Balkinization: The Wizard of Oz--Did You Know?

Comments:

In the book, Dorothy's slippers are silver, which along with the yellow brick (i.e., gold) road represent the bimetallic money standard of the time. (Silver didn't show well on screen, so they changed them to ruby.)

Also, the Wizard's palace appears white when seen through the green glasses -- the White House, where the seemingly ominous but actually puny President, er Wizard, resides.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:30 PM

I think the original meaning is widely known, at least in academic circles. I first heard this in 1991 when I assisted in an American politics course taught by Sid Milkis (now of U. Va.), who got it from the late political theorist Wilson Carey McWilliams, who got it from...

Milkis's account was more detailed than the one given here.

I've used it in American politics courses, and I can say that almost all students are generally surprised by it.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:21 PM

I had heard the Oz was an allegory, though not that the Wicked Witch of the West who enslaved yellow Winkies represented our imperialist designs on Asia. (Although it does make sense). I had heard she represented a drought ruining western farmers, and that was why Dorothy killed her with water.

Does anyone else know?

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 7:59 PM

I found this interesting, so I went hunting for more details. I found several sources that say the scholars have speculated on the meanings, but that there is no real conclusive proof.

Interestingly, it seems that Baum himself said, "Having this thought in mind, the story of 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' was written solely to please children of today. It aspires to being a modernized fairy tale, in which the wonderment and joy are retained and the heartaches and nightmares are left out."

Straightdope has a bit, debunking the "Baum really meant it as an allegory!" theory as well as link to "The Rise and Fall of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a 'Parable on Populism,'" by David B. Parker.

So I am now in the "huh, I didn't realize you can read it that way," camp, as opposed to the "This is what Baum really meant" camp.

# posted by

duchess : 8:03 PM

shag: So let's see some comments on the "serious point."

"Original meaning" and "plain meaning" folks might not know they are lying. But when one claims to deny the invocation of context all that is really happening is critical, honest, analysis of one's preferred context is avoided.

Can anyone deny the need for context in finding meaning? Can anyone deny the effect on meaning of shifting contexts? How, then, can anyone seriously consider "plain" or "original" meanings findable without reference to the shifting contexts of time, person, place?

Here's how: Where the goal is persuasion rather than wisdom then this illegitimate denying of contextual issues is quite effective. But such churlish tricks have no place in the discourse of grown-ups.

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:16 PM

American Heritage Magazine had an article in it Dec. 1964. written by Daniel P. Mannix about L Frank Baum. He tells of how the story started. He was telling children a made up story when a kid asked him the name of this land. "Stumped, Baum looked around him for inspiration. In the next room were filing cabinets, and one bore the letters O-Z." He also tells a Russian version where Dorothy lives in a trailer in Kansas, and knows little about American life because American books she has are such shoddy productions. The whole article is really interesting.

# posted by

Caroline : 7:57 PM

adam: Do you believe that is mere self-delusion?

If by "plain meaning" they mean some non-context-reliant meaning, yup. Problem is that most of the time we can safely take for granted a great amount of context, textual and cultural. Think of it this way, if there were a "plain meaning" what would there be to argue about? The illusion of plain meanings comes to the fore when the players share sufficient cultural, perceptual and historical context. But even then, those ostensibly "plain" meanings are context dependent.

This is why you'll see me frequently citing the four criteria in the Preamble: I find it useful to consider certain topics in the context of "form a more perfect union" and weigh the difference from how things parse in the context, say, of "provide for the common defense."

And, of course, there is a species of "thinker" who will use the common illusion of plain meaning as a way to illegitimately foist off their pet assumptions about the way of the world.

# posted by

Robert Link : 8:15 PM

nice info very useful, http://acne-fight.blogspot.com/

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:31 PM

Dear Professor Balkin, Balkinization Contributors, Balkinzation Commenters,

Perhaps my single greatest complaint about blogging is how close it comes to creating community...without ever quite getting there. Nonetheless, I feel what follows is apt, and due.

In keeping with general thread shelf-life I will be winding down my participation here until the new year. Saturday I travel out of country, net access will be spotty, and my time is probably more wisely spent celebrating the holidays with my wife and in-laws. Anyone who feels I owe them an answer on anything hanging loose is free to email me (check my profile for the address.)

I also want to take a moment to explain myself a bit. Keeping in mind that that the comments feature on a blog isn't really designed to create community, nonetheless certain community features can arise therefrom. Part of our community is defined by agreement with the main ideas offered by the primary contributors. Another part of our community is defined by virulent disagreement with same. Part of our community is defined by interaction between these first two parts.

I have been trying for quite some time to better understand what I think of as the "No Spin Zone" dynamic, in which people I love come to not only hold views I find repugnant but come to feel that intense passive aggressive browbeating of all who disagree with them is an appropriate means of discourse. Perhaps the best example of this behavior is Bill O'Reilly himself. I've discussed part of that phenomenon, here, and here.

