On My Shelves: The Tin Woodman of Oz

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Woot the Wanderer is, as his name says, a wanderer of Oz, originally
from the Gillikin country, who arrives in his travels at the Palace of
the Tin Woodman. That worthy, always interested in newcomers, has Woot
brought in and asks him to tell of himself and his travels. But after
this, as Woot is enjoying a dinner (which, naturally, neither the Tin
Woodman nor his current companion, the Scarecrow, partake of), Woot asks
how the Woodman came to be made of tin.

The Woodman recounts the story – how he came to love a Munchkin girl
named Nimmie Amee, how the Witch for whom she worked learned of this
and, when Nick Chopper (the Woodman's true name) refused to give up his
suit for Nimmie Amee's hand, enchanted his axe to cut Nick instead of
the wood, and how as he successively lost pieces of himself, a tinsmith
that he was acquainted with replaced the pieces with functional and
bright tin limbs. But as he reaches the end of the tale, the Tin Woodman
realizes – with prompting by Woot – that he has made a dreadful error of
action.

In the end, he had left Nimmie Amee not because she ceased to love him
– for she actually preferred him as tin – but because, having lost his
heart, he could no longer love her, so he set out on a quest to find a
heart. Then, caught in a rainstorm, he rusted and stood for an unknown
time until Dorothy rescued him, and by the time he actually gained a
heart, Nimmie Amee had been nearly forgotten.

(There are some inconsistencies in this story compared to the original
in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – for example, Nimmie Amee's mistress was
not the Witch herself, and it was also implied that rather than being
caught in some random forest, the Woodman had been standing rusted not
far from his own cabin (thus the convenient oilcan in the cabin). For
purposes of this novel, we take this new set of events as canon.)

This error of action the Woodman immediately resolves to attempt to
remedy; he will find Nimmie Amee, and, if she still loves him, will
bring her back with him to be Empress of the Winkies, even though his
heart, alas, is merely a kind and not a loving heart, and so he will be
fond of her, but not in love with her.

Woot and the Scarecrow accompany him on this quest. They elect to avoid
the Emerald City by going slightly north through part of the Gillikin
country, and are temporarily captured by the Loons, a race of
balloon-people who dislike trespassers. They manage to escape without
much difficulty, however, and continue on until they find themselves in
a valley with a single structure, an immense purple stone castle which
is in reality more like a rectangular house with two enormous doors and
two small windows.

Approaching, they find that there is a nameplate on the castle: "YOOP
CASTLE". The Scarecrow remembers that Mr. Yoop, the Giant, is imprisoned
in a cage far, far away, and the travelers decide this means that it is
deserted and they can use it for shelter.

They are wrong. Living within the castle, alone and perfectly contented
to do so, is Mrs. Yoop, the giantess, and a Yookoohoo – a magician whose
power is to transform one thing into another, without apparent limit.

And Mrs. Yoop, while of a calm and unruffled demeanor, does not like
trespassers… and does like to amuse herself.

Here we meet the second of the primary villains of Polychrome, and a
frightening woman she is, allowing for Baum's target audience. Mrs. Yoop
has already captured and transformed into a canary none other than
Polychrome, Daughter of the Rainbow, despite all of Polychrome's own
inherent power. She imprisons the group within her castle, shows no fear
of even Ozma's retribution, and carefully and calmly decides what
amusing shapes to transform the adventurers into. Even more frightening
is the fact that she can actually include mental attitudes as part of a
transformation; when Woot is changed into a green monkey, he is furious…
until she says that he's perfectly happy and contented, and then he is.

Woot and the others realize that they are in terrible danger.
Intellectually Woot still wants his own form, but he knows that with her
powers it would not take very long for Mrs. Yoop to make him accept and
eventually enjoy his new shape and role in life. Fortunately, with
Polychrome's help they are able to discover one of the keys to Mrs.
Yoop's power, the lace apron she wears, and steal it. They escape,
leaving the castle locked behind them so she cannot pursue (at least,
until she makes another apron or similar device). Unfortunately they
cannot use the apron's power to undo the enchantment; Mrs. Yoop had
warned them that she could not UNdo her transformations, and this
appears to be the case.

But they are free, and after a few adventures including a hungry Jaguar
and several Dragons, the group head south, hoping to eventually reach
Glinda the Good. But Ozma and Dorothy have seen Mrs. Yoop's deeds in the
Magic Picture, and so by following their travels manage to meet our
friends at the ranch of none other than our old friend Jinjur, former
leader of the Army of Revolt.

