Oz the poor and stupid
350988
This is a really stupid movie.  If I had know what it was like I would not even have thought of getting it.
2980568
I got some laughs from the many references to characters from the original Oz books. This is dark-ish Oz, not awful
4141513
This guy is out in left field.  No, he's not even on the ballfield.  He's in outer space.
He starts with a premise that God made man in the wilderness and women in the garden.  This is in contrast to Genesis 1 where God made a world that was perfect, until it was corrupted by man's original sin.  Then we degenerated into killing animals and living in a wilderness when God kicked man out of the garden.
Eldredge does stupid things like risk his son's lives by putting a canoe (for the first time ever) into a raging river at flood stage.  He glorifies the cavemen images and glosses over what the Bible says about men.  He mocks the safe men and glorifies the dangerous men.  He forgets that God shunned Esau the wild man and chose Jacob, the mama's boy and soft-skinned conniver.
Eldredge thinks men need to be warriors and fierce.  Yet God told David he couldn't build the temple because he was a warrior.  God granted that privilege to David's son Solomon, a philospher king, the wisest man ever.
He twists the story of Ruth in the Bible and makes her out to be a scandalous seducer of men.  My wife is a great Christian wife and she was very offended by this book.  She doesn't need rescuing by Eldredge or anyone else.  Eldredge mocks the character traits outlined for a woman in Proverbs 31.
Once he degenerates into his theory that all men have a wound, he really goes off the deep end.  He even gets so weird as to use an example a Costner movie in which they discuss the size of a child's genitalia.
He recommends beating up bullies instead of turning the other cheek and its really a sad example of a man who has some desperate inner need to feel important and hope that other people believe him, thereby making him feel he knows what he is talking about.
He goes off on tangents about how he would rather be William Wallace than Mother Teresa.  Yet he bases his knowledge of William Wallace on the Braveheart movie and not on the biographies which paint a different picture of the man.
I would actually encourage people who have a strong faith to read this book, then challenge others to avoid this false teaching and Hollywood movie theology.  It's almost laughable, until you realize this guy probably really believes this.  Pity the poor men and boys who take this to heart.  They'll be headed for a seat in the therapists chair before long.
2216039
I seen Oz as a recommended comic book on Google Play and despite my better judgement, I bought it. Just by looking at the cover I was sure it was going to be sexist but I'll still kinda wanted to read it. Don't judge a book by it's cover and all that. However, you should totally judge this crappy comic book on it's misogynistic cover. There's so much sexual objectification of women in just 27 pages. Dorothy spends most of the comic book in what she's wearing on the cover and when she's not wearing that, she's wearing other awful clothes. And not just Dorothy. The wicked witch is objectified as well.
I'm extremely disappointed in everyone involved in comic book. The core concept of Oz is really cool (Toto is a wolf and I think that's insanely awesome) but the complete and utter lack of respect for women is inexcusable.
What a waste of my money.
629546
The only person dumber than an author who thinks it is worthwhile to write a book bashing a social commentator, would be the idiot who thinks the book is worth reading.  An even dumber person is the one who would actually pay money for such trash.
184560
Wicked is a far better read than most fiction books on the market.  It is thought provoking,
reasonably challenging, and good fodder for conversation with all ranges of people.  It even
includes discussion questions at the end of the book.  In this review, I have tried to keep spoilers
to a minimum and make them as general as possible.
Readers who turn to Wicked as a means of understanding Oz will be disappointed, and are better
off reading Baum's classic itself, or what historians have made of it (there is a great deal of
information on the allegories of Oz on the web).  The author shifts between the book's Oz (for
example, the charmed slippers are silver, not ruby) and the movie's Oz (the witch has green skin,
and is not completely wart-infested and repulsive) as it suits his convenience.  And this read is
certainly not for children.  Not only would children not understand the words, but the book is
notable for its raunchy tales of the birds and the bees, and I don't mean the ones the witch sends
after Dorothy and the gang.
The book fails to deliver at least one of its promises: to explore the nature of evil.  I thought the
book would be about a fundamentally good person corrupted by ostracism and the taunting of
others.  Instead, the discrimination against the odd looking woman is surprisingly mild and good
natured.  The witch comes across as the humanitarian until the very end of the book, even as she
locks Dorothy into her castle and holds Toto hostage (these are reasonable precautions given that
the wizard sent them to kill her).
Glimpses of evil are found in other characters.  Glinda is at times a snob and the Wizard is a
mysterious despot.  In the original Oz, the Wizard comes across as a good natured man who
merely pretends to be something he is not.  In Wicked, the Wizard has elements of Hitler, Stalin,
and Uri Geller combined.  He discriminates against various parts of the population, enslaves
others, and brainwashes the youth.  But the wizard is not really a major character of the book, and
we do not read enough of his thoughts to obtain insight to his evil.
I was disappointed in the lack of fantasy in the novel.  The witch does not cast spells or obtain
great power over nature until the end.  THe author's account of how she obtains this power is
especially superficial.  The ascent to sorcery is surely a subject for a good plot, yet the author
bypasses this and simply attributes the witch's powers to a random, and rather silly, event.  In
terms of fantasy, the beginning and the end of the book are real page turners, but I found the
middle to be slow and heavy going.  The witch retires into a rather secluded life for part of the
book, and by this time has fewer magical powers than Harry Potter before Hogwarts.  The book
suddenly skips seven years and then the house drops on her sister.  Surely, those seven years
could be developed into an interesting plot. The Witch could have worked with her sister at plots
to liberate her part of the kingdom (after all, the Wizard felt quite threatened by both witches in
the original book), practiced more interesting spells, and establish herself as leader of the
"Winkees."  At the moment that I would relish most as author of such a book, this author seems
eager to finish and skips right to Dorothy.
Maybe this critique reflects my interest in politics, while the author clearly wanted to write a
more introspective work.  But the author whetted my appetite for fantasy and politics without
fully satisfying either one.
775590
***SPOILERS***

