencil when drawing Spider-Man.
But I digress.
So, never one to set a goal I cannot meet, I decided a neat New Year's Resolution for 2009 would be to read the original Oz novel and it's thirteen sequels. Is it any good? Is it worth the time and effort? What about the sequels? Answer: I don't know. Yet. So we begin.
I decided early on that I was going to get as many of the books from the local Carnegie Public Library as possible, the primary reason being cost (fourteen books times maybe $15 each = lots of cheese), and I wasn't sure if all of the books would even still be in print. I did go down to the local Borders to check, and I found ONE copy of the "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" in the horrifically disorganized young readers section, and nothing else by Baum. Rest assured, however, that there is no danger they will run out of the "Twilight" novels any time soon.
Back to my story: "The Annotated Wizard of Oz" was the only copy the local branch of the library had that I could find, so that's what I went with. It's a rather physically unwieldy book, about 12 inches by 8 inches, with the text printed so close to the spine that you have to literally bend the book apart to read the ends of sentences on one page and the beginnings of sentences on the next. That said, it's full of gracious footnotes noting various changes in the text throughout the years, discussion of possible origins of elements of the story, beautiful reproductions of the original artwork by W.W. Denslow (see above and below...sort of), and a lengthy introduction/biography of Baum and the history of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."
Like anyone born in the last 100 years, my primary (re: only) source of reference for the world of Oz is the 1939 Judy Garland film "The Wizard of Oz" (and, to a lesser extent, Gregory Maguire's "Wicked") so it's inevitable that while reading the novel the comparison game is going to kick into high gear. So here we go: the film is a remarkably faithful adaptation, save for several minor sequences and one full chapter towards the end that takes place in a miniature city surrounded by a wall made of white China, inhabited by tiny people made of the same. Some of the scenes are chronologically rearranged, and surprisingly, the Wicked Witch of the West appears very briefly, although her character is mentioned constantly throughout the novel. Dorothy is considerably younger than in the film, and perhaps most notably, the ruby slippers are, in the original text, silver. Oh, and there's no singing.
As for the text itself, my initial fear was that Baum's style would be either too stiff, as is characteristic of many writers of that period (see that? I just "fronted"), or aimed specifically at children. In reality, it's closer to the latter, and while it's obviously meant for children, it's pleasingly flowing prose without a lot of frills: I read about half of the book in my first sitting in maybe an hour.
As I noted, if you've seen the film, you already know everything that's going to happen; hence, it's almost impossible to discuss the book without comparing it to the film. For me, though, a lot of the minor sequences not present in the film are what make it such a charming read. For instance,the origin of the Tin Man:
In the novel, the Tin Man is a wood cutter that falls in love with a Munchkin girl who lives with an "old woman." The old woman doesn't approve of their relationship, so she goes to the Wicked Witch of the East to stop the marriage. The Witch curses the wood cutter's axe, and while he's chopping wood, "...the axe slipped all at once and cut off my left leg."
Bummer, huh?
A local tin-smith makes him a new leg of tin, and he goes back to work, but in amazingly quick succession, the axe chops off his other leg, his arms, his head, and then cuts his body in half. But it's ok, because at that point the tin-smith happens to be walking by and makes him a new body...minus a heart. And without his heart, he no longer cares about the girl, and she leaves him to his lonely existence.
That's probably my favorite part in the book. There's nothing quite as gruesome or expository about any of the other characters: Baum never really delves into the Cowardly Lion's past, but there are a couple of interesting moments with the Scarecrow. As he's not human, you see, he doesn't need to rest, and as he has no brains, he doesn't think about anything, so when they stop to rest for the night, the Scarecrow stands guard, motionless, as does the Tin Man. It's actually kind of eerie.
Another interesting sequence is the Emerald City: upon arrival, the party is given "green spectacles" to protect them from the shining brilliance of the city. These spectacles are literally locked onto their heads to prevent them from being removed: later, when the Wizard is unmasked, it's revealed that the Emerald City is actually all white, and not made of emerald at all. You know, it's, like, allegorical and shit.
The novel is littered with little moments like that (the chapter about the miniature China city was particularly charming), which make the book worthwhile reading above and beyond the simple transcript of events in the film I thought it might be. And while Oz has become part of the cultural landscape today, editor Michael Patrick Hearn points out that Baum consciously tried to avoid fairy tale archetypes and create something new, and largely succeeded. The fact that his tale gripped the popular consciousness upon publication and has been around (in one form or another) for over a century now is certainly a testament to his success.
Next up: "The Marvelous Land of Oz: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman and Also the Strange Experiences of the Highly-Magnified Woggle-Bug, Jack Pumpkinhead, the Animated Saw-Horse and the Gump," 1904
