TALE OF A PARABLE
by Michael Gessel
Originally published in The Baum Bugle, vol. 36, no. 1 (Spring 1992), pgs. 19–23
Citations
Chicago 17th ed.:
Gessel, Michael. “Tale of a Parable.” Baum Bugle 36, no. 1 (1992): 19–23.
MLA 9th ed.:
Gessel, Michael. “Tale of a Parable.” The Baum Bugle, vol. 36, no. 1, 1992, pp. 19–23.
“The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written solely to pleasure children of today,” L. Frank Baum wrote in the preface of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in 1900. For sixty-four years, that explanation went without serious challenge.
However, in 1964, Henry M. Littlefield, then a teacher at Mount Vernon High School in New York, published an article in The American Quarterly, “The Wizard of Oz: A Parable on Populism.”[1] Littlefield argued that The Wizard of Oz was not just a “warm, cleverly written fairy tale.” Rather, the book concealed “an unsuspected depth” and contained allegorical references to people and events connected with American politics of the mid-1890s.
According to Littlefield’s theory, the Tin Woodman represents the dehumanized Eastern workers who are reduced to mere machines; the Scarecrow represents the shrewd and capable Kansas farmer; the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan; and Dorothy is “Miss Everyman.” The Witch of the West is “sentient and malign nature.” The Winged Monkeys are the Plains Indians. The Wizard is symbolic of American presidents from Grant to McKinley, representing the American criterion for leadership- able to be everything to everybody. The magic Silver Shoes symbolize the silver standard and the Yellow Brick Road represents the gold standard.
The group of adventurers seeking the Wizard in the Emerald City are symbolic of Coxey’s Army marching to Washington to ask President Cleveland for work in 1894. At the conclusion of the book, the Scarecrow is granted rule over the Emerald City (farm interests achieving victory); the Tin Woodman takes over the Land of the Winkies (industrialism moving West); and the Cowardly Lion becomes leader of a forest of smaller beasts (Bryan reduced in stature). Though the Wizard (government leaders) can’t help Dorothy (Miss Everybody), she uses the Silver Shoes (silver standard) to return to Aunt Em and Uncle Henry, thus bringing her lovely spirit back to the disconsolate plains farmer. The story, Littlefield concludes, is “a gentle and friendly Midwestern critique” of the Populist movement.
Littlefield thus skillfully weaves the themes of the Populist movement into the details of the book, tying up the loose ends to craft a surprisingly tight package. As evidence of Baum’s involvement with politics during this period, he cites an account that Baum marched in torch-light parades for William Jennings Bryan in 1896.[2] As evidence of Baum’s other political writing in the Oz series, he points to the subplot of The Marvelous Land of Oz (1904), the sequel to The Wizard, with its parody of the suffragist movement.
Littlefield adds further credibility by reassuring the reader that Baum’s primary purpose in writing the book was the amusement of children and that he didn’t let the allegory get in the way of telling a good story. The relationships and analogies in the theory “are admittedly theoretical,” Littlefield takes pains to explain. Although Littlefield implies Baum was allied with the cause of Democratic Populism, he makes no sweeping claims of Baum’s allegiance to Populism-or any political movement. Littlefield’s article is cautious, scholarly, and-despite the farfetched nature of the-thesis at first blush-compelling.
In the beginning, Littlefield’s theory received little attention among Oz enthusiasts or the general public. (A note in The Baum Bugle remarked that the theory would be “controversial.”) In 1977, Gore Vidal discussed, then dismissed the theory.[3] The first book-length critical work on Baum mentioned the Littlefield theory as “very worth-while” but offered no more elaboration.[4]
The theory, however, eventually became well known among historians and history teachers. Professors at institutions around the country ranging from the University of California to Duke University and the University of Pennsylvania seized on the Littlefield article to teach the Populism movement. That should not be surprising, since Littlefield was a history teacher himself.