I just finished this book and I am dumbfounded. Looking at the 4 and 5 stars I wonder if folks actually read the book. First off, I have been a fan of Wicked and Mr. Maguire for quite some time now. I have read his other works such as Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister and Mirror, Mirror as well as all of the other books in the Wicked Years, that being said, I feel very cheated after reading Out of Oz. We were promised answers to questions, we were promised loose ends being tied up. Instead we get a long, drawn out book about a group of ho-hum characters that never really take any action to do anything other than run! The book begins with the introduction of Rain, Elphaba's (we think) grand daughter who has been left in the custody of Glinda for safekeeping by her (also horrible) parents, Candle and Liir.
From there the book attempts to pick up, bringing in our old friend The Clock of the Time Dragon as well as a few characters from the last novel. There is, as usual, political unrest as Loyal Oz and the Free State of Munchkanland are at war with each other.
Other than helping Glinda strengthen a spell chosen from the Grimmerie, Rain almost never demonstrates her magical abilities again. Here she is, probably one of the most magical beings in Oz (not to mention both she and Liir carry around the book throughout the course of the entire novel)and it never dawned on anyone to open the book and, I don't know, use it for some good??
The characters were just...a let down. Almost every single one of them were drab, depressed or had no clear direction. Candle and Liir made an awkward couple as did Nor and Brrr. The question of what happened at Apple Press Farm between Candle and Trism is never answered. Not even hinted at. This is the case with the majority of the book which could have been considerably cut. There is a lot of useless information about the geography of Oz. A bunch of useless scenarios that don't really need to be included.
The climax of the book (which, might I add didn't get good until the last couple of chapters) was really not much.
I was SO dissappointed in Shell. Here, we finally get our look at His Sacredness and he's basically a fuddy old fart who has seemed to have lost his mind. Where is the All powerful Emporor? I thought he was ruthless? Shell does not seem to be the same charcter that attacked his nephew in Son of a Witch.
And the ending...just...I can only shake my head. Really?? Instead of delving further into what could have been a groundbreaking relationship between Rain and Tip we have Tip stuck in some infirmary while she decides if she wants to rule Oz and we have Rain going off on some depression fuled quest to shuck the Grimmerie in the ocean and then off to do who knows what.
And WHERE IS ELPHABA???
This book was a waste of a read. I have never been so disappointed in a book in my life.
4175545
Actually, don't ignore her.  It's not Oz, it's not funny, and it's a sad, sad comment on the state of contemporary literature and the desire for serious artists to feel more connected with "outsider" talent, i.e. people who aren't in the insular worlds of West Coast or East Coast art.  This hoax does an injustice to those who are truly outside creators, as well as the intentions to help those artists by more established talent.  Shame on Laura Albert and Team LeRoy.  And shame on Ira Silverberg for covering his ass in The New York Times by pretending he wasn't aware of what was really going on, especially since a lot of unconnected people from New York to Los Angeles--and all points in-between--had pretty much figured something wasn't smelling honest.
1974458
Some of my Oz loving friends hate this one, but I thought it was pretty good with many charming moments.  The original characters don't show up much other than Dorothy, new characters being introduced to carry the real weight of the story.  Don't expect to see much lion, woodsman and scarecrow.
719517
I was disappointed and should have been more selective when looking at the book cover--the Wizard of Oz characters are too cartoonish to my liking.  I wanted more of the real version, just condensed to a readable.
802994
Hilarious take on Oz, to see these lovable characters written as bad guys! Enjoyable reading.
2950262
This might sound kind of funny but to me, Oz is a real place.

