Theatrical Adaptation

Irony in OZ and a disagreement with the annotations

I disagree with the annotation Baum,194 n. 25 which says the "The Lion comments on the irony of the situation.Had each only gone before the other in sequence all of their problems might have been solved.The Scarecrow could have appealed to the great Head's intellect for a brain, the Tin Woodman might have wooed the lovely lady for a heart.... each could have shown a different form of Oz that he already knew how to use the gift he so desired..."
This comment is based on the Lion's naive assumption that a changing of the Wizard's shape constitutes a changing of the Wizard's matter.This is shown untrue by the Scarecrows comment on the "lovely lady" Baum 192: "'all the same said the Scarecrow ' she needs a heart as much as the Tin Woodman.'"Baum through his pun and the Scarecrows comment teaches children looks can be decieving; a beautiful lady may have no more heart then a talking head.Baum foreshadows the later revealing of the "Wizard."
The real irony of the lions statement Baum 195." If he is a beast when I see him I shall roar my loudest, and so frighten him that he will grant all I ask" Is that to do so the Lion would be showing courage if his action was just a bluff however even more humorus would be the results of the Lion's hoped for outcome. If the wizard after being frightined asked the Lion what he wanted the Llion would be forced to admit his bluff by askingfor courage.
Finally the logic of the annotation that someone without a brain could make the best appeal to intellect, or someone without a heart the best appeal to sympathy is ridiculous.Rather again Baum shows through characters wishing to encounter someone with the feature they ask fo,r that they do no how to "use the gift" as the annotation suggests. but as good reasoning tells us you can not use something you don't have, and the Lion the Scarecow and the Tin Woodman all already have what they desire.

posted by artpoet @ 7:34 AM