Ozma manages to break the transformations of Polychrome, the Scarecrow,
and Tin Woodman, but Woot's is not so easily done; it seems that the
Green Monkey form must always exist, and while it can be transferred,
the one to whom it was transferred would then be stuck forever as the
Green Monkey. This seems a conundrum, since it would be unfair to ask
someone else to bear that burden, until Polychrome points out the
obvious symmetry; transfer the shape of the Green Monkey to Mrs. Yoop –
which not only permits Woot to regain his old shape, but removes Mrs.
Yoop's ability to use her Yookoohoo magic, a suitable punishment for her
crimes.

With their forms restored, the little group can then resume their quest…

The Tin Woodman of Oz is one of the most uneven of the Oz books, and
probably the one I least like overall, even though it has some very nice
elements within it.

The overall quest and its resolution – discovering first that the Tin
Woodman was not the only Tin Man in the world, that said Tin Soldier
(named Captain Fyter) had fallen in love with the same girl in the years
that Nick Chopper had stood rusted in the forest, and finally that
Ku-Klip, the tinsmith, had made a combined man from their remains, a man
called Chopfyt… who ended up marrying Nimmie Amee – is simultaneously a
letdown, and a rather low-comedy letdown at that. It does not paint
Nimmie Amee in a good light, either – and indeed none of the primaries
in this love quadrangle come out of it looking terribly good. In this
sequence I think I see something of Baum's stage ideas leaking into the
story without being hammered into a shape more suited for a novel.

Despite being quest-guided, this book also has more of the "travelogue"
feel, and a lot of the little events along the way seem to serve little
more purpose than to add a bit of whimsy – and page count – to the
novel. In all honesty, I think The Tin Woodman of Oz hits its peak in
the encounter with Mrs. Yoop and its resolution.

This novel did, however, provide me with the character of Mrs. Yoop,
the second and perhaps more powerful of the two main villains of
Polychrome. Allowing for what a children's author would put into a book,
and judging by her sociopathic behavior, once I was older I deduced that
Mr. Yoop had probably done far worse to Mrs. Yoop than "kick me in the
shin", and done it for a long time. No wonder she was utterly
unconcerned with his disappearance, and indeed happy he was gone. Her
power, her intelligence, her ability to plan and her cold calculation
hidden behind beauty and control, made her a perfect candidate for a
villain. And the anger, fear, and hatred engendered by being forced to
endure, for countless years, the near-powerless form of the Green Monkey
would take those elements and transform her, in turn, into something far
worse.

Still, this is definitely one of the weakest Oz novels, and if you were
going to skip one… well, I'd say read this one up to the point that the
Green Monkey is transferred, and then move on.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 7:41:36 AM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

>
> This novel did, however, provide me with the character of Mrs. Yoop,
> the second and perhaps more powerful of the two main villains of
> Polychrome.

Was the other one the Nome King? I lost track, since it's been ages since I flipped through any of the books.

Allowing for what a children's author would put into a book,
> and judging by her sociopathic behavior, once I was older I deduced that
> Mr. Yoop had probably done far worse to Mrs. Yoop than "kick me in the
> shin", and done it for a long time.

Personally, if society had expected ME to put up with "mere" shin-kicking, I'd have been glad enough to see the man dragged off to a cage by his enemies, so I doubt Baum had anything worse in mind when it came to Mr. Yoop's behavior. Not to mention that Mrs. Yoop talked as though she ALREADY had no real conscience regarding other people's rights even before her husband's kidnapping:

"I see," remarked the Giantess, nodding her head and smiling again in that curious way--a way that made Woot shudder. "You didn't know that Mr. Yoop was married, or that after he was cruelly captured his wife still lived in his castle, and ran it to suit herself."

"Who captured Mr. Yoop?" asked Woot, looking gravely at the big woman.

"Wicked enemies. People who selfishly objected to Yoop's taking their cows and sheep for his food. I must admit, however, that Yoop had a bad temper, and had the habit of knocking over a few houses, now and then, when he was angry. So one day the little folks came in a great crowd and captured Mr. Yoop..."

> And the anger, fear, and hatred engendered by being forced to
> endure, for countless years, the near-powerless form of the Green Monkey
> would take those elements and transform her, in turn, into something far
> worse.

Did you know that Mrs. Yoop returns in Paul Dana's recent book: "The Magic Umbrella of Oz"? It's a sequel to "The Law of Oz," which Dana also wrote.


