Reading Oz
May 14th, 2005 at 11:44 pm (Unschooling Life)
Time for a rant….
For the past year and a half, Kenzie and I have been reading a chapter or so from L. Frank Baum’s Oz series each night before bed. We’ve gone off on other tangents for a few weeks at a time, but for the most part, this has been our bedtime reading for quite a while. We’ve finally finished each of the Oz books (as well as The Life and Adventures of Santa Clause, which we read this
past Christmas), and decided to read his great-grandson’s book Dorothy of Oz, published in 1989. Uggh.

Roger S. Baum’s Dorothy of Oz
Roger S. Baum’s Dorothy of Oz fails in several ways. It seems to be written for those who have only read the first book (or perhaps seen the movie). For some reason, Dorothy lives in Kansas with her aunt and uncle, though in the series, she has lived in Oz with them for quite some time. The book focuses on the three main Oz inhabitants found in the movie: the Cowardly Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodman. However, instead of each of these characters being well-developed, as they were over the course of more than a dozen Frank Baum books, they are shallow caricatures of their movie selves. The book even tries to tie in the Wicked Witch of the West who hasn’t played a part in any of the stories since the first. Roger Baum continues to refer to things that have happened over the series, presumably for the faithful readers, but this rarely works well. The information sounds silly to those who have read the series and extraneous to those who haven’t.
That’s not my biggest problem with the book, though. The writing is terrible. Instead of reading an Oz book, it feels as though we’re plowing through a Magic Treehouse installment. The book is written "down" to readers. The sentences are short, the use of pronouns is sparse, and the content is shallow. Heaving a rather heavy sigh, I’ll pull out the book and give a few examples:
With nothing leading up to this: "Meeting a court jester the next morning was the last thing Dorothy expected. ‘Hello, my pretty princess,’ said the Jester…." It just goes on, never describing the setting. (Where are they? Seems to be on some road, somewhere.)
and
"The room was large. It also had a table and chairs made of gold. The chairs had purple velvet cushions."
and
"The Jester made them disappear. He is dangerous and fears nothing. The Jester was a good person, but he found the Witch’s wand and its evil overtook him. Now he is almost as bad as the Wicked Witch of the West. The Jester’s power lies in the magic wand the old Witch used. …"
and
"Dorothy ran to the chair. Toto was nowhere in sight. Then Dorothy looked down. On the chair’s pillow sat a little dog made of china. Dorothy picked the dog up. It was Toto."
These examples were all from chapter three, which we read tonight. (Heaving another long sigh….) Why do authors write children’s stories like this? Don’t children enjoy well-written prose? Of course they do. This is simply another instance of the slow dumbing-down of American society (well, that and riding on Great-Grandaddy’s coattails). One point in this book’s favor, however: Elizabeth Miles’ illustrations are gorgeous.
I’ll admit, Frank Baum’s series was not the best-written work in the English language, and it was rather formulaic, but it wasn’t written in what amounts to baby-speak. He didn’t assume his readers needed simple, short sentences, easy-to-follow plot lines, or stereotypical children’s imagery (a land made out of candy, anyone?). I can truly recommend Frank Baum’s collection (start with Lisbeth Zwerger’s beautifully illustrated version of Baum’s The Wizard of Oz). You won’t be disappointed.

The Wizard of Oz illustated by Lisbeth Zweger