MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin - Re: Oz :spoiler alert:

> > as a kid I read pretty much every Oz book ever so
>
> Re-he-he-heally now?
>
> I was unaware of a book, let alone books, from this story.

... perhaps you misunderstand.

Yes, the movie you just watched was _probably_ its own story, and not based on any of the books specifically. Maybe I'll pick up on some Oz uber-obscure references, who knows.

However, if you find Oz in general interesting, there's a few things you should know.

1. L. Frank Baum was the author of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", published May 19, 1900.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz
(yes, it's nearly 113.) It's a children's book.

> Hmm. Worth a read?

Well, it's a children's book series, and was basically the "Harry Potter" of its day (or perhaps "Alice in Wonderland" is more appropriate). Based on the success of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" in 1900, and a successful musical based on it in ... 1902 (not the one you're thinking of!), Frank Baum went on to write... an additional thirteen books, all basically sequels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oz_books

The Wizard of Oz was adapted to stage and screen many times before the 1939 film with which we're all familiar.

Following Baum's death, other children's authors were permitted to play in Baum's "playground", and authors like Ruth Plumly Thompson and John R. Neill wrote an additional 30-40 books. Recently (2005-ish) an author was authorized to write several more books considered "official" by the Baum estate. Otherwise any modern Oz book is often "unauthorized" but still legal, since The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900) and some of the rest are in the public domain.

Even towards the end of the official Baum run, you'll probably find them very simplistic, repetitive (across stories) and formulaic. They are for children, after all. But you may detect some slightly more adult themes occasionally. Also, quite frequently these have female protagonists (not only Dorothy). It'd be like re-reading The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and other Narnia books again. Fond memories reading them, but you may not be as engrossed as a child with their imagination ablaze.

Anyways, with fifty+ books drawing upon this common fairytale land, it's deep with a hundred years' of stories and characters. And still, pretty much all targeted at ages... well, any age really, but I'd say grades 3-8.

If anything, upon reading the books, Return to Oz (a 1985 film) may make a lot more sense, as that is definitely based on some of Baum's other Oz books.

Furthermore - if you like darker, grittier "adult" takes on classic children's stories and fables, Gregory Maguire's "Wicked" stories are definitely worth a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wicked_Years
There's other adult-oriented Oz stories, but those are pretty much the best.

> Was Oz a carnival magician to start?

Pretty much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_of_Oz_%28character%29
Regarding the book:

So the 1939 movie basically gets the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" right and accurate (mostly) to the book.

There's really one other book by Baum that talks about how the Wizard got to Oz, titled "Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz". In it, he meets Dorothy on an adventure and basically tells his entire backstory along the way. In none of the Baum books do you get to actually meet the Wizard as a young man - not sure about the other books but it seems pretty much all of the children's books are not prequels.
[EDIT] According to this fan-made timeline, assuming the first story with Dorothy takes place in 1900 (and they have a rationale for this), nearly all stories are sequels.
http://timelineuniverse.net/Oz/Mainlinetimeline.htm
Of course, it's also mixing the revisionist Maguire books with classic Oz books - it's a bit confused...

> Plus... actually... I thought the whole Oz adventure with Dorothy was just a dream of
> hers when she passed out in the house on a heroin trip during the hurricane... which
> would make a prequel completely revisionist, since it would require another dream-tie
> in to Dorothy.

That interpretation is DEEPLY revisionist.

The original books from 1900's make it clear: there's real magic going on, and Oz is a fairyland.

There's been some interpretations of "Oz as allegory" for other tales - the Wikipedia article goes on about it being an allegory for the Gold Standard issues of the time - but I'm convinced it's nothing more than a turn-of-the-century American author's attempt at an Alice-in-Wonderland-inspired children's story.

As for the movie ... aside from "poppies making you dream", there's really not many drug references. You think they'd be that subversive in 1939? I'm afraid you've been buying into some urban legends and coincidences.

But for that matter, even the 1939 movie is revisionist: it changes the ending so that it's implied "it was all a dream". With fourteen books and additional short stories by Baum, it's pretty clear it's instead magical fantasy.

- Stiletto

Edited by Stiletto (03/11/13 08:04 PM)