PETA would be proud, Mr. Baum
Hubby got me an e-reader for Channukah, and I've been reading my way through the collected works of Oz (the LFB ones, anyway).
For the most part, the books hold up well... better than expected. Yeah, the material is dated in some places, silly in others, and in a (mercifully!) few places includes some truly cringeworthy ethnic stereotypes played for laughs. Still, the prose is more engaging than some other novels I've read in the last little while. A lot of the whimsical humor holds up very well, as does the sheer sense of wonder the visitors to Oz exhibit as they see more of the country. The Wizard of Oz movie may have cut/changed a lot, but one thing that they absolutely positively nailed was the shift from B&W Kansas to Technicolor Oz. Not just color, but beautiful, breathtaking, glorious color! It just completely brought home that we were now entering a fantasy land.
However, I've also found a few problems with the books. I'm not talking so much about the characterization. Baum was writing books for children at a time when, let's face it, most children were portrayed as innocent and pure. The fact that Dorothy has a bit of spunk without being a brat might have been a breakthrough of sorts. Granted that I'm hesitant to submit Dorothy, Betsy or Trot to a Mary Sue litmus test, but I'm not putting Batman or Harry Potter through that test either. Where I'm really getting annoyed though, is in Book #7: The Patchwork Girl of Oz.
Quick synopsis: A Munchkin boy named Ojo needs to find the ingredients to reverse a spell that has turned his uncle into a marble statue. So, standard quest involving a scavenger hunt through the land of Oz, in which he meets allies and overcomes obstacles... pretty standard fare so far.
One of the items he needs is one wing from a yellow butterfly. And after making the trek all the way to the country of the Winkies, where yellow is prevalent, he is told that he cannot under any circumstances have the wing because it wouldn't be fair to the butterfly.
The person who delivers that bit of news? Why it's the Emperor of the Winkies; the Tin Woodman. Owner of the kindest heart in Oz.
...Who has just told our protagonist that he'd rather let the boy's uncle stay a marble statue for eternity than remove the wing.
Ok. I can see it in the sense that it's not right to make animals suffer needlessly. I'm against animal testing on cosmetics, shampoos, etc. On the other hand, I'm not about to tell someone (living with or) dying of a medical condition that they shouldn't accept a treatment because it was tested on animals/contains animal byproducts. And in Oz, all the animals seem to be intelligent and capable of speech. Heck, some of the plants are, too. (Maybe that's why there are lunchbox trees and breakfast bushes. Perfect way to get a meat fix without killing animals. Seeing as
doesn't appear to have occurred to LFB anyway).
But here's the thing: the guy making the decision got into his current state because his (mis)enchanted blade kept slipping! (I mean, after the first tin limb or so, you wouldn't think he'd get the idea that maybe it was time to go shopping for a new axe? Or take up farming?) By rights, he shouldn't have survived long enough to be recast in tin! At least, when you're talking about his head. My point is that
1) Removing the wing in all likelihood wouldn't kill the butterfly
2) Given that Oz is a magical place, I think we can probably bet that the procedure could be done painlessly. And Glinda could probably make the wing grow back. Or Ozma could wish it. Or, if a Scarecrow can have brains made of bran and needles, and the Tin Woodman can have a sawdust heart... are you seriously going to tell me that the butterfly couldn't be given a gossamer wing or something?
Now... okay. I get that the butterfly is still getting a raw deal. I'm not saying the woodman should have got a net, grabbed the first of his loyal insects, and ordered them to give up a wing. But what ever happened to asking for a volunteer? I mean, seriously, people do on occasion become kidney donors, for example. So, if the Tin Woodman's heart was really in the right place, why didn't he summon the butterflies under his rule, explain the situation, and ask if any of them was willing to donate one wing?
I think it's just that for a character whose quest in the first book was to obtain a heart,and who has been constantly described as 'kind-hearted', 'soft-hearted' etc, the way he treats Ojo is downright cruel.
By the way, it's not just Ojo's uncle who's turned into a statue. It's the magician's wife, too.
Now, maybe LFB wanted us to come away thinking that all life has value and it's not fair to make anyone or anything suffer needlessly. Instead? I'm coming away with the message that two lives aren't worth a butterfly wing.
