So, to paraphrase Cecil, if you’re correct, how 'bout answering the following:
Why are the forces of nature (the Wicked Witch of the West), so damned hot for the free coinage of silver (the Silver Slippers)? In the book, the witch resorts to a fairly elaborate trap to try and get 'em.
Why are the forces of nature (the Wicked Witch of the West) controlling the Plains Indians (the Winged Monkeys)? The Witch had the magic cap that gave her absolute power over them, but only for three wishes, remember.
Why is the “midwestern farmer” represented by the Scarecrow made King of Oz, while the “dehumanized worker” (The Tin Woodsman) only a state governer (He’s made “king of the Winkies”, which amounts to govenership) and, much more importantly, why was William Jennings Bryant (The Cowardly Lion), who was endored by the Populists for president. merely given what amounts to the position of mayor of a small town? (He becomes king of a small jungle in a “state” ruled by Glinda)
For that matter, why would a Populist portray their candidate as a coward? Remember, unlike the treacly “You ALWAYS had what you wanted inside you already” message from the movie, in the book, the Cowardly Lion really is a coward. He remains a coward until the Wizard gives him a bottle of “magic liquid courage”…the actual line from the Wizard is something very close to “Lots of men find their courage in a bottle” and portrays this as a good thing. Without a doubt, Baum is referencing alcohol. Given that Bryan pro-temperance…
Look: if you want political satire in the Oz books why not deal with the real stuff, rather than an admitted fraud*, General Jinjur in The Marvelous Land of Oz was Baum poking fun at his Mother-In-Law (who he adored, IIRC) who was a major advocate for Suffrage for Women (she co-wrote a book with Susan B. Anthony).
Hrmm, “seem to refer” is a pretty weak statement. Lots of things can appear to refer to other things if you look at them in the proper light. Lord of the Rings can seem to refer to WWII if looked at in a certain way, but without documentation that it was the author’s intent, you’re left with a huge assumption.
All you have currently is some similarities and a superimposed model on top of a work of fiction. It’s inconsistent with what we know about the author, subsequent pieces by the author in the same fictional universe, and some internal conflicts. Without something to tie it to the author’s intentions, I’d say your case is not yet made.
I guess that saying that he and his students made it up and that it has “no basis in fact” (his words) hardly counts as evidence at all.
C K Dexter Haven has already demonstrated the uselessness of pointing out “correspondences”. Anyone with the least bit of creativity (or derangement) can spin out nonsense to “prove”, for example, that Hamlet is really about that upper-class twit of the millennium, Eddie Oxenford; or that Winnie the Pooh is really about sex, or Marxism, or Anglo-Catholicism; or that a poem a man wrote about his dead daughter is really about Ruritanian politics. It proves nothing.
Her red dress and red hair are symbolic of Communism. Sandy is the imperialist dog. In the comics, she has blank eyes, indicating that Communism is short-sighted.
Of course! It’s all so obvious when it’s pointed out. Pooh’s obsession with sticking his paw into a honey pot; Piglet’s blatant Oedipal tendencies; Eeyore’s melancholy due to his problems with finding and hanging on to a little tail. . . . Milne was obviously a filthy minded pervert.
Well, duh, Dr. Cobweb. Gets kinky when Tigger puts on that top that’s made out of rubber, doesn’t it? Then there’s that suspiciously close relationship between Kanga and Roo; isn’t he kind of old to be spending so much time in her ‘pouch’? Weird. Eerie. Twisted.
No, the new school involves analyzing the text of a work for scripts that the author had not intended. What Irishman is pointing out is that the author of the critique doesn’t believe that Oz is an allegory. Even the deconstructionists acknowledge the difference between an author’s intent and the text itself.
The OP forgot to mention the obvious references in WOz about the gold/silver standard debate, to wit, the yellow brick road and the fact that Oz is the abbreviation for ounce.
And Daddy Warbucks might possibly represent the capitalist merchants of death like the Duponts who promulgate and profit from wars, but I dare not say it, lest I get flamed as a communist sympathizer.
