Without taking a position on either side of the "OZ Question," I'd like to point
out something C.S. Lewis said about literary criticism.  He said that there was
one case in which he was perfectly aware of the accuracy of reviewers'
reconstructions of a novelist's work -- his own.  And in nearly every case in
which critics tried to explain the influences, allegories, and intentions that
went into his novels, they got it wrong.  This led him to wonder how much of
what is taught about literary classics goes unchallenged only because the
authors are dead and can't raise objections.

Another case in point is the work of Lewis' friend, J.R.R. Tolkien.  Many people
saw the struggle between East and West to possess the One Ring in "The Lord of
the Rings" as an allusion to the Cold War and nuclear weapons.  After all, it
was a weapon of ultimate power, it could not be used safely even by those with
good intentions, and the only way to deal with it was to destroy it.  Everything
fits very well, except that Tolkien developed the basic structure of the story
many years before the advent of nuclear energy.  He was unable to get it
published at the time; only after the publication of "The Hobbit" in the Cold
War era was he able to find publishers interested in the earlier story.  Tolkien
himself strenuously denied that it had anything to do with nuclear weapons.

Wayne





Wirt Atmar <[log in to unmask]> on 05/19/2000 01:18:16 AM

Please respond to [log in to unmask]

To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: MWOTS: The Wizard of Oz



Stan writes:

> As a card carrying member of the Internation Wizard of Oz Club,
>  who'll be attending the Centennial Oz Conference this July
>  (http://www.geocities.com/~ozfan/ozcenten.htm),
>  I don't accept the Littlefield's "populist" interpretation of
>  "The Wizard of Oz".
>
>  For years, people specializing in Oz research (including Martin Gardner and
>  relatives of L. Frank Baum) have dismissed that interpretation.
>
>  A quick web search shows counter-arguments, including:
>  http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/Populism.htm

And Ted writes:

> In in the For What It's Worth Department, Paul Harvey, in one of his "rest
of
>  the story" books tells about the original telling of the story during which
>  Baum suddenly had a need for a name for the country and, looking quickly
>  around happened upon the label on the file drawer below the one labelled
> [A-N].

While this is a relatively trivial subject, it also presents the standard
problem that all historical analyses present: What was in the mind of the
author when he wrote what he did? Only Frank Baum knew for sure, but he is
obviously no longer available for inquiry nor comment. Nonetheless,
reasonable conclusions can still be drawn, even if without complete certainty
of their correctness.

Although this is a perhaps a less important topic than others, it never hurts
to practice critical thinking skills.

If the story that Ted relates is true (and I've heard it before), then it
seems obvious that the entire woven tapestry of metaphor that has been
attached to the "Wizard of Oz" would be in error. If Oz doesn't mean anything
at all, then most likely, none of the other presumed meanings seen in the
story are likely true either.

But then, the alternate question is: What validity can you attach to the O-Z
file drawer story? And on who's authority? Without any sort of verifiable
proof, it is little more than an urban legend -- and a very thin one at that.

That thinness sharply contrasts with the substantially more elaborate and
self-consistent interpretations associated with the bi-metallism populism of
the time and place that dominated Frank Baum's world. I've read the essay by
Parker that Stan provided before. I am neither persuaded, nor am I sure that
even Parker is wholly convinced otherwise. It's not important whether Baum
himself was a Populist Democrat or a Republican newspaper publisher. What
cannot be in disbute from Parker's essay -- as well as many other sources --
is that Baum was acutely aware of the issues of the day, in their entire
sweep, as well as the history and personalities of the actors involved.

Elaborateness, self-consistency, and cross-correlatable data are three of the
qualities that you must use to judge the accuracy of any historical account.
Because these qualities are so evident in Littlefield's interpretation, I am
predisposed to believe them to be true, in the absence of any other
information. Nor would I take the family's accounts of Baum's motivations too
seriously. I truly dislike the thought of my sister being the final arbiter
of my thoughts after my passage, especially given the fact that she only has
the vaguest idea of what I do now, while I'm alive.

But, if I'm wrong, then Gavin's very witty comment, "A flying monkey is
sometimes just a flying monkey," holds sway, just as it did for Freud,
standing as a caution against the invocation of overly enthusiastic
interpretations of perhaps only imagined metaphors.

Wirt Atmar