The Wizard of Oz

The Wizard of Oz was never that big a deal to me when I was a kid. Not that I didn't watch the movie every year when it came on TV, but it was never my "thing." No, that was Star Wars. Still, I probably would have read it if I had known it was a book, but no one ever bothered to tell me that. I suppose that's what comes of having non-reading parents. By the time I found out it was a book (probably during high school, certainly not before), I just wasn't interested in it.

This was all sort of like my experience with Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, which was a movie that I loved as a child and still do to this day. But I didn't know it was a book and had never really even heard of Roald Dahl until I was in college, and I had no interest in reading it at that point. That came later after the second movie was made, which I didn't like but the Dahl family did, so I decided that I should probably read the book. And I didn't like it. It just wasn't magical like the movie had been. And I didn't like Charlie and the Glass Elevator, either, despite the high hopes I'd had for it since there was no movie to hold it up against.

Despite all of that, I decided I should give L. Frank Baum a try. If nothing else, I wanted to see what it was like before passing it on to my daughter, especially since she loved the Charlie books despite my dislike for them (which is great; maybe, I would have liked them when I was a kid).

In a certain sense, both Baum and Dahl borrow their style of story-telling from Carroll. As in the Alice stories, crazy things happen to the main character, and that character just goes along with those things as if they are normal. There's no plot as such. For Carroll, this is certainly true. Both Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass just end. It's as if Carroll decided, "I'm though with this now," or, maybe, he just couldn't figure out how to end the story, so Alice wakes up and everything is over. I had that same sense from Glass Elevator. Dahl just got tired of writing or didn't know what to have happen next, so he just had it end. Chocolate Factory did have a bit more plot, but it was still kind of all over the place.

The stuff coming up about The Wizard of Oz will have spoilers. Now, you know. Also, it's kind of impossible to talk about the book and not talk about the movie. Okay, it's not, but I'm going to compare some things in the two mediums.

First:
The book starts out describing how gray Dorothy's life is. Everything is Kansas is gray. The land, the sky, her aunt and uncle. Everything but her little, black dog, and, by extension, Dorothy herself (because there is a heavy implication that Toto is the only reason Dorothy has not become a gray person herself). On the other hand, Oz is full of color and life that Dorothy has never experienced and is amazed by (I'll come back to this).

The movie starts off in black and white, mirroring the tone of the book, and bursts into full technicolor after Dorothy arrives in Oz. I think this is the most amazing thing about the movie and possibly the one thing that has made the movie so beloved for so long. I can't imagine the effect on an audience who had almost exclusively only seen black and white movies.

Second:
The Ruby Slippers. The issue of the shoes is one of  the things I've most heard complained about from people that love the book, wherein the shoes are silver. But, well, I get the desire to make them red for the movie since they were doing the big color shift in Oz, and I think going with the red was the better choice. Visually, it just stands out more. So, no, there was "no good reason" to change the color of the shoes... except that there was, and there is no significance to the shoes being silver in the book except that that was the arbitrary color that Baum chose. Or not really color, because I think he was just going with "silver shoes" to contrast against the "golden cap."

Third:
And speaking of the "golden cap," it's completely missing from the movie, so why not change the slippers to red since there is no golden cap to go with the silver shoes. I get dropping the whole "golden cap" thing from the movie, because that was a plot thread that the movie didn't need. That's just what frequently has to happen when you adapt a book to a movie: you have uncomplicate the book, so leaving the golden cap out of the story makes sense.

Beyond all of that, I liked the book. It has a more careful attention to plot than either Dahl or Carroll put into their stories while keeping the whimsical "you have no idea what might pop up next" quality. Bad things happen to the characters, and, if I hadn't seen the movie, I might have wondered what was going to become of the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman during Dorothy's captivity. I also like that Dorothy is actually gone from Kansas in the book rather than seemingly just waking up like in the movie.

The book does, however, have one great flaw which keeps me from liking it more: Dorothy has no real motivation to go home to Kansas other than that she ought to want to go home to Kansas. It's clear at the beginning of the book that she doesn't like Kansas. She has no joy there other than her dog, and the dog goes to Oz with her, so, really, there's nothing that ought to make her want to go back, especially since she loves Oz. But she does want to go back, and it is her unwavering desire to go "home," for going home's sake, that drives the story. I found that, along with the lack of growth on Dorothy's part that accompanied that, to be rather inexplicable. Other than to make the story happen, why did Dorothy want to go back to a place she didn't like to people that, as far as we can tell, she had no true emotion for.