Richard J. Amundson a history professor at Columbus College, Georgia, assigned The Wizard to his students to give them insights into the Populist movement because the theory generated interest in the historical subjects. The theory was especially useful to history professor John M. McCardell, Jr., one of several faculty members of Middlebury College who taught in the predominantly black or hispanic De Witt Clinton High School in New York. Tensions were defused when McCardell used the Littlefield theory to teach about the Presidential campaign of 1896.[5] In another example of the pedagogical versatility of the Littlefield theory, a recent article in a coin collecting journal elaborated on the theory as a teaching tool to explain the coins and medals of the late 19th century.[6]
In the University of Hartford Museum of American Political Life, a copy of The Wizard is displayed as an introduction to the permanent exhibit on the presidency and the American economy, with a label explaining the Populist background of the book. According to museum director Edmund B. Sullivan, visitors enjoy the display and it generates immediate interest in the entire exhibit.
Although most teachers who used the theory had a healthy skepticism, writers for the popular and academic press often did not; and some college history professors taught the Littlefield article as gospel. In the 1970s and 1980s, articles supporting the theory (or mentioning it uncritically) appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Kansas City Star, Chicago Tribune, Forbes magazine, and the International Herald Tribune. Many of these articles were distributed nationally through syndication or wire services and were carried by other newspapers. As the Littlefield theory received wider attention, it seems that other historians “discovered” Baum’s Populist connection all on their own. Many of these articles lacked the cautious tone in Littlefield’s original piece and over time the commentary grew more and more certain of the accuracy of the theory. Slowly but surely, Littlefield’s idea was picked up, amplified, and embellished with creativity by academics and the popular press.
In one article from the Los Angeles Times, for example, a political science teacher from Loyola Marymount wrote, “The Wizard of Oz was, and is, much more than a children’s fantasy . . . Although Oz was written and published (with great success) as a children’s fantasy, Baum clearly had Populism’s misfortune in mind.”[7]
Other articles added new details to Littlefield’s basic idea. The Witch of the West in some articles became not the “sentient and malign nature” of Littlefield’s original article, but the evil bankers. One writer “discovered” that the name of the fairyland “Oz” was actually an abbreviation for ounce—further evidence of the gold and silver controversy. This addition to the theory was picked up by other writers and became part of the growing myth.
An article in a leftist political newspaper, In These Times,[8] criticized the mainstream press for ignoring the political roots of the Baum book and suggested Baum was influenced by the socialists. This article said that Baum probably did not intend to write The Wizard as a political allegory, but it speculated that Baum included political themes unconsciously.
A later piece in the Utne Reader,[9] a sort of alternative Reader’s Digest, twists the original In These Times article by combining it with another story that had run in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. According to the Utne Reader:
In These Times exposes Oz as a parable of populism, the 1890s movement led by William Jennings Bryan . . . Oz author L. Frank Baum was a populist-and also a bit of a fantasizer. . . . After Bryan’s 1896 bid for the presidency failed, Baum was moved to write the first of his long-running Oz series.
Now, according to the retellers of the Littlefield theory, Baum is a Populist himself. This myth is growing bigger and further away from Littlefield’s original idea—and even contradicting it.
The year 1989, the 50th anniversary of the classic MGM film, brought increased attention to the creator of Oz and greater exposure to the Populism theory. In The Ruby Slippers of Oz,[10] a book published that year, a whole chapter was devoted to the political roots of The Wizard, repeating the Littlefield theory. This section was especially popular with book reviewers who repeated the theory in a number of newspapers, including The New York Times.