Trivial issues from "The Tin Woodman of Oz":


"The sun came out and drove the Rainbow away, and before Poly wakened, I stole out and transformed her into a canary-bird in a gold cage studded with diamonds. The cage was so she couldn't fly away. I expected she'd sing and talk and we'd have good times together; but she has proved no company for me at all. Ever since the moment of her transformation, she has refused to speak a single word."

As I mentioned elsewhere, WHY did Baum include that second sentence when any small child could have figured that out?

Also, while Baum (or Mrs. Yoop) may not have known this, there's an amusing irony in the last sentence; only MALE canaries sing! (Well, most of the time, anyway - and from what I understand, the average female can still chirp.)

Finally, here's something I never thought about, since sometimes it's difficult for me to notice certain things as an adult when I already have a firm-but-naive memory of what I read as a kid:

"Mercy me! do you think I'd bother to make biscuits out of flour?" she replied. "That is altogether too tedious a process for a Yookoohoo. I set some traps this afternoon and caught a lot of field-mice, but as I do not like to eat mice, I transformed them into hot biscuits for my supper. The honey in this pot was once a wasp's nest, but since being transformed it has become sweet and delicious. All I need do, when I wish to eat, is to take something I don't care to keep, and transform it into any sort of food I like, and eat it. Are you hungry?"


Hint, hint...


So, as The Wingchair Critic at Amazon wrote, back in 2002 (it's the edition with 29 reader reviews, at the moment):

"...Yookoohoo sorceress Mrs. Yoop, placid and regal, is one of Baum's more terrifying villains, showing as she does an undiluted sociopathic and amoral indifference to the fates of others, who she physically manipulates to suit her fancies.

"Beautiful and poised, Mrs. Yoop, who lives alone in a dead valley, uses her spell-casting talents to provide herself with sustenance; water, pebbles, and bundles of weeds become coffee, 'fish-balls,' and buttered biscuits with a wave of her hand. When Mrs. Yoop tells the journeyers she is unpleased with their present forms and will transform them to her liking in the morning, the unsubtle suggestion that they may be her next meal is clear.

"Mrs. Yoop is not only one in a long line of fairytale cannibal giants, but her gigantism and prim, coldly polite manners make clear she is also a figurative as well as a literal devouring mother..."

(snip)


Lenona.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

Forgot to say, regarding this scene:

Nimmie Amee: "...I advise you to go back to your own homes and forget me, as I have forgotten you."

"Good advice!" laughed Polychrome, dancing.

"Are you happy?" asked the Tin Soldier.

"Of course I am," said Nimmie Amee; "I'm the mistress of all I survey -- the queen of my little domain."

"Wouldn't you like to be the Empress of the Winkies?" asked the Tin Woodman.

"Mercy, no," she answered. "That would be a lot of bother. I don't care for society, or pomp, or posing. All I ask is to be left alone and not to be annoyed by visitors."

(snip)


From what I heard, that was pretty much Baum's own attitude toward the fame and fortune he'd grown tired of, near the end of his life! (He died a year later, in 1919.)


Lenona.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/31/15 12:29 PM, leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 7:41:36 AM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>>
>> This novel did, however, provide me with the character of Mrs. Yoop,
>> the second and perhaps more powerful of the two main villains of
>> Polychrome.
>
> Was the other one the Nome King? I lost track, since it's been ages since I flipped through any of the books.
>

No, in _Polychrome_ I allowed the Nome King to complete his redemption
started at the end of _Tik-Tok of Oz_; the other main villain in
_Polychrome_ is Ugu, once called the Shoemaker, renaming himself the
Unbowed, from _The Lost Princess of Oz_.

[William December Starr]

In article <mpd2ef$r63$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> Ozma manages to break the transformations of Polychrome, the
> Scarecrow, and Tin Woodman, but Woot's is not so easily done;
> it seems that the Green Monkey form must always exist, and
> while it can be transferred, the one to whom it was
> transferred would then be stuck forever as the Green Monkey.
> This seems a conundrum, since it would be unfair to ask
> someone else to bear that burden, until Polychrome points out
> the obvious symmetry; transfer the shape of the Green Monkey

> to Mrs. Yoop -- which not only permits Woot to regain his old

> shape, but removes Mrs. Yoop's ability to use her Yookoohoo
> magic, a suitable punishment for her crimes.

Not if 'suitable' is taken as including 'sufficient,' in my opinion.

(An opinion which is factually informed only by your review; I haven't
read the book myself.)

