L. Frank Baum - Little Wizard Stories of Oz [REVIEW/DISCUSSION]

Dane and I are doing this series as a buddy read.  For my own review of Little Wizard Stories of Oz see HERE.

started: The Scarecrow of Oz by L. Frank Baum (from The Complete Stories of Oz)

Started: The Complete Stories of Oz by L. Frank Baum

Tik-Tok of Oz by L. Frank Baum

(Book Review--Land of Oz, Classics, Fantasy, Children's Books)  

(Read from The Complete Stories of Oz)

Started: January 17, 2022

Finished: January 30, 2022

(This review is written using my new format for book reviews.) 

Background Information

Originally published in 1914, this is the 8th canonical book in the Land of Oz series.  (It's actually the 9th book in my collection, but Little Wizard Stories of Oz does not count as a canonical book.)  

The book was based on L. Frank Baum's stage play The Tik-Tok Man of Oz.  The Tik-Tok Man of Oz, in turn, was based mainly upon Ozma of Oz with elements borrowed from Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz and The Road to Oz.  Which accounts for a lot of repeated plot elements from those previous books.  But more on that below.

Plot Summary

 Plotwise, this book is a bit of a mess. Mari Ness identifies 5 different plots:

* Plot 1: Queen Ann's quest to conquer the land of Oz

* Plot 2: Shaggy Man's quest to rescue his brother

* Plot 3: The scheming machinations of the Nome King

* Plot 4: Betsy Bobbins (the Dorothy substitute) and her quest to find her way home

* Plot 5: The exile of the Rose Princess Ozga

To which I might even further add

* The romance of Files and Ozga

* The vengeance of Tititi-Hoochoo (the great Jinjin)

* Quox the dragon and his quest to redeem himself.

Also, as indicated above, a lot of plot is being recycled from previous books:

* Queen Ann's quest to conquer the land of Oz is reminiscent of Jinjur's quest to conquer Oz from The Marvelous Land of Oz.

* Having an army which consists all of officers, with only one private, is repeated from Ozma of Oz.

* Leading that army to try to conquer the Nome King's Kingdom is also repeated from Ozma of Oz.

* A little girl and an animal getting shipwrecked together in fairyland is repeated from Ozma of Oz.

* Trees that grow lunchboxes on their branches (complete with 3 course meals inside) is from Ozma of Oz

* A land of plants in which the new princess is plucked from the vine is repeated from Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz

* The Shaggy Man using his love magnet to make everyone love him is repeated from The Road to Oz.  Polychrome becoming lost after she fell off the rainbow is also repeated from The Road to Oz.

* Tik-Tok confronting the Nome King is reminiscent of Little Wizard Stories of Oz.

The Reading Experience/ Evaluation

Before beginning this book, I vaguely knew already that it would be based on a stage play and consist of recycled plots.  

I try not to read ahead too much in my Wikipedia research, but in this case, information about Tik-Tok of Oz was leaking into entries about previous books.  For example, the Wikipedia entry for book 3, Ozma of Oz, reads: 

L. Frank Baum revisited this story for the plot of his 1913 musical The Tik-Tok Man of Oz, starring James C. Morton and Fred Woodward. Aside from Tik-Tok, a princess named Ozma, and a visit to the Nome King's domain, the similarities between the book and the finished play were minimal, allowing Baum to re-adapt the latter as the eighth Oz book, Tik-Tok of Oz, in 1914.

So I had known this was coming.  

Therefore, whenever I encountered repeated plot elements, or continuity problems, I just thought to myself, "I bet this is because this story is being recycled from the stage play."  (And then, after I finished reading, I did - my - research and discovered I had been right.)

The fact that this story is recycling so many plot elements from the previous books takes the edge off of it a little bit.  (For example, I probably would have been more amused at the gag about an army which consists of all officers and one private if not for the fact that it's the exact same gag from Ozma of Oz.)  However the sheer amount of plot stuffed into this little book helps to keep it interesting.  On one hand, it's sloppy writing--L. Frank Baum is juggling more plots than he can handle, and he doesn't drops several off his balls.  But on the other hand, you can't really claim a book like this is boring.  It's got enough moving parts to keep you interested.  "Okay, where are we going with this part?" I was constantly asking myself.  "How is this going to tie back in to the other plots?"  Ordinarily Oz stories are largely plotless--they're just stories about journeying along the road and encountering strange things along the way. So at least this book is different.

What infuriates me, however, is the disregard for continuity, and the disrespect L. Frank Baum seems to hold his readers in.  I mean, I get it--I understand that this book doesn't entirely fit in with Oz continuity because it's based on a stage play.  But, come on L. Frank  Baum, the least you could do is rewrite some parts so that it makes sense.

For example, in this book, the Nome King's name is changed from Roquat (as it had been in the previous books) to Ruggedo.  The reason is that Ruggedo is the name from the stage play.  Now, to L. Frank Baum's credit, he does try to give an in-universe explanation for this.  From Chapter 6:

“That’s very kind of you, ma’am,” said Shaggy. "But unless I can find the underground cavern of Ruggedo, the Metal Monarch, I shall never find poor brother."

(This King was formerly named “Roquat,” but after he drank of the “Waters of Oblivion” he forgot his own name and had to take another.)

Okay, so fair enough.  Roquat did drink the Waters of Oblivion in book 6 The Emerald City of Oz, and completely lost his memory of who he was and everything that had happened to him.  So I guess this works as an explanation for the name change.  

But... then, just a few chapters later, in chapter 14, it's obvious that the Nome King has not forgotten everything.

“Why, they’ve been conquered before, if I remember aright,” answered Kaliko with a grin. “Once I saw you running from a little girl named Dorothy, and her friends, as if you were really afraid.”

“Well, I was afraid, that time,” admitted the Nome King, with a deep sigh, “for Dorothy had a Yellow Hen that laid eggs!”

The King shuddered as he said “eggs,” and Kaliko also shuddered, and so did the Long-Eared Hearer; for eggs are the only things that the nomes greatly dread. The reason for this is that eggs belong on the earth’s surface, where birds and fowl of all sorts live, and there is something about a hen’s egg, especially, that fills a nome with horror. If by chance the inside of an egg touches one of these underground people, he withers up and blows away and that is the end of him—unless he manages quickly to speak a magical word which only a few of the nomes know. Therefore Ruggedo and his followers had very good cause to shudder at the mere mention of eggs.

 Now, I've put up with a lot of continuity errors and retcons over the course of this series, and I've largely forgiven it because L. Frank Baum is making it all up as he goes along and the series is more about imagery than continuity anyway.  But, at what point do I start to feel like my goodwill is being taken advantage of?  I mean, here is a huge continuity problem not just between books (that I could kind of forgive) but within a single book.  Does L. Frank Baum care so little for the reader that he can't bother to smooth out these glaring problems?

I'm going to be continuing through this series (I've committed myself to finishing The Complete Stories of Oz), but my goodwill is rapidly diminishing.  

Despite this, however, there are some moments of humor and imagination which can make this book fun to read.

Links

The Wikipedia article for this book contains some interesting information.  They point out some of the more glaring continuity errors, for one thing: 

The book has several continuity errors with earlier books in the series, particularly The Road to Oz. Whereas Polychrome met the Shaggy Man in that book, this point is neglected by Baum in Tik-Tok. Also, whereas the Shaggy Man merely needs to carry the Love Magnet on his person for it to work in The Road to Oz, in this book it is necessary for him to remove it from his pocket and physically show it to those he wishes to love him.

(There are more errors to be found, but this is a good start).  Wikipedia also states that Tik-Tok of Oz was the first book in which the map of Oz and the surrounding countries was first published.  

Moving on to my next link, I've already mentioned Mari Ness's review, but it's worth reading in full: Falling Though Plots: Tik-Tok of Oz.  From Mari Ness, I picked up more background information, including the fact that the reason this book has Betsy Bobbin and her friend Hank the mule as the protagonists is because the stage rights to Dorothy and Toto were tied up in the other musical.  (As Mari Ness says, "like any characters copied from another source, they lose something in the copying.")

[Sidenote: according to the Oz Fandom wiki, the character of Ozga the Rose Princess was Ozma in the stage play, so this is presumably why the Rose Princess is a said to be a distant cousin of Ozma in the novel.]

Mari Ness also explains why Tik-Tok of Oz has kind of a romance going on between Ozga and Private Files: "for the first time ever in an Oz book, actual hints of a—gasp—romance.  (Based on his own interactions with children, Baum believed that most would be utterly bored by romantic stories, and thus deliberately kept his Oz books romance free. Stage musicals, however, were a completely different thing.  Early 20th century musicals demanded a romantic couple..."

And finally, after dutifully listing out all the many faults of Tik-Tok of Oz, Mari Ness explains why the book still has some charm: "But despite these flaws, Tik-Tok still contains magical moments: the lands of the great Jinjin, where great fairy kings and queens bow down to a Private Citizen; the grumpy yet resigned dragon, defending the delicious smell of brimstone; the laughing Polychrome, the marvelous Metal Forest..."  I'm in agreement here.  These are all great parts of the book.  It's not completely without its charm, despite its frustrations.

Last but not least, I'm doing this series as Buddy Reads with Dane Cobain.  His written review is HERE.

By this point in the series, Baum has set a formula that he sticks to, but the good news is that he’s still able to come up with a few different tweaks that can keep things fresh. It was also good to see some new characters again, but we also got to see a lot of friends, including the titular character.

I also felt as though there were fewer inconsistencies here, something that’s plagued the Oz books since the second one. It’s as though Baum immediately forgot what he wrote in his books as soon as he sent them off to the publisher. There was even quite a clever piece of retconning in which a character’s name changed but it was explained by a previous plot point.

And his video review is here: L. Frank Baum - TikTok of Oz [REVIEW/DISCUSSION]

 

Extended Quotation

From Chapter 3:

“The Rak!” shouted Private Files, and with a howl of despair the sixteen officers fell to the ground, writhing and moaning in anguish. Queen Ann sat down upon a rock and faced the cloud more bravely, although her heart was beating fast. As for Files, he calmly loaded his gun and stood ready to fight the foe, as a soldier should.

They were now in absolute darkness, for the cloud which covered the sky and the setting sun was black as ink. Then through the gloom appeared two round, glowing balls of red, and Files at once decided these must be the monster’s eyes.

He raised his gun, took aim and fired.

There were several bullets in the gun, all gathered from an excellent bullet-tree in Oogaboo, and they were big and hard. They flew toward the monster and struck it, and with a wild, weird cry the Rak came fluttering down and its huge body fell plump upon the forms of the sixteen officers, who thereupon screamed louder than before.

“Badness me!” moaned the Rak. “See what you’ve done with that dangerous gun of yours!”

“I can’t see,” replied Files, “for the cloud formed by your breath darkens my sight!”

“Don’t tell me it was an accident,” continued the Rak, reproachfully, as it still flapped its wings in a helpless manner. “Don’t claim you didn’t know the gun was loaded, I beg of you!”

“I don’t intend to,” replied Files. “Did the bullets hurt you very badly?”

“One has broken my jaw, so that I can’t open my mouth. You will notice that my voice sounds rather harsh and husky, because I have to talk with my teeth set close together. Another bullet broke my left wing, so that I can’t fly; and still another broke my right leg, so that I can’t walk. It was the most careless shot I ever heard of!”

“Can’t you manage to lift your body off from my commanding officers?” inquired Files. “From their cries I’m afraid your great weight is crushing them.”

“I hope it is,” growled the Rak. “I want to crush them, if possible, for I have a bad disposition. If only I could open my mouth, I’d eat all of you, although my appetite is poorly this warm weather.”

With this the Rak began to roll its immense body sidewise, so as to crush the officers more easily; but in doing this it rolled completely off from them and the entire sixteen scrambled to their feet and made off as fast as they could run.

Private Files could not see them go but he knew from the sound of their voices that they had escaped, so he ceased to worry about them.

“Pardon me if I now bid you good-bye,” he said to the Rak. “The parting is caused by our desire to continue our journey. If you die, do not blame me, for I was obliged to shoot you as a matter of self-protection.”

“I shall not die,” answered the monster, “for I bear a charmed life. But I beg you not to leave me!”

“Why not?” asked Files.

“Because my broken jaw will heal in about an hour, and then I shall be able to eat you. My wing will heal in a day and my leg will heal in a week, when I shall be as well as ever. Having shot me, and so caused me all this annoyance, it is only fair and just that you remain here and allow me to eat you as soon as I can open my jaws.”

“I beg to differ with you,” returned the soldier firmly. "I have made an engagement with Queen Ann of Oogaboo to help her conquer the world, and I cannot break my word for the sake of being eaten by a Rak."