EDIT: I think I fixed the html!
For the most part, the books hold up well... better than expected. Yeah, the material is dated in some places, silly in others, and in a (mercifully!) few places includes some truly cringeworthy ethnic stereotypes played for laughs. Still, the prose is more engaging than some other novels I've read in the last little while. A lot of the whimsical humor holds up very well, as does the sheer sense of wonder the visitors to Oz exhibit as they see more of the country. The Wizard of Oz movie may have cut/changed a lot, but one thing that they absolutely positively nailed was the shift from B&W Kansas to Technicolor Oz. Not just color, but beautiful, breathtaking, glorious color! It just completely brought home that we were now entering a fantasy land.
However, I've also found a few problems with the books. I'm not talking so much about the characterization. Baum was writing books for children at a time when, let's face it, most children were portrayed as innocent and pure. The fact that Dorothy has a bit of spunk without being a brat might have been a breakthrough of sorts. Granted that I'm hesitant to submit Dorothy, Betsy or Trot to a Mary Sue litmus test, but I'm not putting Batman or Harry Potter through that test either. Where I'm really getting annoyed though, is in Book #7: The Patchwork Girl of Oz.
Quick synopsis: A Munchkin boy named Ojo needs to find the ingredients to reverse a spell that has turned his uncle into a marble statue. So, standard quest involving a scavenger hunt through the land of Oz, in which he meets allies and overcomes obstacles... pretty standard fare so far.
One of the items he needs is one wing from a yellow butterfly. And after making the trek all the way to the country of the Winkies, where yellow is prevalent, he is told that he cannot under any circumstances have the wing because it wouldn't be fair to the butterfly.
The person who delivers that bit of news? Why it's the Emperor of the Winkies; the Tin Woodman. Owner of the kindest heart in Oz.
...Who has just told our protagonist that he'd rather let the boy's uncle stay a marble statue for eternity than remove the wing.
Ok. I can see it in the sense that it's not right to make animals suffer needlessly. I'm against animal testing on cosmetics, shampoos, etc. On the other hand, I'm not about to tell someone (living with or) dying of a medical condition that they shouldn't accept a treatment because it was tested on animals/contains animal byproducts. And in Oz, all the animals seem to be intelligent and capable of speech. Heck, some of the plants are, too. (Maybe that's why there are lunchbox trees and breakfast bushes. Perfect way to get a meat fix without killing animals. Seeing as
Click to viewdoesn't appear to have occurred to LFB anyway).
But here's the thing: the guy making the decision got into his current state because his (mis)enchanted blade kept slipping! (I mean, after the first tin limb or so, you wouldn't think he'd get the idea that maybe it was time to go shopping for a new axe? Or take up farming?) By rights, he shouldn't have survived long enough to be recast in tin! At least, when you're talking about his head. My point is that
1) Removing the wing in all likelihood wouldn't kill the butterfly
2) Given that Oz is a magical place, I think we can probably bet that the procedure could be done painlessly. And Glinda could probably make the wing grow back. Or Ozma could wish it. Or, if a Scarecrow can have brains made of bran and needles, and the Tin Woodman can have a sawdust heart... are you seriously going to tell me that the butterfly couldn't be given a gossamer wing or something?
Now... okay. I get that the butterfly is still getting a raw deal. I'm not saying the woodman should have got a net, grabbed the first of his loyal insects, and ordered them to give up a wing. But what ever happened to asking for a volunteer? I mean, seriously, people do on occasion become kidney donors, for example. So, if the Tin Woodman's heart was really in the right place, why didn't he summon the butterflies under his rule, explain the situation, and ask if any of them was willing to donate one wing?
I think it's just that for a character whose quest in the first book was to obtain a heart,and who has been constantly described as 'kind-hearted', 'soft-hearted' etc, the way he treats Ojo is downright cruel.
By the way, it's not just Ojo's uncle who's turned into a statue. It's the magician's wife, too.
Now, maybe LFB wanted us to come away thinking that all life has value and it's not fair to make anyone or anything suffer needlessly. Instead? I'm coming away with the message that two lives aren't worth a butterfly wing.
EDIT: I think I fixed the html!