-- wds

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 31 July 2015 17:29:33 UTC+1, leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Trivial issues from "The Tin Woodman of Oz":
>
> "The sun came out and drove the Rainbow away, and before Poly wakened, I stole out and transformed her into a canary-bird in a gold cage studded with diamonds. The cage was so she couldn't fly away. I expected she'd sing and talk and we'd have good times together; but she has proved no company for me at all. Ever since the moment of her transformation, she has refused to speak a single word."
>
> As I mentioned elsewhere, WHY did Baum include that second sentence when any small child could have figured that out?

It seems to me from this excerpt that Polychrome was transformed
to a cage /and/ a canary inside it, which is more complicated -
and maybe a lot more scary. Or is that contradicted?

> Also, while Baum (or Mrs. Yoop) may not have known this, there's an amusing irony in the last sentence; only MALE canaries sing! (Well, most of the time, anyway - and from what I understand, the average female can still chirp.)

Maybe in the old days every child learned that in school.
There were fewer other things to learn, such as History -
there was less of that.

> Finally, here's something I never thought about, since sometimes it's difficult for me to notice certain things as an adult when I already have a firm-but-naive memory of what I read as a kid:
>
> "Mercy me! do you think I'd bother to make biscuits out of flour?" she replied. "That is altogether too tedious a process for a Yookoohoo. I set some traps this afternoon and caught a lot of field-mice, but as I do not like to eat mice, I transformed them into hot biscuits for my supper. The honey in this pot was once a wasp's nest, but since being transformed it has become sweet and delicious. All I need do, when I wish to eat, is to take something I don't care to keep, and transform it into any sort of food I like, and eat it. Are you hungry?"
>
>
> Hint, hint...

I'm not clear that this is implying cannibalism, although
it may be implying that you aren't going to look at biscuits
in the same way for a while. Hasn't it been established
that no one - no person - dies in Oz? Or has Mrs Yoop found
a way around that?

Also in _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_, the mice are friends
of Dorothy, so they are sort-of people.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/1/15 3:44 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 31 July 2015 17:29:33 UTC+1, leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Trivial issues from "The Tin Woodman of Oz":
>>
>> "The sun came out and drove the Rainbow away, and before Poly wakened, I stole out and transformed her into a canary-bird in a gold cage studded with diamonds. The cage was so she couldn't fly away. I expected she'd sing and talk and we'd have good times together; but she has proved no company for me at all. Ever since the moment of her transformation, she has refused to speak a single word."
>>
>> As I mentioned elsewhere, WHY did Baum include that second sentence when any small child could have figured that out?
>
> It seems to me from this excerpt that Polychrome was transformed
> to a cage /and/ a canary inside it, which is more complicated -
> and maybe a lot more scary. Or is that contradicted?

No, that's exactly what it implies. The main "persona" of Poly was in
the canary, of course, but Mrs. Yoop can apply almost any number of
conditions to her transformations. She is, indeed, quite terrifying.

>
>> Finally, here's something I never thought about, since sometimes it's difficult for me to notice certain things as an adult when I already have a firm-but-naive memory of what I read as a kid:
>>
>> "Mercy me! do you think I'd bother to make biscuits out of flour?" she replied. "That is altogether too tedious a process for a Yookoohoo. I set some traps this afternoon and caught a lot of field-mice, but as I do not like to eat mice, I transformed them into hot biscuits for my supper. The honey in this pot was once a wasp's nest, but since being transformed it has become sweet and delicious. All I need do, when I wish to eat, is to take something I don't care to keep, and transform it into any sort of food I like, and eat it. Are you hungry?"
>>
>>
>> Hint, hint...
>
> I'm not clear that this is implying cannibalism, although
> it may be implying that you aren't going to look at biscuits
> in the same way for a while. Hasn't it been established
> that no one - no person - dies in Oz? Or has Mrs Yoop found
> a way around that?

Technically they say you cannot "die", but you can be "destroyed". How
those differ is left as an exercise for the student.

>
> Also in _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_, the mice are friends
> of Dorothy, so they are sort-of people.
>

More of the Tin Woodman, and they help out again in _The Marvelous Land
of Oz_.

[Robert Carnegie]

And McVitie's have put out their latest commercial again
for their biscuits, reminding me that they exist - the
commercials, not the biscuits. (Or, to some, "cookies".)

In each of these, one or more people open a packet
of some variety of McVitie's biscuit and there appears...

Puppies. Kittens. Assorted cute animals for the
assortment pack. An alpaca, apparently, I forget
for what.

One of several jolly popular tunes plays, such as
a popular television theme from a while back.