“Oh; that’s different,” said the monster. “If you’ve an engagement, don’t let me detain you.”

(***ENDQUOTE***)

Dane also mentions this quote in his review. (start listening from 3:24 for him recounting the section with the Rak), and when I heard him read it out-loud, I thought to myself, "Yeah, I'd almost forgotten about that, but that is one of the funnier parts of the book."

Although, if I wanted to complain about everything, I could say that like much of this book it is somewhat derivative of an earlier scene from an earlier Oz book--I'm thinking of the scene with the dragonettes in Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz when the dragonettes complain that it is unfair for Dorothy and her friends to leave before they have a chance to eat them.  

Rating

So, as I noted above, parts of this book seriously annoyed me.  Other parts of this book I found interesting to read.  So, I think I'm going to split the difference, and give it 4 out of 10 stars.  (That's probably being a little bit too generous, but oh well.)

Weekly Reading Vlogs: 

January 23, 2022 p.776-788

January 30, 2022 p.788-880

Video Review (Playlist HERE)

Tik-Tok of Oz by L. Frank Baum: Book Review

Another Steve Donoghue Q&A.  

The whole thing is fun to listen to: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

My question: Historical rivalries--Who are you more sympathetic to?  Gladstone or Disraeli?  Jefferson or Hamilton?  Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine?

Steve Answers it at 4:03:

It's not much of an answer, but this is all part of the fun of a Steve Donoghue Q&A.  Some questions catch his interest, other questions he just rushes through.  You never know what kind of an answer you're going to get.

For my other forays into Steve Donoghue's Q&As (the ones I've blogged about anyway), see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

I probably should have left this alone.  But for some reason, I just couldn't help myself.

I think there's some confusion about the passive voice here. "unfold" is actually in the active voice in this case. By changing it to "was perpetrated by", I think you have actually changed it from the active voice to the passive voice.

— Joel Swagman (@JoelswagmanJoel) January 30, 2022

You could say "British soldiers perpetrated Bloody Sunday" if you want to avoid the passive voice.

— Joel Swagman (@JoelswagmanJoel) January 30, 2022

Finished: Tik-Tok of Oz by L. Frank Baum (I'll try to post a review tomorrow)

Tik-Tok of Oz by L. Frank Baum: Book Review

Weekly Reading Vlog #45: Herodotus p.416-424, Exodus 12-21, The Two Towers p.828-876, Tik-Tok of Oz

(Weekly Reading Vlog)

   

Books (166 pages this week)

The Histories by Herodotus p.416-424 (8 pages) 

Tik-Tok of Oz by L. Frank Baum p.788-880 (from The Complete Stories of Oz) (92 pages)

The Two Towers by J. R. R. Tolkien p.828-876 (from The Hobbit / The Lord of the Rings Box Set by J.R.R. Tolkien) (48 pages)

The Book of Exodus p.72-82 (Exodus 12-21) (From The Bible) (10 pages)

The Grammar Book by Marianne Celce-Murcia and Diane Larsen-Freeman p.268-276 (8 pages)

Tieng Viet 123: Vietnamese for Beginner p.10-11 (not yet complete.  Still studying.  Audio HERE)

Podcasts and Audiobooks: (Not mentioned in the video)

The Histories By Herodotus Book 1, The Histories By Herodotus book 1 part 2,  The Histories By Herodotus book 2 part 1

Revolutions Season 3: The French Revolution 2nd Listening From: 3.28- Provincial Revolt To 3.31- The Man of Blood Part Deux (from Revolutions Podcast)

Revolutions Podcast (New Episodes): 10.83- Terror is Necessary: But is it though?

For more information about what this is and why I'm doing it, see HERE.

Exodus 21:22-25

(Commonplace Book)

From: The Book of Exodus

Exodus 21:22-25

"If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman's master; he shall had it over, after arbitration.  But should she die, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke." (end quote--From The Jerusalem Bible translation)

Notice the obvious.  If you kill the fetus, then you have to pay compensation.  But if you kill a woman, well, that's different.  Now there's a human life that you have to answer for.

This is more evidence that the "life begins at conception" idea didn't exist until the modern abortion controversy.  

