The Wonderful Wizard of OZ---political?

[McMurphy]

Like many American children, I grew up knowing the tale of the Wizard of Oz through the marvelous 1939 MGM film starring Judy Garland. It is no secret that it was first a children's novel by L. Frank Baum, and that, not surprisedly, there is some differences between the famed film and the source material. In fact, that was the very reason that I had decided to pick up the book.

What has also become more and more known is the possible political commentary (perhaps even satire) of the novel due the tale's use of common political cartoon figures (Tin Woodman, the Scarecrow, etc) of the time (1900) and because of the writings of historian Henry Littlefield during the 1960s. To enforce the ties with politics even further, a 1939 cartoon by Herblock "in which Hitler is cast as the Wicked Witch of the West and Mussolini one of the Flying Monkeys" (J.T. Barbarese, "Introduction," The Wonderful Wizard of OZ by L. Frank Baum, Barnes & Noble Classics, New York, 2005, page xxiv). Littlefield's commentary on OZ must have made a great impact on, at least, one generation of the academic arena since I was taught in high school and college that the political presence was fact, not theory.

There is a, and excuse the slight pun, monkey wrench in the status of "fact." Baum was very clear of his intentions for the tale in his widely publicized criticisms of European children's books such as Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. Baum wrote that his "stated purpose was to 'please children of today' with 'a modernized fairy tale, in which the wonderment and joy are retained and the heartaches and nightmares are left out'" (xvii). Baum wanted to create for children a modern, American fairy tale in the face of other works that used the children's literature genre to publish political, psychological, or even social satires.

What do you think? Do you believe that The Wonderful Wizard of OZ was meant to be politically satirical?

I believe that it was not and that his style of writing, in the fashion of Grimm's Fairy Tales, left wide and attractive gaps within the exterior-only narrative to invent other intentions by third parties.

[j. d. worthington]

Ah, those old bugbears, "authorial intent" and "intentional fallacy".....

For my money, no, Baum did not overtly intend anything of the sort; but he was a writer who was the product of his time, and anything a writer does is likely to reflect the concerns of their time to some degree. In Baum's case, I think this sort of thing has been magnified far beyond what may really be there, but that there may be elements of such things... well, as I said, I think it likely, but I also think they're minimal. He certainly wasn't trying to preach an ideology, which seems to be the main thrust of such arguments.

The problem with this sort of thing is something that Tolkien addressed in his preface to the revised edition of LotR, where he drew a distinction between "allegory" and "applicability", and between things from an author's life and times which find their way into a story via the creative process, and those which are put there with intent to make a point. So arguments on this sort of thing, while perfectly valid as interpretations of a work, or "readings", if you will, are not the same as what an author was "intending"... but, as Lovecraft noted, the subconscious or unconscious element is always considerable, and that leaves such things open for interpretation. The more we know about a writer's life and thought, the more we are likely to find that may indeed be there, whether through conscious intent or no. On the other hand, the "applicability" is in the eye of the reader, and again is perfectly valid -- part of the reading process, in fact, and what makes books so personal for different readers.

So, whether it was intentionally put in there or not, the fact that some people see such things there is not necessarily invalid -- it is only when they start trying to say that "when he said this, Baum meant to say such-and-such" that you begin running into problems; in that case, they'd better be able to back it up by citations from his writings or biographical facts....

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

For my money, no, Baum did not overtly intend anything of the sort; but he was a writer who was the product of his time, and anything a writer does is likely to reflect the concerns of their time to some degree.

A good and thought-provoking response.

I was rather surprised to read a review of my alternative WW2 novel, The Foresight War, which included the following:

"Wonderful, savage imagery with which, I presume, the author meant to draw direct parallels with our time."

Err, no, actually, that had never occurred to me - I was simply interested in exploring some of the "what-ifs?" of WW2...but on reflection, my take on that war might well unconsciously have been influenced by my mindset towards conflicts as a result of more recent events. Indeed we are all the products of our time, and those original thinkers who can completely break free of that must be very rare.

That does rather remind me of the short story (title and author long forgotten) about the university professor who invents a time machine and uses it to bring William Shakespeare forward to the present day. He enrols him on a course on Shakespeare's works in the English Lit faculty, only to result in WS being thrown off the course because he completely failed to understand what Shakespeare really meant

[pyan]

Its by Asimov, AGW: The Immortal Bard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Rawled Demha]

ah pyan. i was reading each and every post in this topic with the intention of referring this very same story. and then i came to yours

[littlemissattitude]

Interesting topic, McMurphy. I had never heard that there was supposed to be any sort of political content or commentary in Baum's work, although it doesn't surprise me that someone would try to say that it did. There are those, especially in the scholarly world, who seem to think that everything must have some hidden meaning. I think it is also a product of the times in which the critical assessments are made. For example you refer to Littlefield's 1960s work; I assume from your post (although I don't know, not having read Littlefield's work), that he found such meaning there. Well, in the 60s (having been there), many people assumed that everything is political, and so it doesn't surprise me that this would be extended to critical assessments of Baum's work. I mean, look how common the assumption was, and perhaps still is, that the poppy field (in the film; I haven't read Baum and don't know if it is in any of his books) was some sort of veiled drug reference...drugs, of course, being another 60s obsession. Maybe it was that, but in the absence of any evidence from things Baum himself said or wrote about his work, how are we to know what he meant?

[Wiglaf]

I will say that snow (another name for cocaine) was not what saved them in the book.
The closest to political commentary I have seen is when the girls of the Army of Revolt conquer the Emerald City in The Marvelous Land of Oz. The girls think that a girl should rule, but concentrate more on pilfering emeralds; the men need relief as doing the women's work of cleaning and cooking is to strenuous for their constitutions. Yet this still falls short of any outright satire of the women's sufferage movement of the time. Baum's stories were simply good fun.