The people are not surprised but are delighted.

Then the music stops and we see that in fact
what came out of the packet is the biscuits
which the people are happily devouring.

Packet shot and the word "Sweet" with more
of the letter "e" than usual.

These are, of course, on Youtube.

My own reactions are (1) Eugh, and (2) This doesn't
bode well for "manufacturers voluntarily reducing
sugar content of food."

...although some world consumers would consider
the sugar content of these products "moderate".

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:54:49 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 8/1/15 3:44 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Friday, 31 July 2015 17:29:33 UTC+1, leno...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >> "The sun came out and drove the Rainbow away, and before Poly wakened, I stole out and transformed her into a canary-bird in a gold cage studded with diamonds. The cage was so she couldn't fly away. I expected she'd sing and talk and we'd have good times together; but she has proved no company for me at all. Ever since the moment of her transformation, she has refused to speak a single word."
> >>
> >> As I mentioned elsewhere, WHY did Baum include that second sentence when any small child could have figured that out?
> >
> > It seems to me from this excerpt that Polychrome was transformed
> > to a cage /and/ a canary inside it, which is more complicated -
> > and maybe a lot more scary. Or is that contradicted?
>
> No, that's exactly what it implies. The main "persona" of Poly was in
> the canary, of course, but Mrs. Yoop can apply almost any number of
> conditions to her transformations. She is, indeed, quite terrifying.

OK, but Baum could just as easily have had her say "I stole out and
transformed her into a canary-bird and put her in a gold cage studded
with diamonds." So I wonder.


Lenona.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

Forgot to say: While I'm sure there are many Victorian sentiments/ideals in
the Oz books that sound bizarre today (tell me your favorites), here's one
from the last chapter that probably tops them all, via Dorothy:

SPOILER:


"You need not consider Chopfyt at all," replied the beautiful girl Ruler
of Oz. "If Nimmie Amee is content with that misfit man for a husband, we
have not even just cause to blame Ku-Klip for gluing him together."

"I think it was a very good idea," added little Dorothy, "for if Ku-Klip
hadn't used up your cast-off parts, they would have been wasted. It's wicked
to be wasteful, isn't it?"


Lenona.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

"It's wicked to be wasteful" sounds bizarre? Sounds perfectly
reasonable to me. Yes, we waste stuff in our society, but that doesn't
make it wise or admirable.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Ummm... what's wrong with Dorothy's response? There's a bit of squicky
in Ozma's (if I'm properly attributing the "misfit man for a husband"
line) judgemental tone, but Dorothy seems to be making the best of a
truly awful comment to remark on.

Hey, I'm *really* grateful my beautiful wife has seen me as being worth
staying married to for 36 years now...

[Robert Carnegie]

But have you discarded any parts of your body,
and, if so, what did she do with them?

Re-using your left-overs is not only a Victorian
virtue, but with human tissue it's a bit different.

So, Chopfyt is basically the friendly version
of Frankenstein's monster - movie-style, made
by grave-robbing - with a touch of The Ship Of
Theseus or "grandfather's axe".

Actually I think: these are the jokes, folks.
It may indeed be difficult to tell, with the
slower pacing. The book would be clearer
with a canned laughter track.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 7:40:22 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:

>
> But have you discarded any parts of your body,
> and, if so, what did she do with them?
>
> Re-using your left-overs is not only a Victorian
> virtue, but with human tissue it's a bit different.
>
> So, Chopfyt is basically the friendly version
> of Frankenstein's monster - movie-style, made
> by grave-robbing - with a touch of The Ship Of
> Theseus or "grandfather's axe".
>
> Actually I think: these are the jokes, folks.
> It may indeed be difficult to tell, with the
> slower pacing. The book would be clearer
> with a canned laughter track.

OK, maybe it WAS Baum's idea of a joke. Hadn't thought of that.

It's just that there are so many dated sentiments in the Oz
books - so it's not always easy to tell when he was trying
to be funny.

Being a tightwad (a la Amy Dacyczyn), I very much embrace
the Victorian value of non-wastefulness; I merely thought Dorothy
was taking it too far in suggesting that violating the two
men's individual identities, so to speak, was more virtuous
than not doing so, even if they had had no interest in
keeping their original body parts.

Not to mention that it seems pretty weird to use the same
harsh adjective as the one used, multiple times, to describe
Mrs. Yoop.


Lenona.