To repeat, part of the Balikinization community is formed by the interaction of folks who agree in general with the ideas offered by our host and primary contributors and folks who strongly disagree. I would divide this second camp into two sub-groups, and forgive my obviously slanted labeling, but it's the best I've got at present. I would sub-divide the group of folks who generally disagree with our hosts as being either honest or dishonest. In the former category are folks who are capable of answering a question directly even if that answer comes at a loss of face. In the latter category are folks who would not agree 2+2=4 if there was any chance it could cause them a loss of face in the zero-sum contest they construe life to be.

I have been studying, practicing, testing how to interact with this latter group. I have had moments I am proud of. I have had moments that embarrass me. My general advice still stands: "Don't feed the troll," in old-school usenet terms, or "Take a pass on the bait." This last, of course, presupposes the ability to notice when one is being offered a poisoned pill in the first place. Learning to assess with whom one can beneficially engage remains perhaps the most important lesson in bridging ideological gaps.

Blessings of the season on all who would be so blessed, well wishes for all. See ya in '07.

rl

# posted by

Robert Link : 1:57 PM

@adam: In keeping with my note above, but not wanting to leave you hanging, let me leave it at "Plain meaning and original meaning proponents would seem too willing to deny the vast complexities of interpretation, most often to the benefit of their world-view which, under such doctrines, need not be evaluated in any objective manner" or "Plain meaning and originalists would seem inclined to self-servingly deny the complexity of legal hermeneutics." There are, of course, counter examples to the generalization.

Peace.

# posted by

Robert Link : 3:05 PM

Adam, if you don't mind me interrupting....

I agree that judges who purport to interpret statutes (or contracts or other legal texts) according to the "plain language" canon would be wise to examine the word or phrase in contention in a text in relation to other words in the text. Taking a word out of context in this sense would almost certainly disort the "plain meaning" of the statute--that is not controversial.

IMO, they also need to consider the larger context, e.g., the purpose of the statute, cultural factors, the status of the parties (if a contract), etc.

Do you mean that the judge or lawyer interprets the statute according to his own cultural context, and therefore the meaning of the statute shifts according to the reader?

I would say yes.

Or that when interpreting the statute, the judge should consider the meaning of the words at the time they were written, or the circumstances leading to the statute's enactment?

Yes again, along with other factors (precedent, intervening facts, etc.).

Should judges interpret "law of nations" according to what that phrase means in 2006 (and the 2006 definition is by no means obvious), or should they look to the "plain meaning" of the term in 1798?

The former in my view.

But while these cases show that sometimes stautory language is ambiguous or difficult to apply, they don't prove that, because a text is by nature indeterminate, it is impossible to find meaning without looking beyond the text.

IMO, and I suspect in Robert's, we find shared meaning in a text because we share an unspoken common background and experience beyond the text. One consequence of this is that these shared assumptions, rather than the text itself, provide a strong reason to enforce what appears on the surface to be a "plain meaning".

Where people like Scalia err is in believing (or pretending) that those shared assumptions don't exist and that meaning exists sui generis in the text alone rather than from the interaction of writer, text, and reader. They then insist the meaning is "plain" even though people of good faith believe otherwise. It is plain to him, he's just not willing to investigate the implicit assumptions he makes to reach that conclusion.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:35 PM

And did you know that the song "Puff the Magic Dragon" was really about marijuana? (go ahead, dude, puff the magic. Yeah, drag on, it's awesome!) Or how about that "Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie" by Don Maclean was really about JFK dying?
Or how about all the parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln? All of these theories were made up to fit facts that had already occurred. Baum, who wrote the Oz books, said the theory of the Progressive allegory (the first of these Oz urban myths) was hooey and so are any others that have been dreamed up since. It was a children's story and nothing more. Of coure, it is also said that if you start playing the Pink Floyd CD "Dark Side of the Moon" at just the right instance while "The Wizard of Oz" is playing on your DVD player(with the sound off) the experience is a 'trip' (no blotter needed.) So anything is possible....

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:05 PM

Ah, but the truly interesting question is what was the original intent of Dark Side of the Moon?