And, speaking of the lack of growth on Dorothy's part: Dorothy doesn't grow as a character during the story. She's the same girl going back to Kansas as she was when she got to Oz. However, she does serve as the catalyst for all the other character growth in the novel, which was interesting to watch and not often done, so, whereas I would normally dislike a story where the protagonist is static (see my review of Brave), I found that I didn't mind that so much in Wizard. Well, except that I really did wish she would have realized, "Hey, I don't have to go back to Kansas."

Mostly, though, I found the book most interesting in how it and the movie deviate from one another. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it so much just all on its own. At least not, now, as an adult. I wish I'd read it when I was a kid, though. However, I found it enjoyable enough (and Baum himself interesting enough) that I want to read more of the Oz books, so, I guess, you can't really ask more from it than that. Making me want to read the next one is its job, right? And it accomplished that. I'll have to wait and see how the rest of the books are.

The A to Z of Fiction to Reality: Wonka

When I was a kid, there might have been no kind of candy I ever wanted more than I wanted a Wonka chocolate bar. Of course, there's nothing that could have tasted as good as I imagined a Wonka Bar should taste. It's probably a good thing I never got one. I would have been so incredibly disappointed.

My desire for a Wonka Bar had nothing to do with Roald Dahl's book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and everything to do with the movie Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

I loved that movie while I was growing up, and I still love it today. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the 1971 movie starring Gene Wilder, not the horrible Burton thing from 2005.

Before I get onto the point of all of this, here is one of the reasons I love that film so much:

Imagination, really, is what is driving this series of posts. The imagination of writers to come up with the ideas that they do, and the imaginations of the people that have made those ideas into reality. The imagination to see it become real.
And, again, being kind of stuck on the whole imagination thing, it's why the underlying theme of The House on the Corner is imagination. Being able to say "what if" and, then, go towards that.

Anyway...

When I was a kid, I didn't know there was a book that the movie came from. In fact, I was an adult before I knew there was a book. And it was only within the last few years that I read the book (and, unfortunately, I didn't like the book (which I talked about here). But that's all beside the point.

The point is somewhere in here:

I discovered that Gobstoppers were a real candy sometime when I was in high school. Those and Nerds, which are also a Wonka candy (although they aren't in the movie or the book). Gobstoppers became just about my favorite candy, and I still (in theory) love them (in theory, because I've been pretty much off of sugar for about 4 years, so I don't eat them (I do, still, love the idea of them, though)). I thought (and wondered why) they were just coming out with Wonka candy in '80s. But it wasn't that it was just coming out, it just took it that long to get to Louisiana, evidently.

See, The Willy Wonka Candy Company started out in 1971 to coincide with the release of the movie (although, they are now owned by Nestle). What an amazing thing that a whole candy company sprang from the pages of a book! Even though I didn't care for Dahl's book, I love that his imagination brought a candy company to life (even if I am against sugar (sorry, as a culture, we just eat too much of it)). I'm going to imagine that Nestle has a room in their Wonka division like the one from the movie where everything is eatable.

"Do or do not! There is no try."

One of the more common themes I see as I hop around the bloggypads is that of people waiting for inspiration to strike. Or for some muse or other to show up. Considering the number of muses that must be roaming around out there at this point, I have a hard time thinking that there aren't plenty to go around. Or people hopping from one project to the next because new inspiration has struck. Maybe it's little muses on writers' shoulders whispering in their ears like angels and demons. No wonder no one can stick to anything.

I get it. I do. Writing is hard. Really hard. Not all writing, of course. Some of it's really easy, but that's not generally the kind of writing you can make a living doing. Writing a novel, though, is hard. People don't appreciate how hard it is to write a book, because most people can write. Not a book, but, you know, they can write. They do teach it in school, after all. It's like running. Pretty much everyone can run if they have to. Most people don't like running (like me), so they never do it. Some people feel it's necessary, so they jog or whatever to keep healthy. Some people have to be able to run as part of a job whether they like the running aspect or not. Some people enjoy running, though (the fools!), and they run for fun going out at the butt crack of dawn when all reasonable people are warm in bed. Some people, though, enjoy it so much they make it more than just a hobby. They do things like run marathons. And writing a book is like running a marathon.