[John Reiher]

On 2015-08-11 02:57:49 +0000, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) said:

> On 8/10/15 6:28 PM, leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Forgot to say: While I'm sure there are many Victorian sentiments/ideals in
>> the Oz books that sound bizarre today (tell me your favorites), here's one
>> from the last chapter that probably tops them all, via Dorothy:
>>
>> SPOILER:
>>
>>
>> "You need not consider Chopfyt at all," replied the beautiful girl Ruler
>> of Oz. "If Nimmie Amee is content with that misfit man for a husband, we
>> have not even just cause to blame Ku-Klip for gluing him together."
>>
>> "I think it was a very good idea," added little Dorothy, "for if Ku-Klip
>> hadn't used up your cast-off parts, they would have been wasted. It's wicked
>> to be wasteful, isn't it?"
>>
>>
>> Lenona.
>>
>
>
> "It's wicked to be wasteful" sounds bizarre? Sounds perfectly
> reasonable to me. Yes, we waste stuff in our society, but that doesn't
> make it wise or admirable.

The only weird vibe I got from this is that the only left over part is
Nick Chopper's head. What does Chopfyt even look like as he's the
assembled bits of Nick and Fyter? I bet he's very handy...
--
John Reiher
Tri Tac Games Podcast
http://tritacsystems.podbean.com/

[Robert Carnegie]

He's far from being the only patchwork character
I& the Oz books.

IIRC Jack Pumpkinhead replaces his head regularly
with a fresh vegetable. The Gump didn't like being
brought to life and requested to be disassembled -
that's very deep for a children's book - although
its head remained animated afterwards.

Upon checking, I see that a Gump is a sort of Oz elk.
"The head of a Gump was mounted on the mantle in the
great hallway of the Royal Palace of Oz." Um - why?
<http://oz.wikia.com/wiki/Gump>

[John Reiher]

So he can greet visitors? Yeah, creepy.

I mean, there is a roleplaying game based on the Oz books, both the
Baum and the subsequent "canon" books. And they point out that you
can't die unless you're burnt to ashes, eaten, or turned to dust in the
Deadly Desert. That's nightmare fuel. If we take Nick Chopper and
Captain Fyt as examples, it's quite possible to have yourself
dissasembled and rebuilt as *two* individuals. Both with shared
memories and experiences right up to the point you were taken apart.
8-o

Speaking of Oz, there's a very interesting webcomic interpreptation
called _The Brick Road of Oz:_

http://www.blackbrickroadofoz.com

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Because that's where the head was BEFORE they used it to build the
flying machine called the Gump.

>
> So he can greet visitors? Yeah, creepy.

He usually doesn't speak; only when something catches his interest.

>
> I mean, there is a roleplaying game based on the Oz books, both the Baum
> and the subsequent "canon" books. And they point out that you can't die

In the later Baum books. Death was much more real a threat (and the
nightmare fuel not present) in the early books.

> unless you're burnt to ashes, eaten, or turned to dust in the Deadly
> Desert.

Or straight-up disintegrated, or probably put into a blender, or
otherwise reduced to your constituent cells or below.


> That's nightmare fuel.

Baum occasionally played with that too.

If we take Nick Chopper and Captain Fyt
> as examples, it's quite possible to have yourself dissasembled and
> rebuilt as *two* individuals. Both with shared memories and experiences
> right up to the point you were taken apart. 8-o

And then there's Princess Langwidere, who has a collection of thirty
separate heads that she can swap on and off like jewelry.

>
> Speaking of Oz, there's a very interesting webcomic interpreptation
> called _The Brick Road of Oz:_
>

There's several, actually. I rather like the Oz we see in _Namesake_
(http://www.namesakecomic.com)

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-08-12, John Reiher <keda...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 2015-08-12 10:23:26 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
>> He's far from being the only patchwork character I& the Oz books.
>>
>> IIRC Jack Pumpkinhead replaces his head regularly
>> with a fresh vegetable. The Gump didn't like being
>> brought to life and requested to be disassembled -
>> that's very deep for a children's book - although
>> its head remained animated afterwards.

Indeed, one merely needs to look back at what-all happened to the Scarecrow
in the very first book to get another entirely canonical example. He gets
disassembled, and all his straw is taken out and, I think, BURNT? (I do not
recall whether his head-straw - remember, at this point he hadn't gotten his
Wizard brains yet - was included but I'm thinking it had to have been.) When
rescued he's stuffed with fresh straw and is good as new. Later on his BRAIN
is removed ... and replaced with an entirely different neural substrate!
Despite which there seems to be very little difference in his personality
afterwards, just a placebo effect causing him to no longer think he isn't
smart.

