The thing with literature is that as soon as it is published, it is as much the reader’s book as the author’s. L. Frank Baum may not have initially meant The Wizard of Oz to be a satirical look at politics of the time, but in some ways, what Baum originally meant means less than how readers choose to interpret his work. It seems that in a lot of history, it matters less the facts of what actually happened and more how people interpret the facts that they choose to see.
Littlefield outright said that Baum was not a political activist and did not believe The Wizard of Oz was necessarily written with a political motive in mind. With this disclaimer, Littlefield wrote ways that The Wizard of Oz could be interpreted to symbolically represent the Populist movement. However, even if a piece of literature was not written for a specific purpose, it still may have had sections written to convey a message. For example, the great wizard in The Wizard of Oz is merely a mortal man standing behind a veil. This revelation for Dorothy and her friends, that the politician that was supposed to solve all of their woes was merely a mortal man, can hardly not be interpreted as a comment on politics. Likewise, it is very unlikely that Baum specifically mentions that the characters are required to wear emerald-colored glasses into the dull, white Emerald City to give the illusion that the city is made out of precious jewels simply to point out the citizens’ fashion sense. While it may be a stretch to say The Wizard of Oz was written simply to depict the struggle of the Populist movement, it would not be hard to say that some parts of the book were meant to criticize politics.
Although Baum made a few seemingly good points of The Wizard Of Oz in comparison to populism (the silver shoes as a representation of the silver standard, the tin man and the scarecrow, which were displayed as farmers and industrial workers, and Oz which symbolized Washington) I have to agree with Virginia's above statement. Because Baum was not active in politics, and the fact that none of his other stories could be considered or connected to political works, it is unlikely that Littlefield ever set out to make the wizard of Oz a political novel. More likely, Baum looked deeply into the book and forced these connections.
When L. Frank Baum formed and published The Wizard of Oz, I don’t believe he intended to reference the “political landscape” during the time as Henry Littlefield argues, rather, the idea of the story being a “parable on populism” was just an interesting coincidence. It is a known fact that L. Baum was not very active when it came to politics, and his other works are not considered political. But we cannot know what Baum was thinking when he created his characters; perhaps they were based off of the populist movement; maybe the scarecrow was actually derived from the notion that farmers were not intelligent enough to recognize their interests, or the tin man was meant to represent the dehumanization of workers and the closing of factories, however, it is extremely unlikely that this was the case.
Baum's comparison between the Populist Movement and the Wizard of Oz was definitely a stretch. As everyone above me has stated, Baum was not politcally active. Therefore, his comparisons to politics were ill founded. Baum simply interpreted a story made to entertain, the Wizard of Oz, as a political statement. Some comparisons, such as Dorothy's sliver shoes to the silver standard seem more like simple coincidences than pointed forms of comparison. In my opnion, the comparison between the Populist Movement and the Wizard of Oz is not based on any fact but simply chance.
Disclaimer: I had a lengthy piece that was deleted because of account complications, and I was too frustrated to start again, so I'll summarize the main ideas. 1) Populism was popular, and one didn't need to be steeped in politics to understand the gist of the movement, anyone in the area (S.Dakota Baum's location of writing) could provide their sentiments on the movement. Also just because one does not have a reputation for having a political basis in other writings, that does not prevent such writer from writing an allegory. Look at the literary standpoint as well, a negative depiction on the federal government and the enemies of the populist movement overall, a basis of knowledge probably gained from word of mouth from the locals. 2. There is too much literary evidence. There are so many literary connections and metaphors to the popular status of the nation's policy, that there is no way that this could not be allegorical. I mean, come on, wouldn't you think that all of those drawn comparisons are overly-coincidental?
I think that while this did have strong overtones of Populist beliefs and ideas, this was more because of reader's interpretations than because of L. Frank Baum's intentions. He stated several times that his intentions were not to use the Wizard of Oz as an allegory for Populism, but simply as a children's book. While there may have been some hints of Populism in his writings, this was because of the environment that Baum was writing in, in Populist South Dakota. In essence, the belief that there is an analogy between the Wizard of Oz and the Populist movement was not realistic, but rather simply an eisegesis of the reader
I think the comparison between the Wizard of Oz and Populist ideas is definitely an interesting one and I applaud the writer of the analysis. However, I do think, like most of my fellow students, that the extent of his analysis is over-thought. Though the silver shoes, for example, may have been a very subtle reference to the Populist drama over the remonetization of silver, I think at the most it was an almost subconscious reference made by Baum without trying to make a political statement. The danger of analyzing literature in general, I think, is getting too deep into it: some children's books are just that: children's books.
