Published in a 1990 volume of The Journal of Political Economy, Hugh Rockoff asserts that Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz “is a cautionary tale, recounting “the first battle” of 1896 (the title of Bryan’s [1896] immensely popular account of that election) and warning of the dangers that lay ahead” (745). Thus Rockoff ties the events in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to the major issue of the 1896 Presidential campaign – the economy. Whereas William McKinley and the Republican party advocated the gold standard, William Jennings Bryan represented the Democratic and Populist factions in fighting for bimetallism and free silver. Agreeing with Henry Littlefield’s assessment about Baum’s political leanings, Rockoff sees Baum’s fairytale as a Populist interpretation of the 1890’s, though less deliberate in intention (756). Aside from disagreeing about the degree to which Baum intended for his story to be viewed as a political commentary, Rockoff agrees with all of Littlefield’s interpretations about the story as a Populist allegory. Rockoff’s article attempts to build upon the ideas presented by Littlefield to introduce the notion of Baum’s story as a monetary allegory as well.

Rockoff’s interpretation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz provides sound reasoning for his view of the book as supportive of bimetallism. His interpretation of the cyclone that brings Dorothy to Oz at the beginning of the story is an apt metaphor for the Free Silver movement since times were especially hard in the plains states like Kansas in the 1890’s (745). It isn’t surprising that impoverished people would be “swept up” in a movement promising to inject more currency into the system. That she happens to fall upon a land called “Oz” isn’t lost on Rockoff either. He notes, “This is Baum’s fantasy counterpart to America, a land in which, especially in the East, the gold standard reigns supreme and in which and ounce (Oz) of gold has almost mystical significance” (745). Rockoff then mentions that Dorothy and her companions follow the yellow brick road (a metaphor for the gold standard) to the Emerald City to find the way home to Kansas, but in the end, all she had to do was click her silver shoes together three times. Rockoff explains, “the power to solve her problems (by adding silver to the money stock) was there all the time” (756). Though Rockoff’s reasoning is sound, I feel this sequence of events in the story work to support my thesis about The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as well. Though I am focusing on the film version for my project, I will use the book in this instance to compare fairly. While I agree with Rockoff that the cyclone could represent the free silver movement, it’s purpose in the story is different for each of us. Rockoff believes that it is designed to transport Dorothy (a representation of America) to a land where gold reigns so that she might find a compromise (bimetallism), which Rockoff argues that she does by clicking her silver shoes to take her back to Kansas (745). I believe, however, that the cyclone’s purpose is to remind Dorothy, and by extension Americans looking to Populism, that the free silver movement may seem enticing, but it will sweep them up, leave them in an unknown land away from everything they know, so the best course of action is to remain on the marked trail (the yellow brick road or the gold standard which was already in use) and they will be assisted in their journey home. After all, without the guidance of the Good Witch (or perhaps government officials with more knowledge than ordinary Americans) Dorothy would have never been instructed to click her heels in the first place.

In a unique review of The Wizard of Oz published on August 28, 1939 in The Los Angeles Times, art critic Arthur Milliers includes his family of five (plus one guest) in his critique of Victor Fleming's The Wizard of Oz. Because the book, and by most accounts the film, was made for younger viewers, it is brilliant that a review of the film should seek imput from children. Milliers, however, "admits that the idea of doing a family review of "The Wizard of Oz" came to him as he was wondering how to wrangle six passes for his numerous brood" (A14). Nevertheless, the opinions of his young companions, as well as his wife, all offer interesting insight into the varied audience reception of the film. Understandably, the younger children were more convinced that Oz was a real place. According to Mojave's (a 13 year old) description of the film, "it was all so oddly real that I felt I was living the story with Dorothy" (qtd. in Milliers, A14). The 15 year olds took a somewhat disinterested view of the film, with Arthur Jr. noting that the film "is a pleasant change from our standardized movie of today, not being an involved picture requiring mental effort to follow" (qtd. in Milliers, A14). I found the Mother's perspective on the film to be the most interesting, as her husband notes that she felt the movie was like "what childhood dreams used to be made of before 'Gang Busters' and 'oomph' became household words" (qtd. in Milliers, A14). The Mother's statement indicates that, for her, viewing The Wizard of Oz brought her back to happier times and provided a means of escapism.

While Milliers family review of The Wizard of Oz may seem like nothing more than the opinions of a few children and adults strewn together, to me, each of their reviews of the film have meaning. Although some patterns exist among similar age groups, each of the six individuals mentioned above has a distinct opinion of the film. This is important because it demonstrates the vast expanse of opinions about The Wizard of Oz that has yet to be uncovered. While a plethora of academic research exists linking Baum's book, and to some extent, Fleming's film, to Populism and bimetallism, Milliers review reminds us that these are not the only working theories about The Wizard of Oz currently circulating.

Milliers, Arthur. "Arthur Milliers View 'Oz' With Varied Reactions." Los Angeles Times. 28 Aug. 1939: A14. ProQuest. U. of. Penn. Lib., Philadelphia. 1 Dec. 2008 <http://proquest.umi.com>.

In an article appearing in an issue of Public Relations Quarterly, Tim Ziaukas posits "Baum's parable is a potent piece of Gilded Age propaganda, a masterpiece of early public relations writing, and part of the progressive surge that would result in the formal emergence of public relations in the generation after Oz" (3). He later concludes that The Wizard of Oz's foray into the field of Public Relations was lost in the transition from the Gilded Age to the 20th century, but he spends very little time developing either of his arguments. Instead, Ziaukas offers readers a short-sighted summary of the debate between the gold standard and bimetallism, L. Frank Baum's life, and the plot of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Despite the article's shortcomings, it is notable because it is one of the few articles I found exploring The Wizard of Oz from a different discipline -- in this case, Public Relations.

