Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label the wonderful wizard of oz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the wonderful wizard of oz. Show all posts

Thursday, October 14, 2010

The Wizard of Oz: a slightly different interpretation



The Times has been running an interesting blog lately called The Stone. It's a forum for modern philosophers to take up pretty much any topic they choose – linguistics, ethics, boxing, business, the nature of philosophy itself – and run it through its paces. Some of them have been exhilarating, funny, entertaining, thought-provoking.

I found the most recent blog entry insufferable, however. In it, a professor of philosophy from the University of Chicago named Robert Pippin goes on for paragraphs about how the teaching of literature in academia has become needlessly convoluted. (I love needlessly convoluted essays about needlessly convoluted topics, don't you?) He advocates (I think) for something he calls “naive reading,” which apparently means reading for pleasure.

Man, I could have written the same thing much more briefly. Something like this: “Hey, folks! You can read a book or watch a movie purely for pleasure. You don't need to parse it or pull it apart, if you don't want to.”

But sometimes I like pulling things apart.

Here is my all-time favorite off-the-wall interpretation. I heard a version of this a long time ago. I've thought about it for many years. It's wonderful.

So anyway: “The Wizard of Oz.” The movie, not the book. Thinking about it, now? Okay.

First of all: both Kansas and Oz are run by women. Kansas is run by Aunt Em and Miss Gulch, who are at odds with each other. The Kansas men (Uncle Henry, the three hired men, and Professor Marvel) are nonentities. Oz is also run by women: the two Wicked Witches (one of whom gets killed by Dorothy as soon as she gets there) and Glinda. The Wizard doesn't count; we find out later that he's just a fake anyway.

Dorothy is growing up. She's maybe thirteen or fourteen in the movie, right on the edge of womanhood. She runs away from home in Kansas, because Aunt Em and Miss Gulch won't let her keep her dog; she rebels against the ruling matriarchy. Then the tornado happens, and she ends up in Oz. And what's the first thing she does? She kills one of the Wicked Witches. She “liberates” the Munchkins. She becomes, in Glinda's words, the “national heroine” of Munchkinland.

And what's her prize? Red shoes. Red. The color of blood.  Beginning of womanhood. Are you following me?

Dorothy's on her way to becoming a powerful woman in her own right. She shows the Wizard up to be a fake, all on her own. She kills the Wicked Witch of the West almost by accident. She's braver than any of her companions.

Oz is a great growth experience for Dorothy, but she keeps saying that she “wants to go home.” She doesn't want to be a grown-up after all, or independent. She just wants to go home and let Aunt Em take care of her. And she uses the ruby slippers to wish for that very thing, and the wish comes true. “And I'll not going to leave here, ever ever again,” she sobs, back in black-and-white Kansas.

Not exactly a happy ending, is it? Dorothy is going to be under Aunt Em's thumb for the rest of her life. She had her chance to be an independent woman, and she lost it. She wished it away.

Let's look again at what happens in Oz. Dorothy gets lots of “good advice” from Glinda – another powerful woman – but Glinda very gently points Dorothy back in the direction to Kansas. Glinda doesn't want Dorothy in Oz longer than necessary, does she? Dorothy rubs out Glinda's competition for her, and then Glinda politely shows Dorothy to the door and tells her it's time to go home. And Dorothy meekly does as she's told.

And how about Dorothy's three “companions”? Back in Kansas, they were at least human. They weren't beautiful, but they were at least marriageable; they strutted around and showed off for Dorothy back on the farm. In Oz, however, two of them are walking talking inanimate objects, and one of them is a lion. No marriage material here.

One last thing. Everybody in Kansas turns up in Oz. Miss Gulch is the Wicked Witch of the West; the three hired men are the three “companions”; Professor Marvel is the Wizard. (Well, Uncle Henry doesn't turn up, although I always the Wicked Witch's guard who says “She's dead” was the same actor; I find on imdb.com, however, that the guard was an actor named Mitchell Lewis, may he rest in peace.)