The thing with literature is that as soon as it is published, it is as much the reader’s book as the author’s. L. Frank Baum may not have initially meant The Wizard of Oz to be a satirical look at politics of the time, but in some ways, what Baum originally meant means less than how readers choose to interpret his work. It seems that in a lot of history, it matters less the facts of what actually happened and more how people interpret the facts that they choose to see.
ReplyDeleteLittlefield outright said that Baum was not a political activist and did not believe The Wizard of Oz was necessarily written with a political motive in mind. With this disclaimer, Littlefield wrote ways that The Wizard of Oz could be interpreted to symbolically represent the Populist movement. However, even if a piece of literature was not written for a specific purpose, it still may have had sections written to convey a message. For example, the great wizard in The Wizard of Oz is merely a mortal man standing behind a veil. This revelation for Dorothy and her friends, that the politician that was supposed to solve all of their woes was merely a mortal man, can hardly not be interpreted as a comment on politics. Likewise, it is very unlikely that Baum specifically mentions that the characters are required to wear emerald-colored glasses into the dull, white Emerald City to give the illusion that the city is made out of precious jewels simply to point out the citizens’ fashion sense. While it may be a stretch to say The Wizard of Oz was written simply to depict the struggle of the Populist movement, it would not be hard to say that some parts of the book were meant to criticize politics.
Although Baum made a few seemingly good points of The Wizard Of Oz in comparison to populism (the silver shoes as a representation of the silver standard, the tin man and the scarecrow, which were displayed as farmers and industrial workers, and Oz which symbolized Washington) I have to agree with Virginia's above statement. Because Baum was not active in politics, and the fact that none of his other stories could be considered or connected to political works, it is unlikely that Littlefield ever set out to make the wizard of Oz a political novel. More likely, Baum looked deeply into the book and forced these connections.
ReplyDeleteWhen L. Frank Baum formed and published The Wizard of Oz, I don’t believe he intended to reference the “political landscape” during the time as Henry Littlefield argues, rather, the idea of the story being a “parable on populism” was just an interesting coincidence. It is a known fact that L. Baum was not very active when it came to politics, and his other works are not considered political. But we cannot know what Baum was thinking when he created his characters; perhaps they were based off of the populist movement; maybe the scarecrow was actually derived from the notion that farmers were not intelligent enough to recognize their interests, or the tin man was meant to represent the dehumanization of workers and the closing of factories, however, it is extremely unlikely that this was the case.
ReplyDeleteBaum's comparison between the Populist Movement and the Wizard of Oz was definitely a stretch. As everyone above me has stated, Baum was not politcally active. Therefore, his comparisons to politics were ill founded. Baum simply interpreted a story made to entertain, the Wizard of Oz, as a political statement. Some comparisons, such as Dorothy's sliver shoes to the silver standard seem more like simple coincidences than pointed forms of comparison. In my opnion, the comparison between the Populist Movement and the Wizard of Oz is not based on any fact but simply chance.
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: I had a lengthy piece that was deleted because of account complications, and I was too frustrated to start again, so I'll summarize the main ideas.
ReplyDelete1) Populism was popular, and one didn't need to be steeped in politics to understand the gist of the movement, anyone in the area (S.Dakota Baum's location of writing) could provide their sentiments on the movement. Also just because one does not have a reputation for having a political basis in other writings, that does not prevent such writer from writing an allegory. Look at the literary standpoint as well, a negative depiction on the federal government and the enemies of the populist movement overall, a basis of knowledge probably gained from word of mouth from the locals.
2. There is too much literary evidence. There are so many literary connections and metaphors to the popular status of the nation's policy, that there is no way that this could not be allegorical. I mean, come on, wouldn't you think that all of those drawn comparisons are overly-coincidental?
I think that while this did have strong overtones of Populist beliefs and ideas, this was more because of reader's interpretations than because of L. Frank Baum's intentions. He stated several times that his intentions were not to use the Wizard of Oz as an allegory for Populism, but simply as a children's book. While there may have been some hints of Populism in his writings, this was because of the environment that Baum was writing in, in Populist South Dakota. In essence, the belief that there is an analogy between the Wizard of Oz and the Populist movement was not realistic, but rather simply an eisegesis of the reader
ReplyDeleteI think the comparison between the Wizard of Oz and Populist ideas is definitely an interesting one and I applaud the writer of the analysis. However, I do think, like most of my fellow students, that the extent of his analysis is over-thought. Though the silver shoes, for example, may have been a very subtle reference to the Populist drama over the remonetization of silver, I think at the most it was an almost subconscious reference made by Baum without trying to make a political statement. The danger of analyzing literature in general, I think, is getting too deep into it: some children's books are just that: children's books.
ReplyDelete