Another anniversary tribute to the film took the Populist theory to new heights of intellectual creativity on National Public Radio’s popular news and public affairs program, “All Things Considered.” In one segment, host-ed by Lynn Neary, the MGM film became “a deliberate attempt to mislead the public” because it ignored the Populist themes of the book. During the show, writer Peter Dreier accused the makers of the MGM film of deliberately hiding the political message. The film, he says, was “turned into a fantasy and deflected people away in many ways from the political message which mass culture tends to ignore.” Neary added that Baum supported the Populists and opposed the gold standard.[11]
The NPR piece was characteristic of the self-righteous tone of the new breed of True Believers. The True Believers accepted the Littlefield theory as fact, and anyone who brought up the subject of Baum in public discourse but failed to mention the real political message of The Wizard was guilty of perpetrating ignorance, fraud, or worse—a coverup. This was the inevitable intersection of post-Watergate political paranoia and children’s literature criticism.
An indignant letter to the editor of The New York Times in 1989 criticized officials and newspaper editors in Kansas because “they remain so ignorant of the real meaning of the Oz story” as revealed by Littlefield.[12] A year later, another letter to the editor of the Times labeled the NBC television movie The Dreamer of Oz, a “fantasy” because it did riot expose Baum’s political thinking.[13]
Even more ironic was a 1989 article about cultural literacy by Charles A. D’Aniello which appeared in RQ a publication of the American Library Association.[14] D’Aniello bemoaned that even literate Americans generally learn about literature through casual conversations, television, or movies, not through primary sources:
One might add that the origin or historical significance of what we “know” is often unknown to us. For instance, the fact that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is really a political allegory of late-19th century America and the collapse of populism is unknown except to scholars.
As the Littlefield theory became accepted as fact, it generated its own criticism. An especially curious treatment was offered by historian Gene Clanton,[15] who wrote:
Surprisingly, more than six decades passed before scholars began to decipher the fairly obvious message ingeniously embedded within the story line of Baum’s work—a classic parable on the silver crusade . . .
Baum’s story was now a “classic parable.” But Clanton goes on to embellish the theory even more. He criticizes Littlefield for possibly being “too much under the influence of the then-prevalent view of Populism” and accuses Littlefield of wrongly interpreting the Wicked Witch as representing a “sentient and malign nature.” Instead, Clanton writes:
Evidently, in Baum’s mind, the evil western witch was none other than Populism—agrarian radicalism, socialism, or those on the left wing of the political spectrum generally. The western sorceress wore a silver whistle around her neck, symbolizing the silver plank of the Omaha platform. The original drawing of the western witch may even have been inspired by none other than “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, the One-Eyed Plowboy who then as later symbolized in the minds of establishment rypes the worse side of the agrarian revolt. She (or he), as pictured, had only one good eye and wore a patch over the other. Dorothy, unknowingly assisted by the magic silver slippers (free silver) that she has taken from the evil witch of the East, who had been killed when the Kansas tornado deposited Uncle Henry’s house in Munchkin Country, eventually tossed a bucket of water on the Western symbol of extremism, and the last remaining evil witch simply melted away. That was of course exactly what happened to Populism, once the Democratic party, behind Bryan, came out forthrightly for silver and reform.
Thus, Clanton concludes, “Baum’s story was an apt metaphor or parable of Progressivism, not Populism.”
The circle is now closed. The Littlefield theory has become so established in the higher strata of academia that it becomes the subject of its own critical literature. Professor Woggle-Bug of the Royal College of Oz would chuckle with delight at the debate.
Unfortunately for the most dogmatic supporters of the Populism theory, surviving correspondence, contemporary articles, Baum family histories, and interviews with Baum do not contain a shred of evidence that Baum intended The Wizard for any purpose other than his stat-ed goal of pleasing children (and producing an income). During Baum’s lifetime, he never viewed The Wizard as containing literary content significantly different from his other books for children. If Littlefield’s theory was correct, The Wizard would stand alone among Baum’s nearly 80 books as an intricately crafted political statement. That just is not very likely.
In 1890 and 1891, Baum did write a newspaper column which contained political satire. The column was for the Aberdeen [South Dakota] Saturday Pioneer, a weekly newspaper Baum published. However, if Baum was capable of writing subtle political commentary for adults, his books for children did not often show it. When Baum did introduce political satire into his children’s books, it was• usually so obvious that it is difficult to believe that he took a radically different approach just once in The Wizard. In The Land, he lampooned the suffragists. In The Sea Fairies (1911), he took a swipe at the monopolistic practices of the Standard Oil Company. Here and there he poked fun at pompous leaders of all kinds. But that was about it.