Then again, maybe that doesn't seem so funny to you. Maybe you grew up watching the famous movie as many times as I did. Maybe you read some of the books, or saw some of the belated sequels. Maybe Oz is real to you, too.

So when I heard that Adolf Hitler was coming to Oz, needless to say, I was concerned. After all, we know what he did to Europe. Would Oz fare any better?

We'd like to think the people of Oz would be smarter than those who fell for his tricks here in our world, but what if they're not? Some of the inhabitants might not be. Sometimes, some is all it takes. Maybe some could be enough for the wannabe conqueror to continue his Reich among the land of yellow-brick roads, talking scarecrows, men made of tin, and monkeys with wings?

That's what Adolf Hitler in Oz is about: the maybes that could happen if, instead of killing himself, instead Hitler went to Oz. It makes you think. It makes you wonder. It makes you worry. Yes, on the surface, it's a bit of a strange book. But that's no matter, because Oz is strange. And so how will the epitome of evil, Adolf Hitler, deal with that strangeness? That's for us to find out. The story seems real. Hitlers reaction seem true to what we know of the man. Oz feels like a real place, lived in and a land where the fantastic is ordinary. And it's chilling to see how easily, yet believably, Hitler's evil finds a foothold in the merry old land.

As Hitler works his evil, the satire is on point. I do not kid when I say it is terrifying; I was genuinely concerned about the fate of our beloved Ozians.

After a while, it can be a bit of a challenge to follow the adventures of a protagonist that is a ruthless tyrantbreak ins to the main action featuring Dorothy and the gang are very welcome, and I would've liked to have seen a little more of those classic characters. The conclusion was fine, and well reasoned, but I did feel it was a little soft on the old boy. (The author's closing statements do explain the theory behind the denouement.) And I did wish for an explanation on how two classic comedy actors found their way to Oz, as much as I enjoyed their contributions to the story.

Still, this is a strong effort, and the premise works far better than one could have reasonably expected. With Adolf Hitler in Oz, Sackett has given us a unique look at both the land we love so much, and the dictator that we hate.

