In both The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum and Wicked by Gregory Maguire the discussion of rights is very prevalent. Although the groups that are seeking more rights and freedom are different they do have a lot in common. In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz the Munchkins have been living in bondage because of the Wicked Witch of the East. But when Dorothy’s house lands
on top of the Wicked Witch they are set free and no longer have to live under her oppressive rules. And in Wicked Animals are struggling for their rights in society. While they are both struggling for their rights, the difference between them is that the Munchkins just waited around for someone to save them, and the Animals are actively fighting (not violently) for their place in society. I think that the main reason for this difference is the intended audience for which the authors were writing. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written for children and therefore Baum probably did not want to get too graphic or depressing about the situation of the Munchkins so when Dorothy arrived in Oz all they said about it was “We are so grateful to you for having killed the wicked With of the East, and for setting our people free from bondage.” (Baum 21).
However, Wicked was intended for older and more mature audiences so Maguire was able to go into depth about the situation of the Animals, “He began to hector her about Animal Rights...If the Wizard’s Banns went through the Hall of Approval, as they were likely to do, the goat himself would be required by law to give up the privileges he had earned through years of study, training, and saving.” (Maguire 66). In Wicked there are “animals” and then there are “Animals”. Animals with a capital “A” are animals that were born with a “spirit” that gives them the ability to talk and think like people. But the Wizard (of Oz) wants to take those rights away from the animals, I’m not sure why yet because I haven’t finished the book. Even though they do both go through struggles, clearly the issue for Animals in Wicked is much more complicated than that of the Munchkins in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
However, Wicked was intended for older and more mature audiences so Maguire was able to go into depth about the situation of the Animals, “He began to hector her about Animal Rights...If the Wizard’s Banns went through the Hall of Approval, as they were likely to do, the goat himself would be required by law to give up the privileges he had earned through years of study, training, and saving.” (Maguire 66). In Wicked there are “animals” and then there are “Animals”. Animals with a capital “A” are animals that were born with a “spirit” that gives them the ability to talk and think like people. But the Wizard (of Oz) wants to take those rights away from the animals, I’m not sure why yet because I haven’t finished the book. Even though they do both go through struggles, clearly the issue for Animals in Wicked is much more complicated than that of the Munchkins in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
Works Cited
Baum, L. Frank. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. New York: Dover, 1960.
Maguire, Gregory. Wicked. New York: Harper, 1995.
Eliza's post answers the question posted by Ms. Carlson in Ariana's posting,"it seems that there are points in your article in which you use 'animals' when you mean 'Animals.' Can you clarify the distinction and/or check for discrepancies in your use of each word?" Obviously, Wicked is coming from a more complicated point of view. Maguire tries to address the problem of "should animals, or Animals be given rights?" Should their names be capitalized like we do?
ReplyDeleteI also thought about Munchkins and Animals and I really like your connection. Though, in most of the ways, Animals and Munchkins are incomparable (it even seems that Animals, like Dr. Dillamond are more conscious). It is interesting how the two heroines we are dealing with are playing a similar role: Elphaba helps Animals, while Dorothy releases Munchkins.
ReplyDelete