One of the few times he directly mentions politicians in his books was a poem in Father Goose’s Year Book (1907):
Tom, Tom, the Piper’s Son,
Stole a pig and away he run . . .
If in politics you’d find
He’d have stole the people blind . . .
Hardly subtle satire.
What is known about Baum’s politics directly contradicts the more outlandish interpretations of Littlefield’s theory. Baum was a Republican (Bryan was a Democrat). The Saturday Pioneer, which he published, supported Republican positions and criticized both the Populists and the Democrats.[16] While researching a biography on Baum, Michael Patrick Hearn found no evidence that Baum’s story is a Populist allegory and Hearn charged that Littlefield’s article “has no basis in fact.”[17] In fact, Hearn pointed out, Baum was not a supporter of William Jennings Bryan in 1896, and Baum even wrote a poem in 1896 backing McKinley and the gold standard.[18]
Even Ozma Baum Mantele, Baum’s first granddaughter (to whom Baum dedicated The Lost Princess of Oz, 1917), adamantly rejects the Littlefield theory. Mantele, who may be the closest living link with Baum, is confident that Baum developed The Wizard from stories he told over a period of time to Baum’s four sons and neighbor-hood children.[19]
But could Baum have included political details in The Wizard without consciously doing so? He was, after all, very much aware of politics. Though The Wizard has been given philosophical, religious, and psychological interpretations, it is the political analysis which has received widespread attention in both academic and popular media. To a certain extent, The Wizard can be viewed as a political tale involving constant changes in the leadership of the various subdivisions of Oz. And there are undeniable political overtones to the humbug Wizard who has almost become a cliche in political commentary about politicians who pretend to be more powerful than they are.
Nancy Tystad Koupal, Director of Publications of the South Dakota State Historical Society and author of a forthcoming book on Baum’s South Dakota newspaper, believes the Littlefield theory has some merit. She wrote:
It is credible to see Baum as a critic of the Populist movement. His newspaper editorials support that position for 1890–1891, and throughout the decade, the Populists were fusing with the Democrats to win elections, a situation that a Republican observer such as Baum would have been interested in and critical of. Beyond that, I think one has to be careful about what one asserts concerning Baum’s personal politics.
We must grant that Baum was influenced by the politics and ideas of his time and that elements of these made their way into his books. Unfortunately, many people who are expanding on Littlefield’s ideas are struggling to make each piece of The Wizard fit into the allegory. Baum would never have been that neat or compulsive about it. Further, I think modern writers are imposing today’s concepts and concerns on the story, stretching the social commentary present in Baum’s work beyond supportable limits. In these instances, the critics are doing damage not only to The Wizard but to history itself. [20]
It would make for an interesting treatise to explore the motivation of the academics and writers who weave elaborations on Littlefield’s original theory. Perhaps the political and cultural climate of today is so steeped in cynicism that people can no longer enjoy a delightful, enchanting fantasy for the innocence and wonderment it offers. Or, perhaps the pressure to publish has driven writers to abandon common sense in favor of outrageous scholarship. Baum would have enjoyed making fun of the seriousness of these writers, as he did so often with pompous characters—politicians, educators, or otherwise—in his books.
Through all the years, Littlefield, now a writer and educational consultant living in California, has always emphasized that his article was a teaching tool—a way to help people better understand the Populist movement and Baum’s greatness as a story teller. Even in the original article, he asserted that the theory aimed to “furnish a teaching mechanism which is guaranteed to reach any level of student.”
Writing in the current issue of The Baum Bugle (see page 24), Littlefield describes how he conceived the article as a project in a high school history class he taught. “Whether Baum intended [the parable] or not, I have no idea. I almost don’t care,” Littlefield candidly told a convention of The International Wizard of Oz Club in the summer of 1991. “It’s a wonderful machine for us teachers, particularly history teachers, to use.”