-Jeremy Morong, author of The Adventures of Braxton Revere
293536
This book sucks, goof dor studying the red scare and such, for how literature is used to show light on current events or injustice but so is the wizard of oz, that's a fun book and a fun movie. Please stop making us, your students read this, it is so dull and boring, I want to burn this book like its a witch
1717376
This was a really good book, and despite what another review says, this shows that youy don't have be a storm-blown house or a circus man in a balloon to defeat the Wicked Witch of the East - (I have still yet to find, order and get "How the Wizard Came to Oz").  The Wicked Witch of the East decrees that Birthdays are now a crime, and because this happens on the same day as Meezie & Tweeze's birthday, Glinda (who is NOT a Pre-teen, as she is described as a WOMAN in the story on most likely pg 5 of the story & not 10) helps them by taking them to her friend Old Tree, who then suggests the little Windbag.  With him, a plan is then worked out to be-rid Oz of the Wicked Witch - and it works!!  But then, something amazing happens  and a miracle occurs . . . allowing Meezie and Tweeze to celebrate their birthday today.

One of the other reviews says that this story contradicts Baum's version; I say that we only see Oz through the Munchkins' view, as in "the Wonderful Wizard" we see it through Dorothy's point of view.  But there are a few little things that are a tiny bit different, like the view of the landscape, Toto not being drawn and different Munchkins greeting Dorothy, but it doesn't really matter.  The pictures by David Hohn look like that of Charles Santore, made from water-colouring (possibly both water-paint and/or water-pencil).  The Munchkins' heads are slightly bigger than normal heads, and Dorothy looks like Charles Santore's version, but in a different dress, but I really like her house.

Even though the details of this book are in 44 pages, the Endpapers,  Parent's Introduction, copyright and title pages don't count, so the story goes for 40 pages.

Someday, by 2010, hopefully when I have finally gotten into the Movie business, I would like to put this little story into the 'Oz-Prequel' I have planned.

Now, I would like to say that my review on "L. Frank Baum's the Wonderful Wizard of Oz with illustratiosn by Barry Moser" was cut short: the title was supposed to be "Barry Moser's (almost slightly) Gothic Oz", and I mentioend 2 sites where you could see 5 of his pictures and another site where you could read about "Forty-Seven Days to Oz", in which Barry Moser writes about how he made the illustrations for his 1986 Pennyroyal Press Edition, but Amazon.com cut them out.  I also ordered "the Wonderful Wizard of Oz - Troll Illustrated Classics", but it was out-of-print so I couldn't get it, but I'll try on another site:  Biblio-Quest.

