This is my lawn

Some group is doing a Wizard of Oz stage production in my town. I'm been debating whether or not to go but I really think I should.

 

Was the original novel actually intended to be satire, though? I've never actually read anything that implies so. Although admittedly I've never read the novel myself.

 

To be fair, in movie-version Dorothy can't take off the shoes and the witch threatened to kill her in order to get them. A person who places the value of pretty shoes over a human life doesn't sound like a very good person to me. Also bear in mind that, from what I remember, no one actually asked Dorothy to kill the wicked witch. The wizard just wanted to her broom, and her death was an accident.

 

GLINDA, on the other hand is kind of shady, but I just chock that up to her being the sort of mentor figure who isn't supposed to just flat-out give our hero the answers.

 

So yeah. I'm not entirely convinced that the 'good is grim' argument is valid. I do love Wicked (book), though, for the amount of development it does for the setting and characters.

Haha, well this wasn't the most serious entry. =P

 

But, you do have valid points. Also, the play version was a fun experience. I would recommend going (and if they do The Jitterbug it will be so worth it).

 

Also in the play version, I would like to point out that there was nothing to suggest Dorothy couldn't take off the slippers herself. When the Wicked Witch told her to take them off, she replied "but the good witch told me not to!" Also, "I didn't mean to kill your sister, it just happened" does not sound like a valid excuse to me. =P

 

As for the satire, I remember we talked about it in highschool history. I forget which era of history it was from, exactly, but the Wizard of Oz was supposed to represent the president of the USA and the yellow brick road was the gold flowing into Washington. Dorothy was supposed to represent the average American citizen while her companions were politicians, I think? The Wicked Witch represented mother nature, and at the time the country was going through a drought. When Dorothy hit her with water, it was supposed to be the introduction of irrigation where civilians bested nature's drought. Oz was used due to the abbreviation of ounce, which is what gold and silver were weighed in. Also, in the book, Dorothy's slippers were silver.

 

Again, this was a long time ago when I was told this and, admittedly, I haven't read the original book either. I could be wrong about it, though, or maybe it's just a theory made by fans.

 

Edit: Found something! On the wikipedia page under "The Gold Standard representation of the story" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz#Themes

 

It's a thesis that the story is actually a political allegory. I may have gotten a few things wrong above, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless if you're interested.

Yeah, I heard the gold standard representation story as well (it was touched upon briefly in an economics class- and I'm not sure I buy it). But The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as an economic/political allegory isn't the same as it being an allegory on how good people aren't necessarily good. And, as I stated, I'm not convinced the MGM film was going that route, either. I do think Maguire was, though, at least partially.

 

Of course, what I think is pretty much irrelevant since I haven't read the original book. I've seen the MGM film, the 2013 film, Once's take on it, and read Wicked... but I still have no idea what Baum actually wrote. I know the MGM film has pretty much set the standard for telling stories in this fantasy world, but it deviates in several ways and I would like to understand the original intent actually is.

Yeah, it's an interesting thought, but it is possible it's all just speculation.

 

Anyway, Glinda seems super shady to me just the same in terms of the MGM movie. And play. She be poppin' out of bubbles, snatchin' yo slippers up. XP

 

But yeah, the original is starting to intrigue me a bit now. I'll have to add it to my reading list.

Anyway, Glinda seems super shady to me just the same in terms of the MGM movie. And play. She be poppin' out of bubbles, snatchin' yo slippers up.

 

 

... And just where was the Witch of the South in that movie?

There is no South. =P

Did somebody say Wizwuz?

More on topic, I love the Oz stories as well as many adaptations of them (including Wicked and its sequels as well as the MGM movie). Regarding questions of satire, you could make a case for it in the first book (many of the characters in the story were picked out of political cartoons in L. Frank Baum's day, although it's debatable whether they were used for the sake of allegory or simply because they formed convenient archetypes), but the sequels (at least those written by Baum himself) used more original whimsical elements and were arguably better for it.

Did somebody say Wizwuz?

This. This is wonderful. =P

 

Also interesting. I'll have to look into Baum's works sometime. Right now I am behind on finishing King Lear and Julie and Julia before I start reading all of Harry Potter.

To be fair, in movie-version Dorothy can't take off the shoes and the witch threatened to kill her in order to get them. A person who places the value of pretty shoes over a human life doesn't sound like a very good person to me. Also bear in mind that, from what I remember, no one actually asked Dorothy to kill the wicked witch. The wizard just wanted to her broom, and her death was an accident.

Pretty shoes that can magically take you to another world, or possibly just even anywhere you particularly want to go. And as far as the witch knows, Dorothy just killed her sister. She's gonna be a little quicker than usual with throwing out the death threats given the emotional state she must be in.

 

- Indigo Individual