Nearly a century after Baum wrote The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, nobody will ever know for sure just what went on inside his head when he made up the story. However, there is no reason the reader has to know. It is an enduring story that, like any great work of art, can continuously be interpreted through various facets of the human experience. If generations after the book was written it can help people better understand the political events of a hundred years ago, so much to its credit and the credit of the teachers.
The author wishes to thank Nancy Tystad Koupal for her suggestions which were incorporated into this article.
[1] The most accessible printing of the article is contained in The Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum, edited by Michael Patrick Hearn, Critical Heritage Series, New York: Shocken Books, 1983.
[2] The source of this story is To Please a Child by Frank Baum and Russell MacFall, Chicago: The Reilly & Lee Co. Baum and MacFall’s source is unknown.
[3] Gore Vidal, “The Wizard of the ‘Wizard,’” The New York Review, September 29, 1977.
[4] Raylyn Moore, Wonderful Wizard, Marvelous Land, Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1974.
[5] Lee A. Daniels, “Vermont College and Bronx School Collaborate to Lure Minority Pupils.” The New York Times, February 8, 1989.
[6] Mitch Sanders, “Setting the Standards on the Road to Oz,” The Numismatist, July 1991.
[7] Michael A. Genovese, “The Wonderful Wizard Lives on; Oz Maintains its Appeal in our Political Consciousness.” The Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1988.
[8] Lawrence Swaim, “Plains Truth in a Fantasy Land,” In These Times, February 18–24, 1987.
[9] Michael Dregni, “The Politics of Oz,” The Utne Reader, July/August 1988.
[10] Rhys Thomas, The Ruby Slippers of Oz. Los Angeles: Tale Weaver Publishing, 1989. Information from the book was originally published in the Los Angeles Times, which also included a sidebar about the theory.
[11] Dreier, like many free-lance writers, recycled this idea on several occasions. The NPR story followed an article he wrote for the Boston Globe, July 14, 1985, using Walt Disney’s newly released motion picture, Return to Oz, as a peg. Dreier reworked the piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, September 24, 1989, this time pegged to the 50th anniversary of the MGM film.
[12] Fred Whitehead, “Secret Heart of The Wizard of Oz Unlocked,” Letter to the Editor, The New York Times, October 31, 1989. Whitehead goes on to say, “If Kansans truly understood Oz, they would take pride that their state played such a crucial role in 19th century American political culture.”
[13] Don Sloan, “The Wizard of Oz Unmasked as the President,” Letter to the Editor, The New York Times, December 25, 1990. The letter says Baum was a Bryan supporter and Sloan attributes to Littlefield the claim that Baum was a political activist and a champion of the Populists. Sloan concludes his letter, “The beauty of [Baum’s] artistry is buried in the sadness of our times.”
[14] Charles A. D’Aniello, “Cultural Literacy and Reference Service,” RQ, Vol. 28, No. 3, Spring 1989.
[15] Gene Clanton, Populism, The Humane Preference in America, 1890–1900. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991.
[16] See Nancy Tystad Koupal, “From the Land of Oz: L. Frank Baum’s Satirical view of South Dakota’s First Year of Statehood,” Montana: The Magazine of Western History, Spring 1990, Volume 40, Number 2.
[17] Michael Patrick Hearn, “Oz Author Never Championed Populism,” Letter to the editor, The New York Times, January 10, 1992.
[18] Printed in the Chicago Times-Herald, July 12, 1896.
[19] Letter to the editor, The Los Angeles Times, April 3, 1988. Also personal interview, August 6, 1988.
[20] Letter to Michael Gessel, September 24, 1991.
Authors of articles from The Baum Bugle that are reprinted on the Oz Club’s website retain all rights. All other website contents Copyright © 2023 The International Wizard of Oz Club, Inc. All Rights Reserved.