Maybe next time then . . .
4214441
Intelligence doesn't always provide you with a money making job.  People have to be willing to work with their colleagues to get things done.  John Kennedy Toole creates for us in his book A Confederacy of Dunces a character named Ignatius J. Reilly who has the opportunity to work but doesn't.  The reason he doesn't is because he can't seem to get along with the people he works with.  People come to dislike him because of his behavior and his physical attributes.  As a person he belittles his friends and his colleagues, he will not listen to any one who challenges his word, and he is just down right lazy: a sloth of a sophisticate.
 Ignatius J. Reilly distinguishes himself as a philosopher, a bourgeoisie, and a genius.  He is none of the above.  In reality he is just an overweight man who lives with his mother, and gets carried away in his imagination.  As a person though, he believes that he is a figure of much importance.  When he is let loose on the streets of New Orleans people ignore him and laugh at his ideas.  Those who he comes to know, though, hate him because of his overly conservative view on life.  He creates trouble for himself when he writes an obnoxious letter of complaint, gets fired for leading a mock strike, tries to create a political party, and upsets his mother.
 He loves to express his own opinions much like this one, "I refuse to `look up.'  Optimism nauseates me.  It is perverse.  Since man's fall, his proper position in the universe has been one of misery" (59).  It is because of these opinions he is disliked by people in general.  In one passage of the book he compares himself with African Americans.  "In a sense I have always felt something of a kinship with the colored race because its position is the same as mine: we both exist outside the inner realm of the American society" (122).  They are both outcasts.  African Americans are disliked because of their skin color, and he is disliked because of his radical opinions.
 There are not many people who like him and want to help him.  His mother and a friend from University are the only ones who seem to care for him.  His friend from University had this to say to him in a letter she wrote: "Realize that life is surging around you.  The valve closes because it thinks it is living in a dead organism.  Open your heart Ignatius and you will open your valve" (215).  Ignatius doesn't listen to most advice except for this piece given from an old friend.  He decides to accomplish something for himself out in the big bad world, and this is when he tries to create a political party.  Countless times Ignatius has tried to succeed at something and has failed miserably.  His mother wishes he would seek out psychological help for his faults.  Ignatius however, accepts his faults and lives with them, and having somebody try to change him as a person would kill his character.  This is why he feels angered by his mother's solution to all his problems.  "...Striving is ultimately meaningless...we must learn to accept" (298).  Ignatius wants his mother to accept him as the person he already is.  His mother is unwilling to accept the son that she gave birth to.
 As an early twentieth century book A Confederacy of Dunces illustrates how people acted after the World Wars.  People were beginning to criticize each other about their personal lives, religion and political view.  African Americans were just starting to be accepted in society.  One of the major out-lying themes in the book and the time period for that matter is acceptance.  How did people accept each person's problem?  John Kennedy Toole shows us with the characters of this book how each person dealt with another person's problem.  The book itself may be heavy reading and somewhat confusing but it is well worth reading.  It reminds us of how life has changed since the post World War Era, and it covers many themes of today that people in general can relate too.
85400
I haven't finished this book yet, but just like all the other "Oz" books, I am immensely enjoying it!! Can't wait to see how it ends
4923214
In the first half of the 20th century, publisher Reilly & Lee provided the lucky American children with a new Oz title every year for decades.  Looking back on the series today, it seems clear that the quality of the Oz books understandably suffered as a result of this policy. Royal Historians Baum, Thompson, and Neill at some point all submitted material that seemed forced, as if it were traced from an overused blueprint rather than created from inspiration with enthusiasm.

Thompson's tenure was winding down by the time she wrote 'Captain Salt In Oz' (1936), a novel that suffers, as all the worst of the Oz books do, from being in plot and theme about nothing in particular.  As in Thompson's 'The Silver Princess In Oz' (1938), much of the writing is leaden and almost impossible to follow comfortably. 'Captain Salt In Oz' reads like a manuscript in which the primary story has been extracted; worse, its narrative could have been told in one-fourth of its 306 pages.

Blending together elements from Ballantyne's 'The Coral Island,' Kipling's 'Captains Courageous,' and Burrough's Tarzan mythos, 'Captain Salt In Oz,' while occasionally lively in tone, comes to little except some very mild adventures at sea.  Ex-pirate and present-day "Royal Oz Explorer" Captain Salt and ship's cook Ato, out colonizing for Ozma on the high seas, rescue petulant young king Tandy from a tropical island prison.  Neurotically obsessed with maintaining his regal status while on board the galleon (the Crescent Moon, in homage to Henry Hudson's Half Moon), in time Tandy learns to discard his notions of elitism and live life as the carefree young boy he really is.

The trouble is that there is no tension, drama, or adversity in Tandy's catharsis: the waters surrounding him are not stormy and perilous, but brackish and tepid.  No villains threaten; no obstacles frustrate. Considering that the story takes place in Oz, where almost anything can happen, almost nothing does.

'Captain Salt In Oz' is further out at sea that it realizes, and not waving but drowning. No members of the Oz royal family appear, and while pacifist Captain Salt is an energetic, colorful character, he is given little to do but reflect fondly on his previous life as a cutlass-wielding buccaneer. Thompson had an extreme weakness for generic boy kings, and Tandy is in no way distinguishable from any of those that came before him. Those who would like to experience what Thompson made of Oz should consider her excellent 'Kabumpo In Oz' (1922) instead.