We later find out he gets his straw and bran renewed periodically ... and has
his eyes, ears, nose, and mouth touched up - or entirely repainted - when they
start to fade or wear off. And I don't remember anything about replacing the
farmer's clothing or the sack that's his head, but dollars to doughnuts it
would have the same sort of non-effect.

Other animated items with personalities - Scraps the Patchwork Girl, the Glass
Cat, the Sawhorse, etc. - seem also to have this sort of interoperability built
in; at least one fanfic assumes replacing the Glass Cat's pink brains with
something else would cause nothing much more than a persdonality change based
on gem characteristics.

[*]

> I mean, there is a roleplaying game based on the Oz books, both the
> Baum and the subsequent "canon" books.

At least one, if you're not thinking of _Oz: Dark and Terrible_.

> And they point out that you
> can't die unless you're burnt to ashes, eaten, or turned to dust in the
> Deadly Desert. That's nightmare fuel.

And Fridge Horror, for some of the other implications. Heinlein points out
(yes, I _know_ in which book, but still) that the non-aging part ALSO has
this sort of ramification; specifically, children are gonna be 7 or 4-1/2 or
whatever _forever_, Button-Bright will never grow up ... and babies will be
perpetually babies.

> If we take Nick Chopper and
> Captain Fyt as examples, it's quite possible to have yourself
> dissasembled and rebuilt as *two* individuals. Both with shared
> memories and experiences right up to the point you were taken apart.
> 8-o

Banach and Tarski proved some POWERFUL magical theorems, let me tell you.

Dave

[*] From this, we can actually deduce approximately three guiding principles
of one sort of magic in Oz: Animation. As far as can be seen, it is Contagious;
it is Contiguous; and it is Continual. ("Lemme 'splain...")

Contagious: appropriate parts added to an animated object-with-personality
become animated themselves, without actual need for further enchantment.
(Indeed, the Tin Woodman's tin replacement parts didn't get enchanted at all,
they were just "cleverly attached" by the tinsmith and so well-made that they
worked as the natural parts would have.) "Real" life does this as well, but
with a much more restricted version of 'appropriate object', basically limited
until recently to food, drink, and air... but Scraps can mend herself with new
patches and thread, the Scarecrow's face can be repaired with ordinary paint,
etc.
And only appropriate stuff in contact animates; the Scarecrow doesn't bring
the Yellow Bricks to life as he walks on them, or the throne he sits in. Nick
Chopper's axe isn't alive. Etc. So: there's a variety of morphogenic field
involved somehow, animating only stuff that fits into the _concept_ of the
person-object.

Contiguous: The animation generally stays active only if the person-object
stays mostly in one piece. Again, similar to "real" life :) . We don't see
reports of the Scarecrow detaching his hand and sending it, Thing-like, across
the room to retrieve a book for him, or Scraps sewing a piece of herself into
a mini-Scraps with wacky hijinx ensuing. And if the person-object gets
disassembled, they deanimate - the Scarecrow has this happen in the first book,
remember? - ... and then if reassembled later, they re-animate all on their
own, no further Powder of Life necessary.
So: there's SOMETHING involved that isn't actually any of the material bits,
which can animate and move them all when they're together but which loses
contact with cut-off pieces and which can't manage if there isn't a big enough
piece left, or enough pieces (it varies).

And Continual: Once the animating effect is applied, however done - and we
never DO find out WHY the Scarecrow came to life, we just know it wasn't from
any of the 'usual' reasons - it stays "on". Nobody needs to dust the Glass Cat
with Powder Of Life And Anti-Fleas once a week. If the recipient gets
disassembled, the effect gets suppressed... but doesn't actually end, as noted
above, because it's there again if they get reassembled. (Probably the right
sort of magic COULD dispel it, but I don't think we EVER see such a thing
mentioned, and none of the characters seem to think of it, even when facing the
darkest villains or when using the most powerful, "the wishes I grant have no
real limits and that's NOT my top-powered function", artifacts.)
And ... the effect apparently preserves the materials involved, to a degree.
They could still wear off, wear out, or break down under the same sort of
stresses as if they weren't animated - Jack's pumpkins don't last forever - but
it seems to take longer. (And/or the effect gives resilience.) Jack's pumpkin's
ALSO aren't rotten and squooshy in a mere week or so. And the effect itself
does not seem to age, weaken, run out, or run down ... unlike, alas, real life.

