Book Review: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum

All right, this was a strange choice for me.

I have read children's books in the past, but the last one I read was the fourth Harry Potter book (Goblet of Fire), and I was feeling that the series was very quickly becoming much darker and falling more and more into the realm of young adult or adult fiction.  I have always been a fan of science fiction, and to a more limited extent, fantasy.

Growing up, I never read any of the Oz books, but I have always been a big fan of the MGM film which was released in 1939.  I used to watch it on TV every year with my brother when we were young children.  In 1989, I even watched the 50th anniversary airing of the film, which included an extra hour of behind-the-scenes material.  When the mini-series Tin Man first aired in 2007 I watched that as well (very dark, less well-imagined, and also less entertaining than The Wizard of Oz).

So, what brought me to read the original novel by L. Frank Baum now?  Naturally, it coincides with another TV show based on Oz.  I am referring to Emerald City, which premiered on January 6th, 2017.  I've seen the first two episodes and while it seemed very slow, it was entertaining, and I realized that the writers must be drawing on other aspects of the Oz series (there were characters I did not recognize), and it made me wonder what the original story was like, compared to the film The Wizard of Oz.  I was aware that the Oz series was popular enough that the following authors (among others) either wrote Oz stories, or incorporated details from Oz into some of their works:

• Philip Jose Farmer - A Barnstormer in Oz
• Robert A. Heinlein - The Land of Oz appears in his book The Number of the Beast
• L. Sprague de Camp (editor of Robert E. Howard's original Conan stories) - Sir Harold and the Gnome King
• Tad  Williams - Otherland, where Oz exists as a virtual reality.

The fact that popular authors included Oz in their own work rounded out my interest, so I did some looking around and was able to acquire the entire series as a Kindle book for free, so I started reading the first book.

I remember years ago reading the foreword to Stephen King's expanded edition of his novel The Stand.  He made a few comments regarding the making of novels into films that, as best as I can recall, are something like the following:

• Movies have a diminishing effect on works of fantasy.
• The film The Wizard of Oz is an exception to this rule.

I have to say that I agree with both of these sentiments.  When I see a film based on a book that I've read, the book is almost always better.  In fact, there are a few other films to that list of exceptions, alongside The Wizard of Oz (to name just a few):

• The Lord of the Rings trilogy from the years 2001 through 2003 - far superior to the books in my opinion.  I was very glad that Tom Bombadil didn't make it into the first film.
• 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea - the James Mason version from 1954.  While interesting, the book was a snooze fest compared to this film - after the appearance of the squid, I couldn't even finish the book.
• Treasure Island - the Robert Newton version from 1950.  The novel was boring and I couldn't even finish it.
• The Silence of the Lambs - the book is a great place to start, but the Academy Award winning film is amazing.
• Misery - I loved this Stephen King book, but the film with James Caan and Kathy Bates (in an absolutely disturbing portrayal of Annie Wilkes) is a winner.

Now, back to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.  How does the original story compare with the film?  Well, this may seem strange, but they are both winners, and they are both very different stories.  Despite the fact that this is a children's story first published in 1900, significant portions of the story needed to be removed in order to fit the material into a film that was approximately 90 minutes in length - footage that was shot was in fact cut from the film because it was running too long.

Most people are aware of the significant changes made to the story to make the film (much of this is from the 50th anniversary special with the behind-the-scenes material):

• Dorothy's trip to Oz is actually a dream - Oz it not a real place.
• Her three companions in Oz (the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion) are established as farm hands on her families farm in Kansas.
• The Wizard is established as Professor Marvel in Kansas.
• The Wicked Witch of the West is established as Miss Gulch in Kansas.
• The silver shoes which belonged to the Wicked Witch of the East were changed to ruby slippers.

But, there are many, many additional differences in the story.  One thing that really stood out for me was the claim that one of the writers of the film had Dorothy realize "there's no place like home".  In the book, Dorothy states this to the Scarecrow shortly after they meet, so I wouldn't consider its placing in the film particularly original - but it does fit in nicely with the whole thing being a dream.

Without revealing too many other details (minor spoilers here), the following are also differences in the book:

• The Land of Oz is a real place, and is surrounded on all sides by great deserts which are impassable.
• The North, South, East, and West are all separate "countries";  Gillikin Country to the North, Quadling Country to the South, Munchkin Country to the East, and Winkie Country to the West.  Dorothy travels everywhere but to the North (the Wicked Witch of the West rules Winkie Country, which is never mentioned in the film).
• Glinda is the good witch of the South;  in the movie she lives in the North.
• The flying monkeys aren't exactly the servants of the Wicked Witch of the West - their purpose is much more original than that, and they play a much larger role in the story.
• The trees which speak and throw apples at Dorothy and Scarecrow in the film are quite different in the book, and appear during a different part of the story.
• Much more happens on the journey to the Emerald City, and during their mission to kill the Wicked Witch of the West.  And the Wizard *does* tell Dorothy to kill the Wicked Witch - not to bring him her broomstick.
• The Wizard has separate audiences with Dorothy and her three companions, and the Wizard has a different appearance to each of them (effective for the time, but I like his dark personification in the film).
• The Tin Man has a large backstory which makes his desire for a heart much more convincing.
• The Scarecrow was built and placed in the cornfield the day before Dorothy meets him.

There are even more differences that I won't mention.  Altogether, this makes for a very good story, and begins weaving a tapestry that leaves plenty of room for the future books in the series to flesh things out further.  While I enjoyed learning the new elements of this story, I didn't find this book to be an easy read, which I found odd for a children's book.  There is a lot of prose and very little dialogue compared with the film, and the writing style took some getting used to, but it is definitely worthwhile read, and I see it as an excellent start to a series which has been popular for over 100 years.  I wonder if children are still reading these books today, with so many other choices available?

If you read this series, as a child or as an adult, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.  Please feel free to leave a comment.