I’m surprised that this statement was let stand for several days! Because it isn’t true either - at least for Middle Earth as a whole. The Silmarillion does most certainly speak of Middle Earth’s Creator / God figure of “Eru”, under whom the Valar and the Maiar served. I guess if we’re just speaking of who / what is mentioned in the LOTR trilogy (and Hobbit) itself, then I guess you can make a case for the apparent absence of the God figure. But then again, “the Emperor” also doesn’t make much mention throughout most of the Narnia series too, until “The Last Battle” (and even there, … not much mention until the end.)
1 Like
Goes over some of the symbolism.
I find this far-fetched. American Experience had a presentation on Baum that was almost 2 hours in length. Didn’t mention anything like this.
The important thing for me is discerning between fiction/fantasy and reality.
1 Like
Which is why I specifically stated the LOTR and not the entirety of Tolkien’s Middle Earth. Considering that a pretty small percentage of people are even familiar with The Silmarillion, let alone have read it. The point being that this idea that a fantasy book is only “okay” for Christians to read if there’s a clear divine source for all magic wasn’t something that either Lewis or Tolkien themselves seem at all concerned with.
And while the Emperor-over-the-Sea is certainly not a prevalent character, he is mentioned in all but 2 of the books, and particularly in the first book, as the source of the Deep Magic in Narnia.
That was an oversight, as it is a pretty well known interpretation… More details in this Wiki article, and of course the original fairy tales often were written as political commentary so falls in step with tradition.
1 Like
The problem with some of the attempts to read all kinds of symbolism into the Wizard of Oz is that Baum himself never left any evidence that there was any allegorical meaning to his stories, nor does there seem to be anyone that read it as such until 60 some years after they were published. It could be there was some unintentional, unconscious symbolism included, but it’s a fairly recent thing, the explosion in theories over the possible meanings to aspects of the story. It’s almost comical how many different types of symbolism various commentators have proposed… for me it’s a great example of apophenia (the human tendency to try and find meaningful patterns out of randomness).
1 Like
though the wiki article tells of Baum writing the script of a Broadway production of it which had a lot of political references, so has some basis, at least in a derivative form. Interesting in that there are some parallels to how different groups interpret scripture.
1 Like
It’s pretty hard to argue with the mighty Wikipedia on BioLogos.
1 Like
wiki has spoken. Ignore the man behind the curtain.
5 Likes
Oh I definitely don’t disagree there’s an argument to be made for it. But it has some very good arguments on the other side against any purposeful intention of Baum. For me, it’s particularly noteworthy that the theories are so specific to the Wizard of Oz book, and not to any of the other books in the series. That’s not what you generally see with authors that are clearly using political commentary in their books.
The estate of Baum in fact has never agreed with the idea that his books are political commentary, and there certainly are a good deal of scholars that are fairly dubious about it as well.
1 Like
If anyone is interested, here is the PBS/American Experience documentary on L Frank Baum: American Oz
1 Like
Hey now… I loved those books too! I never realized how many times they were knocked on the head by bad guys but woke up perfectly fine till later. I still have about 30 of them. I empathize with their friend Chet, who liked food, and always tried to even off the edges of a cake, to make it look better.
2 Likes
Back when I was in college (mid-late ‘80s), the social chairman of my fraternity organized a keg party the night Wizard of Oz came on TV…IIRC, it was usually a Sunday night, maybe in the spring. You could draw a piece of paper out of a hat, and when whatever was written on it happened, you took a drink. For example, you might draw anytime Toto barks, or anytime the scarecrow puts his hand over his mouth…stuff like that. I still remember that one of the “everybody takes a drink” items was anytime there’s a scene with a fake painted backdrop.
Next time you watch The Wizard of Oz, take notice: there’s an astonishing number of fake painted backdrops.
Another fun fact: apparently, when the book was translated into Hebrew, it became The Wizard of Uz. If you may remember, Uz is the biblical homeland of Job, and even for modern Israelis was understood to be a land whose precise location is somewhat uncertain.
2 Likes
It was years before I realized that “jalopy” is just a generic term for an old car. They were always being driven around by Chet in his jalopy. I thought it was an actual model of car … like maybe you could go and buy a Ford Jalopy from the dealership.
2 Likes
Yeah … they would have been concussed quite regularly. Wouldn’t at all bode well for their retirement years. Right up there with the worst of what seasoned NFL retirees suffer.
1 Like
The world thinks, speaks, and does what their father does and he was a murderer from the beginning. The carnal mind is not subject to God and can’t be. The natural man is a slave to sin and the Devil. So, no, a child of the Holy God should not be entertained by the world. Without holiness no man will see the Lord or be saved from His just wrath.
I’ve been led astray by Bambi and Captain America.
3 Likes
State how God defends His children submitting themselves to the affections and thoughts of this world.
The Spirit of God says that the carnal mind is an enemy of God, so how can it be godly to submit ourselves to the entertainment produced by people with a carnal mind. Judge righteously. We are closer to the Lord’s return than the early Christians so what manner of life should we be living in all righteousness and holiness. A mind set on the ways of this age is death but a mind set on the ways of the Spirit is everlasting life.
Speaking and agreeing with God and his word is not self righteousness, it is God’s righteousness abiding within.
Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly.