Goldberg 1

Rachel Goldberg

23 April 2012

“Somewhere Over the Rainbow”: Maps and Utopian Constructions of Space in L. Frank Baum’s

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Oz, as an imaginary space, was born over a hundred years ago. The world of Oz is one that is fictional, idealized, and magical. This dream landscape has romanced many, and has taken up an immense and prolific space in the American imagination. However, there has been an attempt and tendency to take this imaginary community that dwells in the fantasy realm, and grant it some permanence in American culture. Such desires to recreate and re-imagine Oz have led countless authors to construct sequels, prequels, alternate tales, contributing to a growing collection of Oz-related texts. There are many comic books. Oz has been the setting of over fifteen movies, including what is arguably the most-viewed movie of all time – MGM’s 1939 film version of The Wizard of Oz. Television shows have incorporated Oz; video games, theater, even “Munchkin” donuts have Oz to thank. Recently, the world of Oz has acquired even more attention, with the creation of Gregory Maguire’s Wicked: the Life and Times of the Wicked

Witch of the West, which initiated an even bigger hit – the Broadway play Wicked: the Musical.

The imaginary community of Oz has clearly impacted American imagination and has prompted many people to create adaptations and reinterpretations of this space. All these reconstructions of

Oz point to a desire to take the imaginary world and make it visibly present in every-day

American life. Therefore, such actions seem to imply that fictional Oz fills in a gap that

Americans feel is missing in their own world. Goldberg 2

However, in order to understand the deep relationship between Oz’s idealized landscape and the American landscape, it is first important to look at Oz in its most original form. A discussion about the world of Oz has to start with its conception, which occurred in 1900 when

L. Frank Baum wrote one of the most famous American tales, The Wizard of Oz. A look into

Baum’s personal history, and the time period in which this classic novel was written, may help shed light on why Oz was so eagerly embraced by audiences in the early 1900’s, as well as why it also might still hold such power today. By realizing that turn-of-the-century events during

Baum’s life may have inspired his desire to create Oz, Americans can begin to realize that Oz functions as a utopian space that provides Baum, as well as his compatriots, with a new America

Dream. Oz, as an imaginary community, creates a space for Americans to re-imagine their own current communities. This utopian narrative restores faith in the hope of an idealized space, while also redefining this dream. Analyzing the physical geography of Oz, provided by details in

Baum’s text, it becomes clear that Oz is viewed as a sort of dream space. Since the terrain of Oz is so desirable, it leads to a longing to try and “map” out this idealized world.

Crucially, however, a discussion about the physical map of The Wizard of Oz is, ironically, a discussion about the lack of a tangible map. In his original tale, Baum supplies readers with no concrete visualization of Oz, but instead provides details that hint at the geography of this land. However, this, in many ways, says more about Oz than if Baum had provided an actual map. By supplying no concrete image, Baum stresses that this space does not exist – it is fictional and imaginary. However, because Baum provides readers with details as to how they might map out Oz, he is really suggesting that this place does not exist yet. This is ultimately the definition of a utopia – the idea that some space does not exist in one’s current world, but that is could be present someday in another world. Therefore, even though people, Goldberg 3 such as Baum, could not find their utopian dream, or their Oz, in America, The Wizard of Oz provides them with a new space that refreshes the hope that one day such a world might prevail.

Before one can understand the significance of maps in Baum’s Oz books, it is first vital to consider Baum’s career as an author and the immediate circumstances that motivated him to write his popular texts. Baum was born in 1856 in upstate New York. Ironically, he was brought into the world with a heart defect – something about his body was broken, missing, not quite right. In many ways his defected body is represented in the characters he creates in Oz, who are not whole, missing a heart, a brain, courage. His heart ailment is also symbolic of how he viewed

America – he always felt like something was missing in it, that it was not functioning like it should. Taking this a step further, it is possible that Baum thought America had no heart at all, that the country was turning into a machine and that people were suffering as a result. However, despite Baum’s heart condition, his father was a wealthy executive and could afford to give him proper medical care so he could live a relatively normal life. Educated at home at his huge estate,

Baum lived a comfortable life, but also always lived in fear that he might have a heart attack and die at any moment. Spending much of his time reading, Baum was constantly immersing himself in other worlds and dreaming about places far off, much more idyllic than the landscapes he currently knew. Baum’s parents sent him to a military academy because they “wanted to bring their son the dreamer down to earth” (Zipes 129). He didn’t last long there, and hated the corporal punishment and discipline at the academy. Soon after, Baum got involved writing for newspapers and began managing his own printing shop, where he started the newspaper the New

Era. Baum wanted to succeed and make a career for himself.

When Baum met Maud Gage, his future wife, he was a young man on the rise. After their marriage, though, a series of tragic events and accidents sent them on a downward spiral of Goldberg 4 social mobility. Then, like many other Americans at the time, Baum turned west toward new frontiers. Soon after, “he opened up a variety store…but because he continually gave credit to the poor customers, especially farmers, and spent a lot of time telling stories to youngsters…he was forced to close in 1890. This was the height of a severe economic depression, and Baum was witness to the way in which farmers were exploited by bankers and businessman alike” (Zipes

130). Baum had grown up in a comfortable household, and now he was not only witnessing, but also experiencing, the possibility that something about America was wrong, or “sick,” that

America’s heart beat was no longer stable. The economy was falling apart, and many people felt like the government had failed them. Basically, Baum realized that the United States was in crisis.

It was in Chicago, after he was forced to retire due to health reasons, where Baum actually wrote The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Ironically, his defected heart provided him with the time and opportunity to create Oz – which ultimately became his heart and soul. Oz, in many ways, gave him a new heart; much like The Wizard gave one to the Tin Woodsman. And much like a heartbeat is necessary to one’s survival, Baum’s Oz books became necessary to his well- being. The tale, itself, takes place in another world, Oz, where everything seems brighter and more colorful. This seems to fit the worlds that Baum had imagined as a child. In this classic children’s tale, Dorothy gets swept out of Kansas, and transported to a magical world of excitement and adventure. However, not too soon after arriving, Dorothy learns an important lesson – that home is where she ultimately belongs. She is advised by Glinda, the Good Witch, to travel down The Yellow Brick Road towards The Emerald City, where The Great and Terrible

Wizard might be able to grant her wish and send her home. Along the way, she meets The

Cowardly Lion, The Tin Woodsman, and The Scarecrow. Together the four of them travel to Goldberg 5 meet The Wizard in the hopes of gaining something they believe to be missing in themselves.

However, The Wicked Witch of the West places obstacles in their way, making their journey more difficult. But, at the end of the day, all the characters learn that The Wizard is nothing but a humbug, and that they had the power all along to obtain what they desired.

Baum never intended to write any sequels after his original Oz tale, and actually wrote other children’s books after publishing The Wizard of Oz. However, he eventually did write a sequel and his reasons for doing so were mixed: first of all, it gave him a source of income, and, secondly, readers demanded more Oz. Baum realized that the world of Oz did not just hold some sort of spell over him, but over readers, as well. Oz was a lifeline for Baum – it provided him with the money to survive in the economically unstable America at the time, while also offering him a landscape that he could create and control – something he could not do in his own life. Oz became the heartbeat of Baum’s life, what gave him life and propelled him forward. It is important to note that “by the time he began writing the Oz fairy tales, Baum had become

‘declassed’; that is, he had fallen from the upper classes and had experienced the trauma of downward social mobility. Moreover, his political consciousness had been awakened” (Zipes

132). Knowing this history of Baum’s life, it is plausible that his dissatisfaction with and inability to be in command of his American life prompted him to create a world that he could manipulate – one that was healthier, and one that epitomized his ideals.

After Chicago, Baum kept traveling westward. He ended up in California, and it was in

Hollywood, that he tried his hand at films and considered even contracting an “Ozland” on an island off the coast of California. Not long after, Walt Disney would create Disneyland.

However, “Ozland” never became a reality, much like Baum never felt satisfaction in the world around him. His film company failed, he declared personal bankruptcy in 1911, and he then Goldberg 6 started writing more Oz sequels: “from then on, most of the works he wrote in California were concerned with utopian projections, and it appeared that they could take on concrete form only in

Oz” (Zipes 131). He grew more and more sick and became bedridden in 1917 – “he turned more and more to Oz as a source of comfort” (Zipes 131). It can be argued that, by this point, Oz consumed Baum, and that this imaginary world became an alternate, fantasy space for him. Oz was the heart of Baum’s world – it became his love and his life. He went so far as to name his

California home “Ozcot,” and he “went about re-creating a miniature Oz there – building his home around an enormous cage of songbirds, daily writing this ‘history’ of Oz in his garden courtyard” (Griswold 464). The imaginary world of Oz became so desirable to Baum that he began to structure his material circumstances in relation to it. Baum wanted to turn the imaginary community into his real-life community. “Ozcot” was Baum’s attempt to re-imagine and recreate his own world into one that mirrored his beloved fictional world.

A discussion of Baum’s life hints at the idea that the time period in which he lived was one of economic and political turmoil. A deeper look into the historical context surrounding

Baum’s publication of The Wizard of Oz is necessary in order to understand the creation and significance of Oz as a place. To begin with, Baum was a Gilded Age writer. The Gilded Age was a period of American history that occurred in the late 19th century post-Civil War and post-

Reconstruction eras. Characterized as an era of rapid economic and population growth, it was also a time plagued with economic recessions, conflicts between industry and agriculture, and political disagreements. Basically, this period marked a time in which the country was wracked by persistent crises. From 1873 to 1896, an international “great depression” occurred, which took a toll on the world economy, leading to the overproduction of goods and dramatically falling prices. In 1873, there was also a severe Wall Street crash, which led to a round of failures and Goldberg 7 bankruptcies in America, resulting in the death of thousands of businesses. Alan Trachtenberg, in his book about the Gilded Age, writes:

A perilously uneven business cycle continued for more than twenty years, affecting all

sections of the economy: constant market uncertainties and stiffening competition at

home and abroad for business; inexplicable surplues and declining world prices, together

with tightenting credit for farmers; wage cuts, extended layoffs and irregular

employment, and worsening conditions, even starvation, for industrial workers. (39)

As Trachtenberg notes, the period in which Baum lived was one of uncertainty, disappointment, and crushing realities. In response to the collapse in agricultural prices, the Populist Party, also known as the People’s party, was formed in order to represent a radical group of farmers who disliked the bank, industry workers, and the elite, in general. The rise of technology during this time increased these conflicts between industry and agriculture, as both fought for a piece of the economic puzzle. This fixation on money was amplified by debates regarding the gold and silver standard, specifically which one should be used as the national currency. Proponents of the silver standard argued that this was the answer to the country’s economic woes. At the end of the day,

Americans were just looking for a solution to the problems they were facing – they wanted to make the world a better and more “ideal” place.

Baum’s creation of Oz seems to be his attempt to create this desirable place – one that maybe mirrors some of the realities facing America during the Gilded Age, but also one that offers a solution to the economic turmoil and political issues of this time. One famous scholar, who notes the parallels between The Wizard of Oz and America during the Gilded Age, is Henry

M. Littlefield. In his famous 1964 essay, “The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism,” Littlefield Goldberg 8 convincingly asserts that Baum’s book critiques what was wrong in America during the Gilded

Age. He proposes that Baum purposely has Dorothy wear silver shoes that walk upon a yellow brick road. In other words, Littlefield implies that Baum is commenting on the silver and gold standard debate. Littlefield also points out how the characters in the novel symbolize different stereotypes in America during the Gilded Age. For instance, Baum creates the brainless

Scarecrow, representative of a farmer. He creates the heartless laborer or industry worker, in the form of The Tin Woodsman. And, finally, he says something about how politicians are viewed, in his creation of the cowardly Lion. These are all arguments that people made during the Gilded

Age – the idea that farmers were viewed as insignificant and ignorant, that workers were becoming machines, and that politicians were all talk and no action. In his famous essay,

Littlefield ultimately believes that Baum proposes that “real needs lie elsewhere” (Zipes 132).

However, recent scholarship on The Wizard of Oz has called into question Littlefield’s claims, especially the essays written by William R. Leach. While there is still a focus on the Gilded Age and how it might have influenced Baum’s text, Leach and more current scholars, have focused on a different side of the Gilded Age – the interest with the urban city, and the rise of a new industrial ethic. Leach’s argument is just as gripping as Littlefield’s. However, even though there is mounting evidence against Littlefield’s thesis, and while Littlefield, himself, admits that his claims have no true basis in fact, it is still important to recognize how Littlefield’s interpretation remains a useful pedagogical device, and inspires further research into Baum’s tale.

Therefore, even though Littlefield may have no true basis in which to support his claims, it is important to recognize that his essay is still being taught and studied. His work remains a landmark piece regarding The Wizard of Oz. And, therefore, it is important to understand how readers might understand Littlefield’s essay and what messages it might provide. If Littlefield’s Goldberg 9 main claim has to do with Baum’s potential proposal that “real needs lie elsewhere” (Zipes 132), then there needs to be a discussion regarding what such a statement might mean. What seems to be implied here is that in Baum’s first novel, as in his actual historical moment, people looked to the government, or The Wizard, to solve their problems. However, these authority figures don’t have any true power, and, therefore, cannot carry out the needs of the people. Notions of fulfillment are illusory – no national power can provide this personal fulfillment. A person must ultimately provide it for him or herself. Therefore, people need to learn to turn their focus elsewhere, and Baum’s creation of Oz provides this “elsewhere” space that allows readers to learn these important lessons. While Littlefield’s thesis might be questioned, it is clear that Oz provides an “elsewhere” space that enables readers to understand certain aspects of their own lives. It is clear that Oz functions as a sort of utopia, and has connections to America. Therefore, if anything, Littlefield is the first scholar to highlight the relationship between Oz and America.

As a result, he also becomes the first scholar to understand just how deeply Oz functions as a utopia to an American population longing for, and in need of, an “elsewhere” space.

One particular historical event that occurred during the Gilded Age, and that seems to have had important motivations and implications for the creation of this “elsewhere” Oz, was the declaration of the “closing” of the frontier in 1890. The “closing” of the frontier implied that the prospect of owning free, wild land was now limited. American citizens began to question the idea of America as a place of endless land and opportunity. Just three generations earlier,

Thomas Jefferson and other revolutionaries had assumed it would take a thousand years before

Americans reached the Pacific Ocean. Trachtenberg writes that American citizens “counted on free land as perpetual assurance of independence from Europe, of unending prosperity following from a vast inland empire. Agriculture then seemed to most Americans the truest foundation of Goldberg 10 national wealth, and uncharted acres beyond the Appalachians stirred visions of a Western

‘garden’ tended by yeoman-farmers” (Trachtenberg 11). The notion of all this open space in the west is an important part of the idealized American dream, and it supplied Americans with hope that if things are not good where a person resides now, “the grass is always greener on the other side.” However, this well-known phrase highlights an important point – the utopia is only a utopia when a person is standing outside of that space. The dream relies on those two sides – the one that is unsatisfactory, and the one that holds the promise of something more.

In the 1890’s, the idea that Americans were highly focused on the “closing” frontier was brought under further attention by the Frontier Thesis, or the Turner Thesis. In 1893, Turner made a famous speech in Chicago, arguing that the presence of a frontier has been integral to

America’s identity and development. Turner further stressed that with the “closing” of the frontier, America’s sense of self was being challenged:

Turner’s essay remains the classic expression of the ‘frontier thesis’: that ‘the existence

of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement

westward, explain American development’: that this frontier accounted for American

democracy and character, and that at the end of the nineteenth century the continental

frontier finally closed forever, with uncertain consequences for the American future.

(Turner & Faragher 1)

American citizens saw the promise of the frontier as a defining aspect of what it meant to be an

American. As every generation moved further west, they became more American, and more democratic. In other words, the further west one went, the more American the community was, and the further away it was from England. Therefore, the frontier was an essential part of Goldberg 11

American identity, and to take that away, challenged the very core of peoples’ conceptualizations of America. By declaring that the frontier was “closed,” in some ways this implied that the

American Dream was maybe closed. The frontier allowed for the two sides – the populated east, and the wild “west.” However, by saying there was no more room to travel “west,” this implied that there was no more room in America to obtain that greener grass.

The “closing” of the frontier, during a time of economic unrest, was also problematic, because free land was valuable, and taking away that avenue of investment, led to more uncertainty during an already troubled time. Baum – someone who felt the effects of downward social mobility and financial ruin – would have been concerned with such issues. 1890, the same year the frontier was “closed,” was also the same year Baum was forced to close his variety shop, because it no longer provided him with a source of revenue. Therefore, here were two doors being slammed in Baum’s face, both which implied a sort of economic loss, and a sense of financial uncertainty. Such closures might also help explain Baum’s turn to imaginary West, or

Oz. It is important to consider that Baum moved to Chicago in 1891, and was still living there at the time of Turner’s speech. The “closing” of the frontier occurred ten years before the publication of The Wizard of Oz, and Turner gave his speech only seven years before Oz’s arrival into the public sphere. Because of Baum’s concerns with questions of agriculture and labor, and fears regarding the economic instability in America, the “closing” of the frontier probably impacted Baum, much like it did his compatriots. Baum, a person who never felt satisfied, and who continually travelled westward searching for satisfaction, would have been crushed to find out the west was “closed” – that there was nowhere else to go. The “closing” of the frontier probably led to a sense of urgency and anxiety among those, like Baum, who still did not feel settled or satisfied with their life in America. Also, the frontier, in many ways, had Goldberg 12 functioned as a boundary line – separating sections of land, and providing those two sides. The frontier was an integral element of America’s map at that time. By taking away the notion of an open frontier, America’s map and identity were changing. But more importantly, people started to question America’s future and longevity.

Due to these historical events surrounding Oz’s publication – namely the crises that took place during the Gilded Age, the “closing” of the frontier and Turner’s thesis, and Baum’s own personal misfortunes – the creation of Oz opened up a utopian imaginary space, which was motivated by and responding to the cultural anxieties of the late 1800’s. Americans, feeling anxious and unsettled, might be particularly interested in mapping out a utopian society that offered them a new frontier, an open space that could not be found in America:

The Turner thesis about the closing of the continental frontier offered an explanation for

the crisis – the United States had reached a critical watershed in its history – and to many

it also seemed to suggest a way out. Just as the frontier had been essential to Americans’

becoming who we were as a people, so it would require ‘new frontiers’ to ensure our

continued development (Turner & Faragher 3)

Turner’s thesis stresses the idea that “new frontiers” were necessary. This seems to fit very well with the theory that Baum created Oz as the new frontier. If Baum, indeed, was dissatisfied with

America and the fact that the frontier was “closed,” then his decision to create Oz can be seen as a way to cope with an American world that was far from ideal.

Oz, as a geographical landscape, therapeutically provided Americans with an open space during a time when the American dream of abundant land and opportunity was threatened and uncertain. Thus, the creation of Oz helped restore faith in the dream of America, even as it Goldberg 13 seemed to replace it. In some ways, Oz can be viewed as the American Dream to unsatisfied

Americans, in the same way that the American Dream represents an ideal to foreigners. Baum, himself, spent most of his life looking for fulfillment of the American dream, searching for this new frontier in America. This is epitomized during his constant journey westward. However, at some point he realized that California would be his final resting place, and that it was also the final American frontier. He could go no more West, and he could, therefore, no longer search for his Oz in America. Zipes writes:

It was almost as if he had been driven from the East Coast to the West Coast in search of

a better America knowing all the while, his dark secret, that it would never come. It was

difficult to admit this, and perhaps this is why he endeavored until his death in 1919 to

give hope to his readers that there may be another way of pursuing the American dream

than the way it was being pursued in reality with vengeance. (Fairy Tales 131)

Baum wanted to give Americans the hope of open space, of a geography where boundaries were not “closed,” and dreams were not crushed. He knew such a landscape did not exist in America, and so he turned to a space where it might be able to exist – within the pages of his book. He implies that Americans needed Oz, the new frontier – or maybe, at least, he needed it. Writing his fourteen books about Oz was Baum’s way of coping and staying sane in a world that had failed him. America might have closed its doors to Baum, but The Wizard of Oz was an open book, with an open land just waiting to be mapped out and explored.

By creating Oz in response to cultural anxieties about closing borders, Baum produced an alternate fantasy space in which frontiers are suddenly made open again. In The Wizard of Oz, readers can imagine an immense space, one with endless land to conquer. It seems that maybe Goldberg 14 the lack of a map in Baum’s original Oz tale might be a way to preserve this sense of endlessness, to create a space that can’t be contained, and, therefore, can’t be “closed.” Even if the frontier in America is “closed”, Baum makes it clear that Oz’s frontier is still open: “while the United States declared that there were no more frontiers to be conquered, Oz not only contains wild lands but the opportunity to peacefully master them” (Gibson 112). Essentially

Baum implies that, although the actual western territories might have been “closed,” a fantastical

“west” exists in Oz: there is a place of wild, uninhabited land just waiting to be explored. While readers are never told how big Oz is, they still get the sense that it is a vast space, with room for many more people to inhabit it, or try to map it out. For example, as Michael Riley argues, “Oz is sparsely populated and contains large uninhabited areas. Dorothy and her friends encounter few people on their journeys…in fact, the whole ‘feel’ of Oz in this first book is that of large tracts of uninhabited land: forest, wilderness, and great open plains filled with sunshine” (52).

Oz, as a geographical space, becomes the image of the new frontier.

The idea that Oz can be seen as the new open frontier is emphasized in Baum’s details regarding its geography. Baum’s descriptions of Oz’s landscape mirror Trachtenberg’s descriptions of the American west before the closing of the frontier. Trachtenberg describes the

American frontier as a western “Garden,” as an idyllic place of nature and beauty and prosperity.

When Dorothy first lands in Oz, Baum describes the land in the following manner:

There were lovely patches of green sward all about, with stately trees bearing rich and

luscious fruits. Banks of gorgeous flowers were on every hand, and birds with rare and

brilliant plumage sand and fluttered in the trees and bushes. A little way off was a small

brook, rushing and sparkling along between green banks, and murmuring in a voice very

grateful to a little girl who had lived so long on the dry, gray prairies. (Baum 10) Goldberg 15

Here readers imagine Oz’s landscape as fresh, untarnished, wild, and free. The nature is ripe and rich. The land here is valuable. Baum presents readers with an image of the Garden of Eden – a mystic, magical, beautiful space. Oz is, in essence, what the west was before it became inhabited by white settlers and ultimately “closed.”

Baum also compares Oz to America by mentioning that Kansas is “dry” and “gray,” – so different from the lush greenness of Oz. Oz is that “grass is always greener on the other side” of the rainbow space. Baum further highlights the differences between Oz and America, writing that in Kansas, “even the grass was not green, for the sun had burned the tops of the long blades until they were the same gray color to be seen everywhere” (2). Essentially, Baum is implying that America’s land is closed, dried up, and worn out, but Oz’s landscape is completely open and in its prime. Moreover, since Oz’s landscape is so valuable, it provides the promise of better economic stability than that found in America during the Gilded Age. Farmers in Oz would have better chances of success than those in America. The image of Oz as a desirable, dream-like landscape becomes obvious.

The image of Oz as a Garden of Eden, or the bountiful western frontier, also lends itself to the image of Oz as a utopian space. The key to Oz is that Baum created a land that readers wanted to visit, a space where readers could escape from the chaotic realities of the Gilded Age.

White Americans, like Baum, were coming to the crushing reality that if they had not found their utopia in America, that they would not find it anywhere. Therefore, Oz provided a space for readers to get a taste of this dream utopia, giving them the hope that such a place could exist.

However, this creation of a utopian narrative, in response to anxieties of the Gilded Age, does not just apply to Baum’s tale. Actually, The Wizard of Oz follows a publication trend of more than one hundred works of utopian fiction in the United States during the late 1800’s. There was Goldberg 16 an influx of utopian tales written during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. These texts “cast contemporary theories of social expansion in narrative forms that provide literary resolutions to the historical tensions of those turbulent years” (Pfaelzer 5). Following this trend, the creation of Oz can be seen as Baum’s attempt to provide a solution to a historical moment.

Baum was essentially giving Americans the hope that new frontiers could be found, even if they might not currently exist in America. Phillip Wegner mentions that “these imaginary communities are ‘nowhere,’ as the etymological root of the term utopia bears out, precisely to the degree that they make somewhere possible, offering a mechanism by which people will invent anew the communities as well as the places they inhabit” (xvii). As a result, even though

Americans could not find their utopia in their current space, utopias provide a “somewhere over the rainbow” space that could one day be possible.

The tradition of utopian narratives, first initiated with Thomas More’s Utopia (1516), is the idea that the fictional world can serve as a way of understanding or reacting to one’s own world. The idea that utopias function as a way to understand space, whether it is one’s current or one’s idealized space, can be summarized by saying that “there has been a continuous exchange of energies between the imaginary communities of the narrative utopia and the imagined communities of the nation-state, the former providing one of the first spaces for working out the particular shape and boundaries of the latter” (Wegner xvi). This statement emphasizes the importance of imagination in the construction of space. Wegner implies that there is a difference, though, between “imaginary communities” and “imagined communities.” He also implies that there is a deep connection between the two.

To begin with, the word “imaginary” is used as an adjective, describing the places found in narrative utopias. These worlds are imaginary, and, therefore fictional. The word “imagined” Goldberg 17 is used as an adjective as well, but there is the implication that someone has already done this imagining, and that new ways of imagining space and nation are already foreclosed. Benedict

Anderson’s study of constructions of nationhood in Imagined Communities focuses on this idea of “imagined communities.” Anderson argues that nationalism is related to the notion of “nation” at the end of the 18th century. This particular period was a time when communities were no longer necessarily built around a king, who was proclaimed by God. Therefore, the question arose: what makes a nation, and how can it be defined in the absence of a dynastic monarchy?

Anderson claims that the only way to create a sense of nationalism is to have active faith. What cements a nation is active imagination from everyone in that community. People’s definitions of their own communities are often constructed from how they imagine these places. And Anderson mentions that these communities are often imagined as both sovereign and limited. Therefore,

“imagined communities” are not necessarily fictional, because the act of imagining does not imply that something is imaginary. Instead, as Anderson argues, “imagined communities” relate to one’s own world. Therefore, in his statement above, Wegner creates a dichotomy between these two spaces: “imaginary communities” as those found in narrative utopias, and “imagined communities” as those relating to the nation-state in which one currently lives.

However, since “imagined communities” relate to one’s own nation-state, they are often viewed as limited, because nations are often defined by the boundaries separating them from other nation-states. Furthermore, understanding one’s space, or community, is often difficult.

Therefore, the “imaginary communities” found in narrative utopias can open up an outlet for people to construct, deconstruct, tweak, their own current nation-states in a space that is not limited by boundaries. In his quote, Wegner implies that by engaging in the “imaginary communities” of a narrative utopia, people can start to give shape to their own worlds – often Goldberg 18 without even realizing they are doing so. Therefore, the narrative utopia functions as a space where people can read about imaginary worlds, but can also start to imagine how their own worlds are constructed. Therefore, the act of reading The Wizard of Oz, a narrative utopia, can provide a way for readers to visualize their own world. Specifically during the time of its publication, The Wizard of Oz provided Americans with a way to visualize a utopian alternative to turn-of-the-century America. Furthermore, this utopian narrative provided Americans with a way to re-envision their own nation, and what it presumably stands for. Oz became a space that responded to anxieties felt during the Gilded Age and commented on how some of the issues during that time could be solved. By making Oz the utopian new frontier, Baum created a world, or a community, separate from America, and yet inherently dependent on America at the same time.

Baum specifically mentioned in his introduction to the original edition of The Wizard of

Oz, that he wanted his story to be a “modernized” American fairy tale – he wanted to make Oz a landscape that was desirable, but also one that was realistic enough that it could be mapped out and visualized. Moore writes: “as for whether Oz is out of this world, or in it, but not of it, evidence would seem to indicate the latter…” (98). What Moore seems to be implying here is that Oz is a place that is both familiar and new. Furthering this idea, Gibson writes:

If Baum were trying to escape the United States, it would make the most sense to create

something dissimilar to it. Any possible connections with Oz and the United States may

be read as the basic points of reference every author must have even when creating

fantasy. It is impossible to be creative without drawing to some extent on life experiences

grounded within reality (111). Goldberg 19

As Moore’s statement suggests, a map of Oz will have points of reference that are similar to ones found in a map of America. However, just because Oz can be interpreted in such a manner does not necessary imply that Oz is America. Rather, it gives readers a way to see Oz in the context of what they already know – which is essentially the function of a narrative utopia. This goes back to Wegner’s claim that imaginary and imagined communities, or fictional and “real” worlds, are inherently connected. Fictional utopian Oz provides a space for Americans to understand, conceptualize, and re-imagine their own nation-state, America.

Because narrative utopias are concerned with creating a space where readers can make sense of their current landscape, a discussion of mapping or spatial orientation is necessary at this point. Indeed, it is important to theorize the functions that maps perform because maps, like utopias, are at their core, concerned with issues of space: their objective is, in part, to create a new social setting within a delimited geographic space. However, there is irony involved in the notion of trying to map out a utopia. This is because, as Wegner mentions above, the literal definition of utopia, a name formed by the Greek negation ou and the noun topos, is no place, or nowhere. Utopias exist only as dreams – they cannot be mapped out, because, as many people have joked, there is no such place. And yet, people still feel a desperate desire to visualize utopias, because if they can map out the utopia, then maybe this imaginary place can become just a bit more tangible and “real.” Therefore, it is not that important that a utopian world does not exist. What is important is the knowledge that people will always try to visualize and map out the dream world, despite its fictional nature. There is the hope that if one can visualize it, can create a map of the utopia, then this image can function as a way to keep the dream alive and contained. Goldberg 20

Clearly, if one can map out an imaginary world in literature, there is much to be gained from the effort. Theorists of space such as Michel de Ceteau, David Harvey, and Henri Lefebrve have increased scholarly interest in the study of geography in literature. Also, Marxist influences have increased interest in materialist and spatial understands of culture. Inspired by J.B. Harley, geographers “have called for a carefully theorized understanding of the historical and epistemological importance of maps” (Gilbert xii). In general, scholars have begun to insist on the importance of geographies. One such scholar is Franco Moretti, who has provided new insights into the relation of narrative and space by vigilantly mapping the geographies of mid- nineteenth century novels. Moretti discusses how mapping out a book can help people see patterns in a text and create interesting topics for conversation. He writes: “But in order to see the pattern, we must first extract it from the narrative flow, and the only way to do so is with a map” (Moretti 39). Therefore, a map of a literary work can function as a way to organize a text into a workable model.

The history of mapmaking, which dominated the nineteenth century, was a highly valuable enterprise: “in the late eighteenth century, as a result of imperial expansion and new techniques of triangulation, cartography emerged as an important – and soon dominant – mode of knowledge” (Gilbert xiii). Many scholars have highlighted how maps function as sites of knowledge-power. The idea that maps provide power and knowledge can be seen in two ways: the map is a legal document and the map even as it is a textbook. On the one hand, a map functions as a way to legitimize one’s power by cementing boundaries and borders that delineate one’s space. The map, therefore, can assert one’s possession of that space, and can be used as a way to maintain one’s ownership of it. The map then almost becomes a legal document, and is something tangible and of value. This legal document ensures one’s right to the land and, Goldberg 21 therefore, one’s power over it. On the other hand, if someone obtains the map of another’s land, or if someone can create a map of a land that has yet to be conquered, then this individual – and the community s/he represents – now has knowledge regarding this geography, and, therefore, power over this terrain. Knowing the lay of the land gives the imperialist an advantage over someone who does not know the geography. Imperialists realized the importance of a map when it came to conquering new territory. In order to obtain land, one must first understand it. A space is a blank slate until meaning is given to it, often in the form of a map. In the same vein, math and science concepts mean nothing, unless a person can understand the principles behind them.

A student will not pass a test, or be able to conquer a subject, unless he or she learns about it first, often in the form of a textbook. Therefore, the map can be seen as a sort of textbook – as a way to gain knowledge and mastery. And, certainly, such knowledge and mastery is often, if not always, tied to political power.

In both cases, the map becomes something of worth. If land is seen as a valuable investment, then a map of that land can help one to navigate and conquer this space. Therefore, an individual or group will benefit economically from it. This economic prosperity further enhances one’s power. As a result, a map provides knowledge about the land, which enables economic opportunities provided by the land, which augments power over that land. Therefore, if Oz is seen as the open new frontier or the uninhabited territory to be conquered, then a map of the land would give the reader imperialist a greater chance at obtaining this territory. Since Baum describes the geography of Oz as lush and green, its economic value is made apparent. Reader imperialists during the Gilded Age desired to live in this land, to own it, and prosper from it.

These readers wanted to move out of America and into this new territory that held the promise of a better life. However, in order to navigate and conquer Oz, reader imperialists need a map. In Goldberg 22 order to really understand the landscape of Oz, reader imperialists need a way to learn more about it. And, if Oz is a utopia and unable to be mapped by nature, then any sort of physical map that can be constructed helps make it more tangible and able to be explored.

While a map of Oz is essential to further understand Baum’s fictional world, it is also necessary to be aware of the potential implications of such visualization. Before a discussion about the physical map of Oz can begin, one must understand that Oz is a space, and what such a classification might mean. An important distinction must be made – a “space” is different from a

“place.” Spaces are philosophical and subjective constructs, whereas places are much more tangible and grounded. Places are often defined by their presence on a map and their ability to be concretely visualized, conquered, and occupied. Therefore, Oz is a space constructed in the imagination – it is the “imaginary community.” It is the idea, the dream. Meanwhile, “imagined communities” are related to one’s own nation-state, and, therefore, imply that they are rooted in an actual place. America is this “real” and concrete place. In order to turn Oz, the space, into a place that one can visit, it becomes important to try and map out Oz. However, while utopian spaces inherently deal with mapping, they also resist mapping. It is difficult to map the

“somewhere over the rainbow” space, because such a geography is vague and hard to pinpoint.

But that is the very act of mapping – it is the act of trying to turn a space into a place that one can visit. The space can only start to acquire meaning and order – something people desire – once it is converted into a place that can be mapped.

While America functions as the “place” in the context of its relationship to Oz, it is also important to recognize that America can also function as a space, but only to those outside of this landscape. To the European who wants to immigrate to the United States, the American landscape functions as the American dream space – this idea that America is the land of the free. Goldberg 23

A space, therefore only functions as a dream, when one is outside of that landscape. Once that landscape is visited, it becomes a place, and loses its dream-like quality. The frontier only functions as a dream for those living east of it, desiring a better landscape. The American dream, likewise, is only believed by people living outside of America, who see this nation as a solution to their problems. And, Oz functions as the dream to readers who live in worlds far away, that don’t seem as colorful and magical. Therefore, it is important to note that the frontier and

America are utopian dreams, just like Oz. Except when the American dream failed people, when

America became an ordinary and unsatisfying “place,” it led to the desire of a new dream – which prompted Baum’s creation of Oz. Clearly, the utopia only seems like a utopia when you are outside of it. Once you turn the utopia into a place, the landscape has already lost some of its fantasy and appeal.

As a result, the irony is that people do not realize what is lost by turning the “space” into a “place,” until it is too late. The dream is lost when that place is occupied and reality does not live up to expectation. Therefore, people desire to map out Oz, but are unaware that the act of mapping out this landscape actually decreases its dream-like qualities. While a person might have a better understanding of this geography once a map is made, there is a tradeoff – the presence of a map turns the “imaginary community” into an “imagined community.” The map implies that the geography can now potentially be visited, making it no longer quite so fictional.

It is an imagined version of a community that now might exist. This is what readers’ desire – they want a map of Oz that allows them to feel like such a place is one they can visit. People place faith in maps, but they often do not realize how the map might alter their perception of a landscape. Therefore, while it is important to try and map out Baum’s original Oz tale to understand the geography of the land and its significance, it is also important to understand that Goldberg 24 while knowledge may be gained, some of the dream will be lost. Knowing the implications of cartography, it becomes clear that maybe Baum did not supply a physical map in his original tale for a reason. Maybe he realized that by creating this map, he would be threatening the dream.

However, despite this lack of a physical map, it is important to recognize peoples’ desires for a map of Oz, and how Baum creates a geometric landscape that lends itself to mapping.

People loved Oz as a landscape. Oz’s geography is, first and foremost, integral because of the attention Baum and readers have drawn to it. This becomes clear, when one realizes the time and thought Baum put into deciding the title for his famous tale. According to Michael Riley, “the story went through various title changes – The City of Oz, The Great City of Oz, The Emerald

City, and The Land of Oz – before it was finally published in 1900 as The Wonderful Wizard of

Oz” (42). However, all of the names he considered for the title contained the word “Oz,” implying that the setting of this tale is an important, if not the most important, aspect of the novel. Also, three of these five titles included the word “city”, and one of the five titles, Baum used the word “land.” These words imply that geography is a defining element of the text, and, therefore, deserves a thorough analysis.

Further, not only did Baum think that Oz was important, but readers have treasured the landscape as well. Readers are not moved by Dorothy, but are more so moved by Oz, itself:

“after the publication of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900)…readers…did not ask for more

‘Dorothy books,’ but for more books about Oz” (Griswold 462). It can clearly be argued that the romance of this novel is not about the characters, but the space:

The goal of the romance…is to spark in the reader a new awareness of what it means to

be-in-the-world by highlighting the specific constructedness of the geographies and

environments such a reader inhabits. That is, if the novel focuses on “character,” making Goldberg 25

us aware of and even producing the complexities of a modern, centered subjectivity, the

romance attempts to give expression to the ‘experience’ of settings, worlds, or spaces.

(Wegner 12)

Wegner argues that the love of a text has less to do with the characters, and more to do with the space a reader is transported to during the act of reading. It is all about the escape that the narrative provides – which is exactly what Americans living during the crises of the Gilded Age desired. Wegner implies that character-driven novels deal with complexity, and don’t really provide this escape from the complications of everyday life. However, a novel that focuses on setting, and gives readers an “experience,” allows them to step out of their everyday lives and into another world. Therefore, it makes sense that Oz, as a space, is what readers grew to love.

And since Oz’s geography is a beloved element of the story, a dissection of terrain seems necessary for a thorough understanding of the tale.

It is important now to analyze the specific geography that Baum provides and how such details can be further visualized to help create a map. Even though Baum’s fictional world is utopian in nature – which concerns itself with issues of mapping and resistance to mapping – he does not just tease readers by telling them about the dream and not giving them anything solid to grasp. Baum does something alluring with Oz – he provides a grid system from which people might begin to map out this world. Oz is a space. In order to gain knowledge of Oz, people must first construct meaning upon this space. This entails turning it into a place, which involves creating a map, or a way to distinguish one section of terrain from another. Creating a map involves finding a point of origin and axes, which allows for an understanding of orientation or direction. Therefore, in order to understand the landscape of Oz, readers must be able to give the Goldberg 26 space meaning. Henri Lefebrve argues that such spaces mean nothing until these boundary lines, or distinctions, are made:

Leibniz maintains that space ‘in itself’, space as such, is neither ‘nothing’ or

‘something’ – and even less the totality of things or the form of their sum; for Leibniz

space was, indeed, the indiscernable. In order to discern ‘something’ therein, axes and an

origin must be introduced, and a right and a left, i.e. the direction or orientation of those

axes. (169)

Therefore, in order for Oz to acquire meaning, a reader must be able to discern differences in its landscape. Luckily, Baum provides a point of origin and axes, or directions, through which one might navigate this terrain. He supplies readers with four directions – north, south, east, and west. By providing these details, and enabling the creation of grid points, Baum allows Oz to become discernible, and, therefore, something of worth. If a space is simply a space, and no meaning can be applied to it, then this space loses its significance. As a result, in order to give

Oz any sort of potential to be grounded, Baum had to create tangible boundaries within this land.

And because he does supply such boundary lines, Baum enabled fictional Oz to take shape.

Raylyn Moore discusses how Baum’s creation of a grid system and his quartering of space, are derived from nature, itself. Moore implies that this ability to create points of reference is a way for people to plot a route through space:

The very structure of the land, for instance, four provinces upon a common center, owes

its arrangement to one of mankind’s earliest concepts, the quartering of space; and though

quartering becomes a mythic motif which weaves in and out of the fairy lore of both Goldberg 27

oriental and occidental cultures…it was probably originally simply a device for survival

based upon one of primitive man’s first observations of nature. (124)

Essentially, Baum was drawing off of one of the basic elements of nature – the idea the most things can be placed on a grid, because nature tends to exhibit symmetry. For example, most flowers are symmetrical and can be quartered upon a central point. Therefore, in the same way that utopian communities tend to resemble actual ones, the notion of gridding and symmetry in

Oz imitates previous constructions of space that people are familiar with in their everyday life.

Baum’s division of space in Oz is something that people intrinsically can grab onto and work with, because it is recognizable. Also, because Baum provides four directions, or four axes, he is giving readers a basic compass needed for survival in this new land. Moore also points out another important element of a map – a common center. In The Wizard of Oz, the Emerald City is this central grid point, and each of the four territories – Munchkin Country, Gillikin Country,

Winkie County, and Quadling Country – can be seen as the four quarants surrounding this central landmark. Being able to lay out these points of interest allows for a sort of orientation or grounding. By providing such details, Baum is giving readers a huge clue as to how they might map out this intangible world. However, it seems a bit too schematic and convenient that Baum would create his landscape in such an ordered manner. Such a geometric system takes away dream-like, magical elements, by making the space too manipulated, mathematical and scientific.

If anything, such a formulated layout says something about people’s desires for maps and mapping. People desire spaces that have the potential to be turned into places. It seems like, maybe, the grid-like geography of Oz is in response to an unconscious desire on behalf of Baum, who also longed for such a concrete map of his fantasy world. Goldberg 28

Baum further emphasizes this geometric division of Oz into four distinct quadrants, when he describes the different demographics of Oz, and how specific populations inhabit each of these four sections. Readers can begin to map out the terrain based on their knowledge of what kinds of populations inhabit each region. This way, when Baum mentions that a particular inhabitant, say a Winkie, is present in a particular scene of the story, a reader should automatically know where in Oz this scene is taking place. In this case, the reader could make the association between Winkies and the westward quadrant of Oz. Therefore, Baum says something about the map of Oz, when he mentions something about its inhabitants. Or in other words, readers gain an understanding of the terrain, through their understanding of the bodies that occupy its space. Lefebrve, in his book The Production of Space, addresses the relationship between space and the bodies that occupy it. He mentions that in order to differentiate a space, it is necessary for it to be occupied. A body is capable of indicating direction, “of defining rotation by turning around, of demarcating and orienting space” (Lefebrve 170). This comment furthers the idea that space does not have meaning until it can be turned into a place, or a landscape that can be inhabited by bodies. Lefebrve points to the inherent relationship between the body and space: “long before space emerged as a medium of far-off possibilities, as the locus of potentiality…there was an intelligence of the body” (Lefebrve 174). This goes back to the idea that utopian communities, the unknown and abstract space, can say something about actual worlds, the known and tangible place. In the same way, the abstract notion of space can be constructed or understood by something that people are familiar with, and something that people do feel knowledgeable about – the body. Therefore, even though Oz as a space is new and imaginary, readers can begin to gain knowledge about it, and begin to map it out, by focusing on Goldberg 29 the bodies that inhabit it. The characters, or bodies, in this sense, become grid points and landmarks – a way for the reader to orient him or herself within the fantastical landscape.

Baum also uses color to help readers better visualize Oz’s terrain. The land is not only divided based off of its inhabitants, but each of these regions is coded by color. Traditionally, colors on maps are used to differentiate regions. Different colors are associated with specific geographical landscapes. While Baum may not have been using the color blue to denote water, he does use the color blue as a way to differentiate one quadrant from another. Therefore, Baum is essentially creating an association for readers – he is suggesting that the color blue is representative of Munchkin Country, and therefore that anything that is not coded blue is not part of Munchkin land. As a result, blue coloring still acts a boundary line and a point of interest on a map. Wilson Robin writes about how color can be used to create distinctions within a terrain:

“The boundary of each country is made up of several boundary lines, and these boundary lines intersect at various meeting points. Two countries with a boundary line in common are called neighboring countries…when colouring a map we must always give neighboring countries different colors” (4-5). Bearing Robin’s claims about the construction of maps in mind, then one can see how a map works in a systematic mathetical sense. Boundaries lines meet at particular grid points, and these separated regions are further emphasized by differing color schemes. As a result, color is an important way of upholding the grid, or the map. This futher highlights how convienent Baum’s grid-like geography is within his tale. It some ways, Baum must have known what he was doing – he knew he was creating a place that could be mapped. What he did not realize, is the implications of turning the space into a place that could be conretely visualized.

The use of color in The Wizard of Oz does not just function as a way to create grid-like boundaries within Oz, itself, but also as a way to differentiate colorless Kansas against colorful Goldberg 30

Oz. Riley writes that “Baum carefully built up the image of the bleak landscape of the Kansas prairie; he used the word ‘gray’ nine times in his description of it” (56). If a key element of mapmaking is the use of color, then by making Kansas’s map gray and essentially colorless,

Baum implies that the map of Kansas is not important and that nothing stands out among its terrain. By deliberately making Kansas so gray and colorless, Baum helps the readers visualize

Oz by telling them that this new world is the exact opposite of the world they already know.

While the map of Oz and the map of America may have similar characteristics, this has more to do with the nature of mapmaking itself – that maps, in general, will have common, instantly identifiable elements.

While Baum helps readers by creating four distinct quadrants coded by demographics and color, he also provides some landmarks like the yellow brick road and The Emerald City that can also be labeled on the map. Baum describes the road as being created from brick – a material that implies a sort of permanence. In many ways, he seems to be saying that while this world may be a fairy tale, elements of it are, in fact, very “real,” and very strong. A road has particular significance and power – roads are parts of infrastructure, and as such, they represent peoples’ attempts to appropriate and control terrain. Therefore, the creation of a road implies that a territory is staring to be inhabited, explored, mastered. Or in other words, a physical map is starting to be made. A road also makes it easier to travel across a terrain – one does not have to trek through wild wilderness. Instead the creation of such a path, represents one’s ability to conquer the terrain, and emphasizes one’s ownership and power over it. Also, a road can be used as a focal point for situating oneself in a new territory. The construction of a road provides a concrete direction down which to travel – a person does not have to worry about getting lost in Goldberg 31 the wilderness. Instead, Dorothy is told just to follow the yellow brick road – it is as simple as that.

Therefore, through his descriptions of Oz, Baum may provide readers with a utopian space, but he also creates a landscape that is highly geometrical, which gives readers the basic outline of this imaginary world. At the same time, Baum also leaves the rest of the territory open to expansion, which invites readers to keep mapping. Essentially, Baum creates a space for future adaptations to try and fill in the map, to try and make Oz, the space, into a more permanent place. Gilbert writes: “Maps beget maps. Once an area had been written about and mapped…subsequent writers…tended to continue the mapping tradition” (42). This comment implies that a map is never finished. However, this ongoing project of mapping has less to do with filling in the map because that implies that one day a complete map can be made. Instead, this act of mapping has more to do with redrawing the map, in so many ways – altering and retelling the story, varying up the staging, switching genres. Mapping is a way for people to continue and chronicle a beloved space, to gain their own unique power over it, and to create their own individual visualization of it.

The idea that Oz will have future permanence is also strengthened by the fact that Baum provides a history of Oz, telling readers that other powers resided long before Dorothy came into play. By giving people these details, Baum is implying that, “Oz is not a static world, it can have a history and the depth and richness that history gives” (Riley 54-55). This is important because it implies that Oz can also have a future – the map of Oz has only just begun. Furthermore, not only do readers get the sense that a map of Oz is in its beginning stages and that there is plenty of room for more detail, but they also infer that Oz, as a world, is only in its beginning stages of development. Here, once again, one can make the comparison to America – Oz is the newly born Goldberg 32 child of Baum, just as America, according to myths of U.S. nationhood, is the newly born child of Britain. Much like people wanted to map out America during this time, to move westward and explore the new and exciting terrain – which is what Baum did during his travels – readers wanted to map out Oz, to move throughout this colorful world and gradually learn more of its complexities. By making Oz a desirable utopian dream – the open frontier – Baum makes the geography a space people longed to visit. However, there is no hope of visiting a world if one does not have knowledge of its terrain. A physical map is needed for people to obtain this knowledge, and, therefore, power over the land. A map can create a collective identity, can take a space and give it meaning, can turn the intangible into something more concrete and accessible.

Therefore, a lack of a physical map only increases the desire for one to exist. This, in turn, challenges people to create one, leaving room open for adaptations, and guaranteeing that Oz’s landscape will be constantly remapped and re-envisioned. Such mapping allows Oz to have a sort of permanence in American imagination. But while a geometric map might be seen as a way to contain the dream, it also plays a part in altering and decreasing the magic.

However, Baum did not end up waiting for others to make a map of his land. He eventually creates a physical map of Oz – which probably had to do with reader’s demands for one, as well as his own subconscious desires. While he includes no map in his original tale The

Wizard of Oz, he does reveal one later in the eighth book of his series, Tik-Tok of Oz. Each consecutive book in the series provides readers with more information about the world of Oz.

Eventually Baum reaches a point where he includes an actual map, emphasizing the culmination of all the details previously provided. However, Baum includes this map only after writing several Oz book, cementing such a world in American culture. Oz’s cultural permanence allowed it to be physically mapped. In general, as his series went on, Baum not only enhances the belief Goldberg 33 that such a world could exist, but he goes through more trouble to describe its geography: “The most inspired of the steps taken in this direction is a document printed on the endpapers of Tik-

Tok labeled, ‘A map of the marvelous Land of Oz showing its great protective desert barriers, and many of the celebrated and magical countries which lie beyond the parched sands’” (Moore

99). By continually writing about Oz, Baum helps ensure the permanence of this world. He is essentially keeping Oz in the spotlight. And the additional details he provides with each book enable the creation of a more fleshed-out map, which further solidifies Oz’s cultural presence.

However, ironically, Baum mixes up the locations on his map – switching the countries that should be to the East and the West. Therefore, on the map, the compass is reversed, and what readers see is a mirror image of Oz, which differs from the descriptions mentioned in

Baum’s books. This reversal of directions recurs in a later Oz book – The Lost Princess of Oz, where Baum accurately describes the location of the countries in their correct quadrants, but switches them, once again, on the accompanying map. Maybe this was Baum’s way of safeguarding his world – creating a map that would not jeopardize the dream, because it was a faulty visualization, and, therefore, did not truly change Oz from a “space” to a “place.” If the map is not an accurate representation, then this visual documentation does not actually ground the space. Baum’s map implies that it is not a complete one, which allows future mapmakers to tweak it, and adapt it further. In some ways, Baum is purposely enabling his map to be incomplete, and inaccurate, in the hopes that people will continue to map out this world, and interact with his fantasy space. This seems to be Baum’s way of keeping a part of the dream alive.

Resulting from the mix-up of direction on Baum’s original map, post-1914 maps of Oz often place the Winkie Country in the East and the Munchkin Country in the West, despite the Goldberg 34 fact that this violates the specific details provided in the original Oz tale. Baum’s successor, Ruth

Plumly Thompson, who wrote multiple Oz books in the 1920’s and 30’s, wondered why the map of Oz was never updated. However, she was never the one to update the map back to its original specifications – the map had to wait a long time, until James E. Haff and Dick Martin created such an updated map in 1960. In particular, James E. Haff is joked to be “the cartographer of

Oz,” and his and Martin’s Oz maps have been widely circulated. The fact that it took so long for

Baum’s map to be touched and altered might have to do with the idea that the American map was changing so often and so quickly during the 1900’s. Therefore, there was probably some comfort in the fact that the map of Oz – this utopian dream space – could stay the same and could stay safe and contained, unlike America. If the map is maintained, then people can convince themselves that the dream is maybe still intact. There was probably the fear that if the map changed too much and if too many people had power over changing it, then Oz’s identity might shift too much, and this world might lose its meaning. Only after 1960, when America was more secure in its own world status, identity, and power, did people feel comfortable changing the map of their safety net dream world.

Regardless of the mix up in details on Baum’s original maps of Oz, there is something that cannot be ignored regarding the Oz maps – their uncanny resemblance to America’s map at the turn-of-the-century. It is not surprising that many scholars have compared these two images, since Oz’s utopian nature implies an intimate relationship between the two worlds. Therefore, a discussion about mapping out Oz would not be complete without a discussion about mapping out

America, because the two worlds are in direct discourse with one another. Griswold comments that “in a recognizable fashion, the map of Oz is a map of the United States” (463). Many scholars have drawn comparisons between the inhabitants of certain regions in Oz and the Goldberg 35 inhabitants of these counterpart regions in America. Baum’s descriptions of the demographics of

Oz and the quadrant each group was located, seem highly similar to the demographics in those same quadrants in America during the late 1800’s. The Winkies live in the westward quadrant of

Oz, and their land is described as wild and untilled and full of raiding prairie wolves, which sounds a lot like how the frontier in the west had been prior to its closure. Then, to the east live the Munchkins, a place that has an uncanny resemblance to the Pennsylvania “Dutch” country where many Europeans dwelled. The northern quadrant of Oz contains Gillikin Country, which is described as having many mountains and lakes – similar to the terrain of northern America.

And, finally, to the south in Oz is the land of the Qaudlings – inhabited by white-frocked ladies and hillbilly-like Hammerheads. Since Baum had been a traveler, he visited all four quadrants of

America, and very likely knew the type of people who inhabited each region. As a result, it seems plausible that Baum’s differentiation of demographics in Oz mirrored the differentiation of demographics he saw during his travels throughout America.

Therefore, there are definitely some similarities between a map of Oz and a map of turn- of-the-century America. It can even be argued that the map of Oz also shares similarities to the demographics of America today. It makes sense that Baum might have wanted the two geographies to share a slight resemblance - if Baum wanted to create a new frontier for himself and for others, he would want to make a place fantastical enough to be alluring and desirable, but relatable and realistic enough to seem attainable. But even more so, Oz is Baum’s attempt to “pin down” a notion of America and its identity, during a time when the nation was changing and unstable. The creation of Oz represents Baum’s attempt to have power over his world, during a time when he felt like his America was spiraling out of control. Therefore, if Oz can represent a Goldberg 36 turn-of-the century America, then the possibility of such an ideal place might decrease some of the anxiety felt by Americans during a time when they felt powerless.

Therefore, by analyzing the map of Oz and the map of America, it becomes clear that Oz can be read as a construction of a utopian alternative to turn-of-the-century America. At the end of the day, the utopian narrative in The Wizard of Oz, is not just saying something about a new fictional world, but, rather, it is saying something important about one’s current space.

Essentially, Baum suggests that this utopian world may reflect elements of America, but, ultimately, it is not the world people know. As a result, when Baum uses the word “gray” time and time again to describe Kansas, readers are not really learning about Kansas, but rather learning that this lush, green utopian world is not Kansas. By creating such a strong comparison between these two worlds, Baum is admitting that Oz can be seen as a map of America, but another version of America – a better one. Therefore, the creation of Oz replaces the dream of

America, but, at the same time, it restores faith in the act of imagining the dream.

Goldberg 37

Works Cited:

Baum, Frank. The Wizard of Oz. New York: Signet Classics, 1984. Print.

Gibson, Charity. “The Wizard of Oz as a Modernist Work.” The Universe of Oz. Ed. Kevin

Durand & Mary Leigh. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2010. 107-117. Print.

Gilbert, Pamela. Mapping the Victorian Social Body. USA: State University of New York, 2004.

Print.

Griswold, Jerry. “There’s No Place but Home: The Wizard of Oz.” The Antioch Review. 45.4

(1987): 462-475. Print.

Lefebrve, Henri. The Production of Space. USA: Donald Nicholson-Smith, 1991. Print.

Moore, Raylyn. Wonderful Wizard Marvelous Land. USA: Bowling Green University Popular

Press, 1974. Print.

Moretti, Franco. Graphs Maps Trees. New York: Verso, 2005. Print.

Pfaelzer, Jean. The Utopian Novel in America, 1886-1896. USA: University of Pittsburgh Press,

1984. Print.

Riley, Michael. Oz and Beyond. USA: University Press of Kansas, 1997. Print.

Trachtenberg, Alan. The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Guilded Age. New

York: Farrar, Straus and Girous, 1982. Print.

Turner, Jackson & Faragher, John. Rereading Fredrick Jackson Turner: The significance of the

frontier in American history. USA: Henry Holt and Company, 1994. Print. Goldberg 38

Wilson, Robin. Four Colors Suffice: How the Map Problem was Solved. New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 2002. Print.

Wegner, Phillip. Utopia, the Nation, and the Spatial Histories of Modernity. California: Regents

of University of California, 2002. Print.

Zipes, Jack. Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.