The Wonderful Wizard of Oz...or is it???

It is hard to read the Wizard of Oz without comparing it to the movie that I grew up watching. There are a few things that are similar to the movie, but for the most part it has been quite a bit different. For example, in the movie, Dorothy's neighbor is always mean to her and Toto and when Dorothy is in Oz, the neighbor almost seems to represent the witches. There was also the three men that help Dorothy and her aunt and uncle on the farm. They seem to represent the tin man, the scarecrow, and the cowardly lion. However, in the book, there is no mention of these farm workers. That is one of the characteristics of the movie that I liked and wished was in the book. Dorothy's shoes that she gets after killing the Wicked Witch of the East were silver instead of red and the good witch seemed to be more like the munchkins than like a beauitful witch. When I was little, I was afraid of the movie because of the flying monkeys. However, if the movie was made based on the book, I think it would have been a much more frightening book. The book seems to have a lot more violence with the death of the Kalidhas and the killings of the wolves, crows, and bees. As a child, I do not think I would have liked to watch a movie like that.
I think that it is a shame that I did not know how the original story went. I grew up thinking that the movie was the only version that was out there and now I am finding out that I grew up with the contaminated version. I am excited to read the rest of the book and I hope that someday I will be able to share the original with my children.

Fantasy

After reading Yolens Briar Rose, I was indeed excited to see how the other books would turn out. Now that I have started Alice and Wonderland, I find myself disappointed. Briar Rose might just turn out to be one of the few books I get to read this semester and actually like. Two semesters ago, Chico States theatre department did Alice and wonderland the play, and I found it very dark and scary. Now that I have began this book, I realize that it must have been based on Lewis' version. I had never before heard of a rat telling alice stories in a puddle of water. I find that this book makes Alice out to be one of the dumbest characters I have ever read about, with a touch of schizophrenia. Just the few begining conversations she has had with herself has driven me crazy. The play that I saw, made it so that the catepillar was absolutely on drugs, and from the description of the catepillar in this book, I dont think there was much embellishment. If I could ask Lewis, Carrol a question I think I would have to ask why? Why everything. Im still stuck on the cartoon version where everything is nice. Here the rabbits fear of the queen and the way he demands the lizard to get Alice out of his house makes him appear to have an anger problem. This book is just a bit unique, and i hope it turns out better in the end

Briar Rose

First of all I am glad to say that the Zipes reading is overwith, at least for now. Secondly, I would like to express that I LOVE the Jane Yolen book, Briar Rose. Seeing as the story of a sleeping princess has and will always be my favorite fairy tale, and that I am not a beacon for change I was a little skeptical of this book. But, I could not put down this book, even though I was reading way far ahead and I had other school work to be doing. Yolen did an amazing job with intertwining Gemma's story of Briar Rose with Becca's everyday life. Yolen also did a good job of making us want more, with the finiding of the clues, one by one.
Two semesters ago, I took a class on the Holocaust and the tradgeties that came from those dark years. Therefore, I had heard of Chelmno, and the minute it came up in the book I was frightened that Becca would never be able to hear her grandmother's whole story. I believe that the climax of the reading, so far, was when she met Josef. I so wanted Josef to be her grandfather, because that would be amazing for Becca.
As you can tell, I have loved this book! What do you think about it?

Well the reading out of Zipes wasn't too terrible this week. In every other reading it's like his words are saturated with his feelings of superiority over his audience that it was going from one page to the next. However, this chapter wasn't too painful. My only complaint is know your audience. He's writing this book for an educated audience (those in the children's or adult literary circle, college students) but I still feel like he talks down to us, especially when he's explaining a concept. He mirrors the concept of literary contaminiation to that of the body's immune system by stating that foreign invading substances (be it a virus or a slightly different version of a story) make the host stronger. This is not a hard concept to grasp yet I felt like he was writing to me as though I were a child when he took forever to finish his point. I understand this, but am not sure I agree as to the idea of making the host stronger. This is probably due in large part to the Disneyfying of certain aspects of our culture. I was talking to a college grad friend of mine about the Beauty and the Beast story and although she is educated and very well read, she had no idea that Gaston was not in the original story and I'm afraid that's how my child is going to grow up. And she's already like that, she refuses to listen to various versions of the same song because she thinks they mess up the original (even if the original version is not her frame of reference). This is all due to the contamination (or insemination) of the stories that may be necessary for the audience to to welcomely receive it, but I don't like how these artificial versions are the ones remembered. I read the Grimm stories when I was younger and even though at the time I had no idea that they were gruesome by today's standards, I'm so glad I got the opportunity to get a different perspective on the stories and the history they represent- more importantly, these are the versions that I remember and I prefer it that way.
Regarding the historical contect these stories carry, I would really like to know what was going on with step-mothers and cannibalism. How did stepmothers (Cinderella, Hansel & Gretel) get such a bad reputation? Why are the men in these stories inept (Cinderalla, Hansel & Gretel)? And why do these stories lead to cannibalism (Red Riding Hood, Hansel & Gretel)? Was this common practice at the time? Were step-parents in general looked down upon in society and therefore could be an easy villian in these stories? I thought I had read some of these stories before, but if I had, I completely blocked out the part where the parents are the ones sending Hansel & Gretel out to be eaten by wolves or to starve... was this also something that was happening at the at time the stories were written or told? I don't understand why all the Hansel & Gretel stories were linked together. The tree stories didn't seem to fit with the exception that the child was killed by a step-mother (and maybe this is the common thread). Only these kids were killed out of jealousy... And the Molly story, this was way more greusome than I would have guessed. I still don't understand why she made the giant's wife get killed, she was nice to her and warned her about the giant. But to me, it was pretty sick to make the giant kill his own daughters and wife, and maybe dog and cat. I'd also like to know why the king wanted the giant's ring and sword. Anyway... I digress... the readings were interesting to say the least. My husband kept asking what as I sat next to him reading the fairy tales silently but expressing my disgust aloud. He likes gore and all that but even he, after I read him what was going on in the story thought they were a little sick and twisted.