So far in our reading of Wicked we have come across the main social issue in Oz; animal rights. Some of the Animals in Oz are very intelligent like Dr. Dillamond for example; he is a professor at Shiz University yet he is a goat. The head of Shiz however does not appear to like the idea of animals having the same rights so in her Quells that she recites, a lot of the animals get upset because she ends with the line “Animals should be seen and not heard” (pg 84, Wicked) We soon find out that the law has been passed and so for the future generations of Animals are no longer allowed to maintain “human” jobs or ride public transportation. Their rights have been taken away. We do not yet understand why this is happening though. After having already read The Wizard of Oz, which takes place after this law is in order, we do not see any animals in society. There are no Animals in Munchkinland or in the Emerald City. What is the purpose of this? We can see that clearly these animals are capable of withholding jobs and they can be extremely intelligent so why is there now a ban against them?
Ariana--quick comment--it seems that there are points in your [very interesting] 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?
ReplyDeleteI think your interpretation the Animal Rights issues is quite interesting. There is a noticeable difference in the role of animals between "Wicked" and "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". However, I think it is false to say that there are no animals in Baums novel. One of the main characters, the Lion, is in fact an Animal in the sense that he can speak and think as people do, and when he goes to the Wizard he is "given" his gift of courage without any reference to the fact that he is an animal. Also, there are other animals in the book such as the field mice, bobcat, and flying monkeys. I think the fact that right now in "Wicked" they are trying to pass a law against Animal Rights, and in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" there is nothing against any kind of Animal says that perhaps the law will fail or be revoked by the end of "Wicked".
ReplyDeleteI would say that the banning of animals is intentional. The authors of both The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and the Wicked are excluding animals in certain settings because they are addressing the unequal treatment of different groups in society. In the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, animals are symbolizing the lower income farmers that do not received equal rights. In the Wicked, the animals are systematically destructed. They are confined and being perceived as commodities. I would say that Maguire uses the animals both in a literal sense and a symbolic way.
ReplyDeleteI believe the banning of Animals from certain privileges is used to show one of the types inequality of the Land of Oz. We've already seen the government of the Emerald City imposing the yellow brick road on various parts of the land, and we've also been able to see the prejudice various groups have against each other (ex: Quadlings viewed as inferior to Munchkinlanders by many). I think the treatment of animals is just another example that shows the disparity among various social classes. Also, I think it could serve an important place in the plot of the story, as it is an issue that had dominated much of the Gilikin section of the book and that seems to be something Elphaba is somewhat passionate about(at one point she has an argument/debate with Madame Morrible about the last line of her recitation).
ReplyDeleteThrough what we have read so far, I have asked the exact same questions as you have, Ariana. I remember reading the scenes and trying to figure why Maguire put such an emphasis on Animal rights.I think that these Animal rights are referring possibly to civil rights or a statement on equality. However, since Wicked was written in 1995 I do not understand why Maguire would put such an emphasis on civil rights. It could also be that Maguire alludes to his reasoning further on it the book.
ReplyDeleteEliza- Although there are animals in the Wizard of Oz they are not Animals. I forgot to make that distinction in my post. I could be wrong but I feel like the animals in the Wizard of Oz are different than those in Wicked. The lion and the field mice are really good examples though of Animals in the Wizard of Oz but they are not in a powerful position among humans like Dr. Dillamond is in Wicked. They do talk and are very intelligent but they are not entirely treated so in the society of Oz. When we see Dorothy and her companions for enter the Emerald City, the people were scared of the lion because they thought that he was wild and could potentially hurt them. That shows a lot about how people view animals in the Wizard of Oz. Even with the field mice, they are scared of the lion and when the lion does find his place, it is still among the animals as their king none the less but still among the animals not among people like the tin man and the scarecrow. They both become rulers over people to where the lion can only rule over other animals.
ReplyDelete