That the notion of The Wizard of Oz as a Populist or monetary allegory has spread to disciplines as far removed as Public Relations indicates an intense fascination with the idea among both ordinary Americans and academics alike. I do not believe that this is a problem. However, when academics make claims with very little or no evidence to back them up, I feel it is time to move on. Such is the case of The Wizard of Oz as a Populist or monetary allegory. While a strong case can be made for a vareity of scenarios relating to The Wizard of Oz and the notion of the yellow brick road representing the gold standard, for example, there just isn't enough evidence to support any of these claims.

Ziaukas, Tim. "Baum's Wizard of Oz as Gilded Age Public Relations." Public Relations Quarterly 43.3 (Fall, 1998): 7-11. EBSCO MegaFile. U. of Penn. Lib., Philadelphia. 1 Dec. 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com>.

Whereas Ranjit S. Dighe’s book was notable for presenting the reader with the arguments both for and against The Wizard of Oz as a political or monetary allegory, Bradley A. Hansen’s The Fable of the Allegory: The Wizard of Oz in Economics takes a more one-sided approach. Unlike most Oz scholars, Hansen believes that “Baum’s writings, as well as his life history, provide considerable evidence that he did not have Populist sympathies and did not intend the book to be anything more than a delightful story” (255). To support these claims, he cites the fact that there “have not been multiple independent discoveries of the allegorical interpretation,” as all relate back to Littlefield or those who cited Littlefield (256). Next, Hansen cites editorials from Baum’s newspaper in South Dakota which indicate that he was a Republican. Finally, Hansen provides alternate interpretations of aspects of the book that are often used for monetary or political allegory by contemporary scholars.

Having been presented with Hansen’s arguments as to why The Wizard of Oz cannot function as a feasible political or monetary allegory, I have become more aware of the effect that the research of others can have on your own. Just as virtually every Oz scholar has read Littlefield’s article or has read an article by someone else who has read Littlefield, certain ideas or theories become accepted into the mainstream of academia, even when the evidence should suggest otherwise. These ideas are then assumed to be correct and are often treated as fact and are thus rarely challenged. Hansen questioned the reigning allegorical interpretations of colors in the book and brought up the point that if colors are a cornerstone of the allegorical interpretation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, why are certain colors left unexplained? Until someone can provide a rational explanation as to why the Munchkins are blue, Glinda the Good Witch of the North is white, and the Wicked Witch of the West is green, it is difficult for me to assert that the yellow brick road is a symbol of the gold standard.

Hansen, Bradley A. "The Fable of the Allegory: The Wizard of Oz in Economics." The Journal of Economic Education 33.3 (Summer, 2002): 254-264. Heldref Publications. JSTOR. U. of Penn. Lib., Philadelphia. 1 Dec. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org>.

Any analysis of The Wizard of Oz as something other than a beautiful fairy tale for children must begin with a look at Henry M. Littlefield’s The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism. According to Ranjit S. Dighe, editor of The Historian’s Wizard of Oz, “Baum left behind no concrete evidence that he wrote the book as a political allegory, and, as far as we can tell, virtually nobody read it as one until more than sixty years later, when Henry Littlefield’s “The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism” was published in 1964” (x). Since then, a variety of additional allegories have been proposed, yet most still cite Littlefield’s work when tying Baum’s book to the Populist movement of the 1890’s. In his article, Littlefield’s overarching point is that in writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Baum was injecting a positive commentary on the Populist movement. Littlefield cites the scene in which the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, Lion, and Dorothy ask the Wizard for help in fulfilling their needs for a brain, a heart, courage, and a way home, respectively. Littlefield points out that “their desires, as well as the Wizard’s cleverness in answering them, are all self-delusion. Each of these characters carries within him the solution to his own problem, were he only to view himself objectively,” suggesting that the populists were a self-sufficient and capable group (57).

Littlefield’s thesis of Baum writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a work supporting the power of the common man, or the Populist movement, hinges on information about Baum’s political inclinations. As a result of this, his thesis is somewhat invalidated. In relating Baum’s background to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Littlefield writes, “In Chicago Baum certainly saw the results of the frightful depression which had closed down upon the nation in 1893. Moreover, he took part in the pivotal election of 1896, marching in “torch-light parades for William Jennings Bryan””(49). Littlefield also quotes Martin Gardiner, noting that Baum “consistently voted as a democrat…and his sympathies seem always to have been on the side of the laboring classes” (qtd. in Littlefield, 49). While this information certainly supports Littlefield’s thesis, it was later disproved. According to Dighe, “Baum scholars have turned up virtually nothing in the way of confirmation that Baum was ever a Democrat or a Bryan supporter, while finding numerous bits of evidence that suggest he was a Republican or at least leaned Republican” (5). Though his theory about Baum’s political ideology is almost certainly false, Littlefield’s article is important to my thesis for that exact reason. By challenging the nature of Baum’s political leanings, one makes room for the idea of the yellow brick road as a symbol of the gold standard (a cornerstone of the Republican platform) as the path to prosperity.

Littlefield, Henry M. "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism." American Quarterly 16.1 (Spring, 1964): 47-58. The Johns Hopkins University Press. JSTOR. U of Penn Lib., Philadelphia. 19 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org>.