I've never considered Dorothy and The Wizard in Oz a particularly good installment in the Oz saga. As the author admits in his introduction, Dorothy and The Wizard was written as a concession to the numerous fan letters appealing to keep Dorothy and the Wizard bound together as a fixture in the ongoing stories of Oz. As only the fourth book - well before the full cast of characters and the complete dimensions of Oz itself were defined - Dorothy and The Wizard doesn't actually go anywhere. Apparently, Baum condescended to surlily give his audience what they asked for, but didn't feel his commitment to his fans necessitated a carefully crafted story. Dorothy and The Wizard feels like a cranky "screw you" aimed at little kids who shouldn't be blamed for wanting more of a story they love than today's kids can be faulted for wanting their Mario Bros. or Batman content to stay current. Taking this as a document, one can only imagine L. Frank Baum in 1908 as a bitter, sad, little man.I wouldn't have re-read Dorothy and The Wizard at all on my own under ordinary circumstances; I already prepossessed the impressions laid out in the preceding paragraph before re-reading the story today. It's only because of Dorothy and The Wizard's recent adaptation by Marvel comics and the subject of my family's inaugural family "reading circle" that I revisited it at all.* Dorothy and The Wizard sucks at being an Oz book: (A) It isn't even set in Oz, for Christ's sake. (B) Baum's moral inconsistency/ambivalence is on full display. Conflict is created as a result of characters' uncouthness (the Wizard's first line, go-to solution for most problems is genocide), when conflict need not even exist. The actual structured world of Oz, once the characters actually arrive there (in the last 20% of the book) is anti-democratic and anti-humanist. The only enduring parts of Dorothy and The Wizard come near the very end, in the form of two vignettes tacked on as an afterthought. The race between Jim the horse and the Sawhorse asks quality questions about the value of being real (or fallible) versus engineered (or perfect) - essential early 20th century existentialism. The trial of Eureka the cat may be a shining point in the early Oz books - but it's hard to contextualize. I'm afraid the things that seem to be happening are the result of mistaken associations not contemporaneous to Baum's America - what we internally cross-reference when we read the Eureka trial come out of other things we know, from later material, not from turn of the century thinking. For example, Eureka's trial is as farcical as the show trial in Darkness at Noon or the Sacco and Vanzetti case - but Dorothy and The Wizard was written in 1908, so do the math... If Baum didn't display such overt anti-democratic tendencies, one might assume the trial in Dorothy and The Wizard was cautionary satire. But it's not. It's just an anomaly accidentally occurring in the middle of a squalid, serialized pablum with little (if anything) of value to say. I'm open to criticism for being too demanding of L. Frank Baum. He - after all - may or may not have submitted his stories for moral scrutiny. However, children (both yesterday and today) have nearly limitless literary options. I do not think I am wrong for calling attention to how poorly executed Baum's body of work actually is, despite the sentimental halation. *My son is learning to read. We're starting a "reading circle," hopefully to last for years, in which all three of us read together. Oz is a logical beginning because of the all-ages nature of the MGM film, the cultural necessity, and the tie-ins with targeted marketing, ranging from comic books to Happy Meal toys.
Ever day-dream about falling into a crack in the earth and finding strange communities of people living underground? Me neither! Nor did I ever imagine that I'd read about a kitty on trial for murder! This one is strictly for those who can approach it as a child . . . Sorry. I confess right up front that I'm being completely uncritical here. If I were critical about the preposterous concepts, the lack of development of the new worlds visited, the flake-outs of the continuity of the series, or the shape of the plot, this one would not fare too well. Yet, I enjoyed it. I delighted in the wildly imaginative creatures, even if they were underdeveloped. I loved the unpredictability of what happens next and then what happens after that. Most of the book was a wacky "on the road" journey through cultures that exist underground. Near the end of the book, the cast arrives in Oz and has warm-fuzzy reunions with old friends-for the most part. Suffice it to say, some of the new members of the cast don't play well with others. Lastly there is court-room drama where a kitten is put on trial for murder. It's absurd, but if you can approach the book with the innocence of a child with wide surprised eyes, it's fun!
Do You like book Dorothy And The Wizard In Oz (2006)?
Yet another series that I read lots in my youth, and thus retain a fondness for, despite recognizing that Baum is only a middling writer, at best. His inventiveness, which is his greatest strength, often gets out of hand and doesn't lend itself to satisfying narratives with a beginning, middle, and end. And don't even get me started on the inconsistencies... But every now and then, he gets off a really good line:"H.M.," said the Woggle-Bug, pompously, "means Highly Magnified; and T.E. means Thoroughly Educated. I am, in reality, a very big bug, and doubtless the most intelligent being in all this broad domain.""How well you disguise it," said the Wizard.My son, currently 8, is enjoying Oz; I believe we may end up going through the whole series. This makes me groan, just slightly, thinking of all the number of times old friends are going to greet each other warmly (more and more of them in each successive book) when they are reunited, usually in the Emerald City after all the good parts of the story are over. But I think I'll enjoy revisiting Rinkitink in Oz, and Glinda of Oz, both of which I remember as being particularly engrossing to ten-year-old me.
—Emily
Wow. Where to start? This book is not very good. For starters, there is barely any semblance of a plot. Sure, you have Dorothy, the Wizard, and yet another strange cast of characters stuck in a strange land, but it is more just a catalogue of what weird things Baum could come up with than an actual story. Dorothy once again has a magical secret that could have saved their lives AT ANY TIME, but waits to use it until everyone is about to die. Aside from the Wizard and throwaway character Zeb, Dorothy befriends a lot of jerks. Eureka is a terrible character who is randomly put on trial for murder and Jim is incredibly conceited. Once again the land of Oz is barely in this book, but the time there is spent mainly for reminding us of all the characters we have met along the way. At its essence, there are some ideas behind this book that I really liked, but this book is just a mess. Baum writes Dorothy in a way which makes no sense whatsoever. So Dorothy knows the word impudent but not immediately or gargoyle? I'm sorry, Mr. Baum, but this book was a terrible effort on your part.
—Shane Perry
ITA-ENGUn'altra brillante avventura. Dorothy, Zeb, Eureka e altri personaggi si ritrovano insieme in posti assurdi con popolazioni incredibilmente particolari. Si arriva a Oz un po' troppo tardi per i miei gusti (e desiderei rileggere un'avventura dove ci sono solo i quattro personaggi iniziali) ma è comunque una piacevolissima lettura.Another brilliant adventure. Dorothy, Zeb, Eureka and other characters are thrown into absurd countries populated by incredibly peculiar people. They reach Oz a little too late for my taste (and I'd love to read a book where it's just the four of them again) but this is still a beautiful read.
—Ds