Where's Aunt Em?

She only turns up once in Oz. Dorothy is trapped in the Witch's castle, and the hourglass is running out. Dorothy is hugging the Witch's crystal ball and crying, and suddenly she has a vision of Aunt Em back in Kansas, crying “Dorothy! Dorothy!”

And then Aunt Em turns into the Wicked Witch.

We already know that Miss Gulch and the Wicked Witch are the same person. Now the Witch is equated with Aunt Em. All three (not to mention Glinda) have a vested interest in keeping Dorothy subservient – keeping Dorothy down on the farm, in a word. Preventing her from growing up. Preventing her from getting married and striking out on her own.

Because “there's no place like home.”

How do you like them apples, Professor Pippin?



Tuesday, October 12, 2010

The rawther sad evolution of children's literature


 

Such a sad article in Friday's Times: parents are turning away from buying picture books for their young children. They're buying “chapter books” - books of mostly text, young-adult fare – for their four-year-old and five-year-old and six-year-old children. Picture books go unread and unbought, and get sent back to the publishers.

 

Apparently, parents think picture books are kid stuff. They don't want their kids to fall behind. The sooner kids start reading “real” books, the sooner they'll be CEOs and doctors and Nobel Prize winners. And, even sadder, children are getting the message: they're asking for chapter books at earlier ages. They think picture books are kid stuff too.

 

Well, hmph. Chapter books are fine. But, even at my advanced age, I still like picture books. As Alice said a century and a half ago: “What is the use of a book without pictures and conversations?”

 

It would be silly, I know, to make the argument that there's some “natural” progression from books for non-readers to books for beginning readers, etc. What's the problem, after all, with reading “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” (one of the books favored by parents for reading aloud to young children) to your kids, rather than “Goodnight Moon”?

 

Well, hmph again. “Oz” is lovely, I'm a big fan, but it's a snooze for a six-year-old. Try it if you don't believe me; it's terribly dated (though charming). Back in 1964, at the ripe age of seven, I checked “Winnie-the-Pooh” out of the local library, and I pored over it for a day or two, and I took it back again. My American rural background had not prepared me for expressions like “Bother!”

 

Picture books are a friendly introduction to the world of books in general. I can only speak for myself, but I can still remember someone bringing home one of those large-format books from the library – I think it was about a kitten and a puppy – and it was almost as big as I was. I was enthralled with the book, and with the illustrations (which I can still almost visualize). I think my love affair with print media started with that book. I have no recollection of the story – but what does that matter?

 

Folks, do yourselves a favor and go browsing in the picture-book section of your local bookstore / library. You will find such richness there. Some years ago, idly browsing, I came across a really charming book called “The Story of May,” by an author named Mordecai Gerstein; it's a very simple story that turns the twelve months into members of one large family (well, two intermarried families, but I don't want to give the plot away). May, a little girl, leaves home and goes from relative to relative, each in order through the year, on her way to visit her father December. Then she goes home again, to be with her mother April and her stepfather March (!).

 

May is never in danger for a second. She passes from one loving family member to the next, and she learns about her parents and why they don't live together anymore. And – for me this is most charming of all – we learn that, when there's a warm day in November or a cool day in July, the months are visiting one another again, the way May did.

 

The pictures are lovely.

 

Now that's a book.

 

I read it in the store, and I never forgot it. A couple of years later, I finally went out and found a copy on eBay because – guess what? - it was out of print.

 

When I pick up a children's book nowadays, I still ask myself: would I have liked this at six? At eight? At ten? The answer is still pretty obvious to me. I get bored after a page or two. Or I just keep reading and reading and reading . . .

 

The very saddest thing in the Times article is the disclosure that some kids nowadays are ashamed to read picture books.

 

That makes my heart hurt.

 

It makes me want to go read “Eloise,” just to cheer myself up.

 

And then maybe I'll pour a pitcher of water down the mail chute.