(Probably the best terminology for such in present-day RPG terms is
"elemental"? But one whose summoning is permanent, ending only if actually
destroyed, not just from enough damage.)
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[William December Starr]

In article <7c7f5cdc-d5f4-4205...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> said:

> He's far from being the only patchwork character
> I& the Oz books.
>
> IIRC Jack Pumpkinhead replaces his head regularly
> with a fresh vegetable. The Gump didn't like being
> brought to life and requested to be disassembled -
> that's very deep for a children's book - although
> its head remained animated afterwards.
>
> Upon checking, I see that a Gump is a sort of Oz elk.
> "The head of a Gump was mounted on the mantle in the
> great hallway of the Royal Palace of Oz." Um - why?
> <http://oz.wikia.com/wiki/Gump>

Is the proper term "_a_ Gump" or "_the_ Gump"?

-- wds

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 12 Aug 2015 20:24:44 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

Yes.

There is apparently an entire species of Gumps, and as I recall the
word is always capitalized, for no clear reason.

The one whose head hangs in the palace, though, is THE Gump, as due to
its history it's a unique specimen, and it's also the only one that
ever appears onstage.

Similarly, the Wogglebug, the Woozy, the Scarecrow, etc.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Robert Carnegie]

Right, but, apart from it being just the kind of thing
that you see in grand houses and/or Laurel and Hardy films,
and, if you own one, incorporate in your play fort - which
former ruler of Oz installed a Gump's head as decoration
in the palace?

Fairy-land hunters usually aren't looking for trophies.

> > So he can greet visitors? Yeah, creepy.

I meant before the Franken-Gump was (re-)animated.
I suppose that the function of a Greeter doesn't
require animation.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Apparently some were.

>
>>> So he can greet visitors? Yeah, creepy.
>
> I meant before the Franken-Gump was (re-)animated.
> I suppose that the function of a Greeter doesn't
> require animation.
>

He was dead-dead before the reanimation. I.e., the head had no life in
it and was not a greeter, just an ornament, before FrankenGump.

Remember, this was in the early books; death was very real at that time.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 5:22:55 PM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:

> And Fridge Horror, for some of the other implications. Heinlein points out
> (yes, I _know_ in which book, but still) that the non-aging part ALSO has
> this sort of ramification; specifically, children are gonna be 7 or 4-1/2 or
> whatever _forever_, Button-Bright will never grow up ... and babies will be
> perpetually babies.

I have to say, there aren't many authors who can make that type of land
believable, outside of the afterlife - especially when babies keep being born!
I mean, where do the older children and adults come from, if not from outside
of Oz? As Bones said in "The Apple": "This isn't life. It's stagnation!"

BTW, Mark Twain had a great piece on the afterlife and why perpetual youth, even in your 20s, is not as desirable (or dignified) as you might think.
I suspect, at least, that this was Twain's way of suggesting that the very
idea of HEAVEN isn't plausible - a place of all play and no work? What a bore!
Eventually, after all, you'd just lose your sense of perspective.

You can read it here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1044/1044-h/1044-h.htm

Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven

Scroll down a little more than 1/3. Or search on "Sandy" and start with
that paragraph. It ends at the end of Chapter 1.


Lenona.

[Greg Goss]

leno...@yahoo.com wrote:

>BTW, Mark Twain had a great piece on the afterlife and why perpetual youth, even in your 20s, is not as desirable (or dignified) as you might think.
>I suspect, at least, that this was Twain's way of suggesting that the very
>idea of HEAVEN isn't plausible - a place of all play and no work? What a bore!
>Eventually, after all, you'd just lose your sense of perspective.
>
>You can read it here:
>
>https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1044/1044-h/1044-h.htm

Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" had that problem in a fairly utopian
society. If people INSIST on working, then the economy will insist on
growing even if that's not healthy for the economy as a whole. I
forget the data dump where he explained this, but the concept stuck
with me.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Space travel solves the problem, I suggest.

Immortals don't mind long road trips.

pt

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 12:05:48 PM UTC-4, leno...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> BTW, Mark Twain had a great piece on the afterlife and why perpetual youth, even in your 20s, is not as desirable (or dignified) as you might think.
> I suspect, at least, that this was Twain's way of suggesting that the very
> idea of HEAVEN isn't plausible - a place of all play and no work? What a bore!
> Eventually, after all, you'd just lose your sense of perspective.
>
> You can read it here:
>
> https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1044/1044-h/1044-h.htm
>
> Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven
>

I first found the story in the book "The Bible According to Mark Twain."


Lenona.