Dear, Frank Baum

Dear,
Frank Baum

It amazes me how grossly stories are misrepresented. It gives credibility to the Postmodern claim of an interpretation’s subjectivity. However, those who try to turn the Wizard of Oz into communist literature, I think the literary theories implemented in that kind of mystical reading are the exact kinds we ought to avoid.

I see it with the Bible a lot, where people interpolate meanings into verses. They give mystical significance to outright straightforward stories. Each character given a symbol, often misrepresented. Often, also, because they look at the time period and derive their meaning from common elements within it. But timeless stories are not like that. They don’t need their time period to be understood. The Prodigal Child is easily interpreted as a man who has lost his way, but finds it back to the LORD once having his fill of his sinful ways.

Much that the scarecrow probably doesn’t represent a farmer, and the tin man probably doesn’t represent an industrial worker, and the cowardly lion probably doesn’t represent a philosopher. Toto probably doesn’t represent teetotalers either. Rather, the Tin Man represents a man who falsely believes he has no heart, the scarecrow represents a man who falsely believes he is not intelligent, and the cowardly lion represents a man who falsely believes he has no courage. And Dorothy---the exact reason we know it cannot be communist literature---learns the most valuable lesson of “There is no place like home.” Which, is the meaning of the story. Maybe a prodigal child sort of tale, but even that is sort of evading the obvious meaning.

To make the Witch Eastern Robber Barons is kind of missing the point, that a witch is itself a female. I don’t think capitalism is represented by a female. And the good witch obviously doesn’t represent communalism. Rather, it doesn’t represent anything except what it is. People like to put symbols into the stories, when the stories are simply aesthetic. Maybe some subconscious force causes it to be written, but I highy doubt Dorothy’s shoes are silver because the laymen wanted to invest in silver. Likely, they’re silver because the brick road is gold. And it leads to the celestial city---and there is no religious meaning to it. Rather, the city is ran by illusions. It is ran by a benevolent wizard who uses science to mystify the population. The Munchkins represent nothing but clever inventions, a peoples whom the witch must oppress. As, there is something necessary in understanding a witch oppresses. If a feminist read it, they might think it is misogynistic, and thereby interpret the whole poem under that ridiculous schema. But a communist gets to the story, and believes the story is about communism.

Then, a capitalist gets to the story, and believes the story is about capitalism. Neither are true, they’re just postmodern examples of people imprinting onto the story what they are thinking at any given moment. It might be true that the metaphors represent that to your way of thinking. But as a child, the flying monkeys were foul, the witch was scary, Dorothy was lost, Toto was cute, the Cowardly Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow were affable and exotic characters---kinds of foils against Dorothy, which again, nullifies the esoteric meaning. It could be that the circumstances in one’s life causes one to sympathize with Dorothy, that she is fighting against an engine of capitalism. But, likely, she is not.

The story is---as a story ought to be---timeless. It’s a simple fairy-tale, where the metaphor is about bravery, intelligence and honesty. Maybe the Tin Man represents a factory worker. Maybe the scarecrow represents a provincial farmer. Maybe the lion represents a comedian. Dorothy represents---what exactly? Just the teenager---the adult form of a child, whom children have the most adoration because they are not yet adults, yet are not children either---who finds herself on an adventure. And that adventure is growing up, and finding out about this exotic place, that the best place for someone is home. That you can travel the world, and you don’t really find much. Maybe everything in Oz has a representation of some kind to the real world---that I’ll agree with. But, only in so much that the main character has to return from her journey into the world, back into the home she has built around her. Which, the metaphor is clear, it is about a young woman having an adventure, and finding out there is no place like home.