The real issue with writing is that most of the people I see through their blogs want to run a marathon, but they're still busy treating their writing like a morning jog. In other words, they like doing it, but, you know, it's too cold, today, so I'm going to stay in. Or I'm just feeling a bit lazy, today, so I'm going to sit and have some more coffee. Or they go on their jog, but they never really push themselves. They run just enough to feel good and pat themselves on the back, but they never really make the effort to go farther or faster. Staying in one's comfort zone is, after all, comfortable.

Like I said, I get it. I started my first book back during my college days. I was actually on hiatus from school and working as a glorified babysitter called a substitute teacher. I did a lot of reading that year, but, also, I started writing a book. It was about a dragon. I still think it's a good story, and I may have it buried somewhere, but, really, I didn't get very far into it. Basically, as soon as I started getting winded, I said that's enough. I let it sit around and sit around and never got back to it. That was almost 20 years ago. It was a nice morning jog that didn't go anywhere.

I've had several of those over the years. Heck, I have (or had) notebooks full of stuff back in high school and college. Unfortunately, more than a small amount of that is poetry, but we're just gonna move on past that. [Really, one of these days, I'll get around to talking about poetry.] The problem was that I wanted to head out on a morning jog and have it end up a marathon. Somehow, I'd get into the zone and just run and run and, at some point, realize I'd done the whole 26 miles. And writers do this, too. They sit down at their keyboard and start writing and hope (for lack of a better term) that inspiration will strike and they will be filled to bursting with words and before they know it, there's a whole, perfect book in front of them.

It just doesn't work that way. Not unless you're Coleridge and taking illegal substances, and you can see how well that turned out for him.

What it really comes down to is that if you want to be a writer, you have to treat it like it's your job. The biggest thing about a job is that you have to do it no matter how you feel. Well, you do if you want to get paid. I don't know of any jobs that continue to pay you if you only show up to work when you feel inspired to do so. If you know of any, please let me know what they are! At any rate, if you want to be a writer, you have to show up to work. Period.

It's about being proactive. Don't wait for inspiration to come to you; go and get it. If you work at it, you'll discover that you have inspired moments, and the more you work at it, the more often those will occur. When you just sit around waiting for them to come... well, that's kind of like waiting to be struck by lightning. Yes, it happens, but, really, do you actually know anyone that's been struck by lightning? It is possible, though, to make the lightning come to you, but that's where the effort comes in.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you how to do it. I can tell you what did it for me (actually, I did that, already, way back in this post), but you have to figure out your own trick about how to get serious. Set aside specific time for it. Set word count goals. Whatever it is, you have to do it. See, the real key is that it has to come from inside. And that's the main difference from waiting for lightning and catching lightning. One is external and one is internal. You can't do it until you internalize it. Like going on a diet.

Because going on a "diet" is external. You expect the "diet" to work some kind of magic on you and change you without you really having to do anything. Diets only work when the person puts in the effort, and, then, the particular diet doesn't matter. Any diet will do; they're just different plans to get you to the same place, but you have to follow the plan.

I love the old movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. [No, I do not love the book nor do I love the newer version of the film.] Wouldn't it be great to be Charlie and have all your dreams come true through no effort of your own. Just have some benevolent being look down, see your worth, and grant all your wishes. That's what waiting for inspiration to strike is like. Liek Charlie waiting to find the Golden Ticket; although, even Charlie had to go to the effort to buy the candy bar, and it seems like even that's a bit too much effort for some people these days. But wouldn't that story have been so much more interesting if, instead of waiting for a golden ticket, Charlie had taken matters into his own hands and sneaked into the factory himself? If he had done something to make it happen.

Not to steal a slogan from a popular athletic line, but you really have to just do it. You have to make the decision. You have to put in the effort. You have to get to work. Make it your job. Even if that means making it your second job. Or your third. If you want it, you have to do it. Because, in the end, in the wise words of a particular little green guy:

"Do or do not. There is no try."