# posted by

CharleyCarp : 9:52 AM

The Wizard of Oz

I hope that you all don't think me out of line; but the interpretation of the actual information behind this book is actually more incredible than the book itself; but I only learned the truth about this "fairytale" from someone who you all would find far removed from Oz; but not the true Oz which Mr. Baum so kindly knew so much about.
Who taught me about Frank L. Baum? St. John the Divine. While writing my book my brother John who lives on Patmos showed me how Frank L. Baum's book was used to find one particlular child who would unlock the true meaning of it's story and the allegory it really uncovers: the Yellow Brick Road has another name in the Revelation of St. John the Divine: it is the street of pure gold in the Holy City. This has another name in the Bible: it is called the Path of the Just; the one which is walked by those who ascend through the 7 heavens; as Dorothy did in her whirlwind.
Of course at the beginning I thought my brother John was kidding me: many years later I now know that no man has ever entered the Kingdom because only as a child can one enter within; and the fact that Frank L. Baum knew the idnetities and the Emerald behind the Throne of God in the midst of the 4 living creatures and their 4 colors in chapter 4 of the Revelation of St. John the Divine after going throught the 7 heavens means that the "open door" John went through was also the one Dorothy went through as well.
Who are the 4 creatures of Oz? They are first a Scarecrow; mindless; a Tin Woodsman; heartless; a cowardly Lion: souless. But who is the 4th creature? Toto; the dog. He signifies Dorothy's strength; "All"
At this point you probably all think I am crazy; unfortunately Mr. Baum and his story have more to do with one figure than you would possibly believe: the Son of Man. How can that be? I suggest you look at the 4 creatures of the Revelation; each of them guards an object of the Throne behind which is a Emerald. The Manfaced creature guards the Lampstand: the Mind of Christ. The Calf faced creature guards the Censer: the Heart of Christ. The Lion faced creature guards the Altar: the Soul of Christ. Self-sacrificial; "greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends". All of us might be said to be cowardly in light of that simple standard. In the coming of the Son of Man which I discuss in my book from the perspective of a man who dies and is reborn as a child I relate what I learned about the 4th living creature: the flying one Dorothy has with her in that "House'; the Eagle: the "House" is the "Church of the Living God" which is the unity of the 7 churches in which each one represents an old heaven becoming "new". Nor is this all; it's not even scratching the surface. The Eagle guards a Reed like "unto a Rod"; the Strength of Christ. Remember that Jesus called John "a Reed shaken by the Wind". The Reed like unto a Rod is thus someone unshaken by the Wind of Doubt from the Devil as John was. The 4 colors of the Revelation are a little different that the 4 of Oz; but this was done to disguise what they represented until the Child would arrive who would unlock the allegory and prepare us for the journey we all must take: for we all must reach the Kingdom or perish as mortal men and women; but this is not the Destiny of Woman; to transcend the Fate of a Clown is to find one's soul is only immortal if it performs the Will which is it's Destiny: the Soul is female; even as Eve was Adam's visable Soul; as Dorothy was Baum's; or Balm to the Soul.
The 4 colors of the Throne are white; red; black and "pale- yellow" . On earth we find they are the four races; at the Chariot of the 4 winds; the white horse is the east wind; the red horse is the south wind; the black horse is the west wind; and the pale horse is the North wind on which sits Death. What has this to do with us? Everything; because the 4 races all lack something that they can only find from the One on the Emerald Throne in the Holy City. The Center. What is the kiss on Dorothy;s forehead? It is the seal of the Living God; which is why she could not be killed or harmed while she goes through the 7 overcomings which are the 7 steps on the Path of the Just by which one ascends the Ladder of Jacob: on the Yellow Brick Road; the Street of Pure Gold in the Holy City: who overcomes in the 7 churches in their now revealed charcater walks with God through the Door of Translation and is "not"; like Enoch. The White Race is Souless; which is why it has not the Zeal which fears not Death; but it learns of the Soul from the Black Race; the Red Race is Heartless; (which Cortez discovered when he saw them cutting out their defeated warriors hearts of the stone mountains at whose summit were the temples to the sun who is Death), they learn of the Heart from the yellow race when Death is destroyed by the Second Death; you'll find him on the White Horse with a name no man knows but he himself: "The Word of God" it is called. Well if God created all things with the Word then that Word can be used to unmake them: ergo the Word itself is the Second Death. In fact this is how John introduced me to the Word of God because all the Lord's people are to be prophets: but only if they follow a little child: as little children follow their Sheperd. The Black Race is mindless; they get that from the White Race when they are giving them their "soul" back.
Obviously the Scarecrow as the Black man or "mindless"; the Tin Woodsman as the Red Man or "heartless" (with that Ax: or is it a Tomahawk) and the Cowardly Lion as "souless" would bother some people; the fact they they all have to overcome Death to gain their "rewards" has much to do with the 7 rewards of the 7 churches of Revelation in light of the Tabernacle of God.
And the shoes? They are those of the Prodigal Son who comes home to the Father; and the Prodigal Son is Solomon: the Lost Sheep of Israel: Ephraim; the Northern Kingdom which became the lost 10 tribes when it followed Solomon into the Abyss.

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:06 PM

The Wizard is one of the characters in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unseen for most of the novel, he is the ruler of the Land of Oz and highly venerated by his subjects. Believing he is the only man capable of solving their problems, sportsbook, Dorothy Gale and her friends travel to the Emerald City, the capital of Oz, to meet him. Oz is very reluctant to meet them, but eventually they are granted an audience. Every time the Wizard appears in a different form, once as a giant head, once as a beautiful fairy, once as ball of fire, and once as a horrible monster. http://www.enterbet.com

# posted by

Unknown : 12:46 PM

The bottom line people, is that the money allegory in the Wizard of Oz is real and relevant to us today. The folks who fought the banks in the 1800's over the issue of money (including Presidents Jefferson and Jackson) warned us about what would happen to our democracy if private banks were allowed to take this power from the government. Their message is clear, we would lose our freedom, and here we are today...

# posted by

Unknown : 1:40 PM

When you need a great model home to tour, try the ones with Jaco rentals. They build fantastic houses.

# posted by

Unknown : 2:26 PM

This is a fantastic website and I can not recommend you guys enough. Full of useful resource and great layout very easy on the eyes. Please do keep up this great work... Pbsbo.com

# posted by

Unknown : 3:01 AM