Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The Oz books vs. the movie

Expand Messages
  • David Lenander
    Although it s written in a dull style, and Baum did not polish his writing (sometimes I m not sure he did more than a first draft), the book is very much
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 5, 2006
      Although it's written in a dull style, and Baum did not polish his
      writing (sometimes I'm not sure he did more than a first draft), the
      book is very much better than you describe, and it was already a
      major landmark in American fantasy by the time the 1939 movie came
      out, with 20-plus sequels by Baum and Thompson. _The Marvelous Land
      of Oz_ and some of the later sequels are actually better than the
      first book, though all of the books contain dull passages. But it's
      not the movie that has sunk into the consciousnessess of many science
      fiction and fantasy writers, such as Gene Wolfe ("The Eyeflash
      Miracles") or Philip Jose Farmer or children's fantasists like Edward
      Eager, and helped shape and inspire their writing. Or see such
      critics as Brian Attebery or Roger Sale (his defense of _The Road to
      Oz_ in _Fairy Tales & After: From Snow White to E.B. White_ is
      interesting). I don't know the book you mentioned, it's not one of
      the famous 40 cannonical books, but some recent sequels by Sherwood
      Smith and Edward Einhorn (both MythSoc members, I think) are among
      the finest written. I'll bet there's another 40 or more books,
      written and published by devoted fans of these books, fans who often
      dislike the '39 movie (more fools they). These books would not have
      been forgotten in the absence of the '39 movie, and the reissues of
      the 14 Baum books were much beloved by my daughter in the '90s,
      though she also loved the John Bellairs and Sherwood Smith "Wren" books.

      To be honest, I never offered my daughter Frank Stockton's marvelous
      and beautifully written stories, but frankly, I don't think she would
      have appreciated them. And he's much more forgotten today, I'm
      afraid, with the exception of a couple of stories. Style may be the
      most important aspect of literature, or maybe it makes the difference
      between the truly great and the lesser lasting works, but Baum yields
      nothing to Stockton in the exploration of fantasy and many ideas he
      crammed into his books.

      I do think that the ruby slippers were an improvement on the silver
      shoes, in terms of their appearance on the technicolor screen, and
      unlike the unfortunate transformations about which people have been
      complaining in Jackson's films, I think that the '39 Oz movie
      sacrificed nothing in the process. I wasn't a bit bothered by the
      reuse of them in place of the Magic Belt in the '70s film, _Return to
      Oz_, also excellent--if flawed, by the way.

      I wish that I could say that I've only once fallen asleep while
      reading aloud. I admire your stamina. I don't think I could get
      through _Good Night, Moon_ (which is pretty short for any of those
      who don't have children) some nights. Fortunately, that was behind
      us by the time we began _The Hobbit_ or _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_.

      Oh, and when I first read _Wizard_, in about 3rd grade, I have to
      admit that I agreed with your opinion of it. I was so much older then.


      On Dec 5, 2006, at 8:47 PM, mythsoc@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      1d.
      ruby slippers

      Posted by: "John D Rateliff" sacnoth@... sacnoth32

      Tue Dec 5, 2006 10:00 am (PST)

      On Dec 5, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Beth Russell wrote:
      > How many people know the difference between silver
      > shoes and
      > ruby slippers?

      I do: the shoes come from a rather dull book published in 1900 and
      the slippers from a wonderful movie made in 1939. Almost every famous
      line comes out of the latter, not the former. If it weren't for the
      film, the book (& its interminable string of sequels,* authorized and
      otherwise) would today be a minor historical footnote, like the (far
      superior) work of Frank Stockton. So, not a good parallel for the
      case of JRRT's (superlative) book and Jackson's (very good) movie.

      David Lenander
      d-lena@...
      2095 Hamline Ave. N.
      Roseville, MN 55113

      651-292-8887
      http://www.umn.edu/~d-lena/RIVENDELL.html




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.