Now my tiny point of contention: as you may guess from my email, I’m a big Wizard of Oz fan. I’ve seen or read just about every incarnation there is. I’ve read the scholarly criticism. I’ve written some myself. With all the various retellings it is the perfect example of the differences between modernism and post-modernism as well as being just a generally fantastic story.

You commented in one of the podcasts that you object to people claiming that Baum meant it to be a criticism on the economics of the day (paraphrasing-it’s been a few weeks since I listened to it.) But when you were speaking it struck me that what may be at the root of that type of commentary is a brand of literary critique based on a Marxist interpretation of the novel. The novel–and it’s descendants–lends itself to a Marxist criticism with great ease. To that end it doesn’t really matter what Baum himself intended. The novel with its use of colors like green and gold and silver, glasses that make the emerald city LOOK green when it really isn’t, roads paved with yellow bricks leading to the emerald city, Silver slippers with power in them of great value, all welcome a Marxist interpretation. Gregory McGuire plays with this a great deal when he writes “Wicked”. He goes into more depth about the financial powers in oz, the rubies, emeralds, even agriculture.

These critiques are not about Baum’s intentions. They are about ways of reading the novel that shed light on something, reveal that which may be under the surface, and make the reading of the novel that much deeper and richer.

It is this ability to read the novel over and over and see new and interesting things there that have helped the story stay alive for so long, and have spawned further writings and re-imaginings of Oz.

Baum may not have intended on the surface for his novel to have so many economic symbols. But the symbols are there nonetheless.

A Marxist reading of The Wizard of Oz is not, by any means, the only way to read it. There is room for feminist readings, eco-critical readings, Post-modern re-inventions, psychoanalytical readings (especially with the dream as the framework), and many others.

Those readings aren’t wrong or right. They are simply part of the greater dialogue. Baum doesn’t get to tell people how to read his books any more than any other author does. People read them and the text must speak for itself. A Marxist interpretation is written in those pages, and it doesn’t matter if Baum meant to put it there or not. But there is a difference (a huge difference) between a student of literature applying a Marxist critique to the novel, and someone saying “oh Frank Baum meant the novel as a critique on the economy.” We don’t know what he meant, and it isn’t our job to try and say what he meant. There is no one right way to read a book. The Literary Critic shouldn’t try and dictate a reading, but simply point a finger toward one branch of that Yellow Brick Road and say “Come see how Oz looks when you wander down this direction.”

That is my two cents worth. For myself, I find the various interpretations and critiques delightful! Gives us more to say about a book than “It was fun.” Literary criticism is what book clubs and even pod casts like yours are built on!

Thank you for all your work! point of contention aside, I truly appreciate you both.

Elizabeth

In regards to your mention of her “cameo” in Anastasia, I wanted to point out that she is briefly portrayed in the movie “The Triplets of Belleville” doing her banana dance. It’s somewhat of a caricature and “cartoonish”, but I appreciate it more after seeing footage of her actual dancing and outrageous facial expressions.

Thanks again for the great show and I can’t wait to see who is featured in the next episode!!!