Good and Evil in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

It is obvious throughout the classic American novel, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum, that Baum would like the reader to believe that Dorothy, her companions, and those that aid them represent good, and any who stand in their way represent evil. However, if one analyzes the book from a more skeptical perspective, these labels are not always so clear cut.

(http://www.reversespins.com/pics/wizard%20of%20oz.jpg)

To begin, although one could not blame Dorothy for having her house fall on and kill the Witch of the East, it does not seem ethical to steal the shoes of the woman your house has just killed. Yet, because Baum labels the witch as a “Wicked Witch” (24), the reader is led to blindly believe that Dorothy deserves those shoes.

If one looks at the situation more objectively, Dorothy could be compared to a grave-robber. Thus, while it is obvious that the Wicked Witch of the East is evil- for she “held all the Munchkins in bondage for many years” (http://read.gov/books/pageturner/2006gen32405/#page/28/mode/2up)

(22-23), it is not so clear that Dorothy represents good. The Munchkins praise her for freeing them, but she can’t take responsibility for this so much as her house can. The only action that Dorothy actually had control over in this situation was the taking of the shoes, which is morally questionable.

Later, Baum portrays the wildcat as a “beast” (100), with “two rows of ugly teeth” (99) and “red eyes [that] glowed like balls of fire” (99). Moreover, in reference to the Tin Woodman Baum states that “although he had no heart he knew it was wrong for the wildcat to try to kill such a pretty, harmless creature” (100).

(http://read.gov/books/pageturner/2006gen32405/#page/116/mode/)

These descriptions show that Baum would obviously like the reader to believe the wildcat is evil and that the mouse is innocent and good. Furthermore, it seems Baum would like the reader to think well of the Tin Woodman for saving the mouse. However, taken from a biological perspective, the wildcat is only doing what is necessary for survival. This seems like a very worthy cause when one considers that the companions were willing to kill a woman in order to possess a brain, a heart, courage, and a way home. These things, though important, are not necessary for life (and when one considers that the companions had access to these things all along, these goals seem even less worthy of murder), whereas food is. Also, if one considers that mice are responsible (at least in this world, though it is difficult to speak on behalf of Oz) for spreading many diseases and are commonly considered a household nuisance, the mouse being chased does not appear entirely good either. Yet, rather than giving the wildcat any redeemable qualities to which the reader could sympathize or giving the mouse any negative characteristics, Baum again paints a black and white picture of good and evil that fails to even hint at the subtleties of the situation.

Works Cited

Baum, Frank L. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1960.