Because the NIV is more common in the community I grew up in, here is the same passage from the NIV:

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Footnotes

a. Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

From CNN: Lawmaker says tip line is reminiscent of authoritarian regimes

...uh, yeah, it kind of is, isn't it?

(If you watch the video, you'll see the tip line is the creation of Glenn Youngkin, who I've opined on before.)

In other school censorship news: 

There's only one kind of people who would vote to ban Maus, whatever they are calling themselves these days. https://t.co/fs1Jl62Qd8

— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 26, 2022

Another Steve Donoghue Q&A.  

The whole thing is fun to listen to: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

My question: The "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell controversy: What is your gut feeling on this?  Did it really happen, or did George Orwell make it all up?  What about Orwell's other autobiographical writings?  How reliable do you think they are?  And does any of this matter to our enjoyment of Orwell?

Steve Answers it starting at 15:00:

My question was inspired by an article on George Orwell that a friend emailed to me years ago after I had gotten done reading (and reviewing) a collection of George Orwell's essays.

The essay is Such, Such Was Eric Blair by Julian Barnes from the New York Review of Books.  (Although my friend read this essay in a book which of collected essays by Julian Barnes, which and she tells me that in that book the same essay was titled  as "George Orwell and the Fucking Elephant".)  

Whatever title it goes by, that essay is a fascinating look at the controversy about whether or not Orwell's essays were authentic.  I recommend reading it.  Click on the link above.

If you watch Steve's response, you'll see that he's of the opinion it should have no effect on our enjoyment of Orwell one way or the other.  But, I don't know, for me, I though Shooting an Elephant was much more fascinating back in the days when I believed it was all true.  Now that I know it didn't happen, the essay isn't quite so interesting to me anymore.  But that's just me.  What do you guys think?

For my other forays into Steve Donoghue's Q&As (the ones I've blogged about anyway), see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

Yonozu Viewing Area (Yonozu Village, Oita Prefecture, Japan)

Throwback Thursday. This is a video from my 2009 Tour of Yonozu.

Yonozu playlist HERE:

Recently I've been watching a lot of Christopher Hitchens on Youtube.  For which I blame the Youtube algorithm.  Somehow one video of Christopher Hitchens popped up in my recommendations.  I watched it.  And then more and more Christopher Hitchens videos started popping up.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love watching Christopher Hitchens.  I used to watch his Youtube videos obsessively back in 2008-2009.  But then I got tired of it.  

Watching too much Christopher Hitchens can have diminishing returns.  He's got a stock of zingers that he uses repeatedly.  The first time you hear them, you think he's brilliant, but after hearing him over and over again, you get a bit used to it.

But, it had been a few years since my last Christopher Hitchens binge, and he had faded enough in my memory that I was due to re-discover him.

After watching a few more Hitchens videos, the Youtube algorithm served me up this one in which Hitches hosted CNBC Talk Live 1991.  And it perfectly captures how charming and witty Christopher Hitchens could be.

Christopher Hitchens VS John And Tom Metzger

In terms of content of the conversation, there's not a lot there.  The two white supremacists just basically refuse to give Christopher Hitchens a straight answer to anything for 40 minutes.  It feels like a waste of airtime in a way, but to be fair, I don't think that was Hitchens' fault.  He appears to have thought that because these two called David Duke out for cowardice, they would at least be willing to stand-by their convictions, and he's as disappointed as anyone when they just dance around his questions.

But, what makes this video worth watching is all those classic Christopher Hitchens put-downs.  Truly, the man was a master of the dry insult.  I was chuckling to myself several times as I watched this.  (Even though a few of these zingers I recognized as being part of Hitchens' stock repertoire, they are still deployed brilliantly here.)

Of course, the danger with idolizing this kind of rhetoric too much is that it can be used for evil just as much as for good.  So, when Christopher Hitchens used his famous dry wit and brilliant sarcasm to promote the Iraq War in 2003, then it was less admirable.  

On Jordan Peterson

God help me, I actually like Jordan Peterson.  Or at the very least, I find him interesting to listen to, which may or may not be the same thing.  (I've linked to his videos on this blog before HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.  And I've talked about him in the comments on Whisky's Blog: HERE. If you follow those links, you'll notice I sometimes talk about him in approving terms.)

I've also been following him on Twitter for a while, and it's noticeable that the Jordan Peterson on Twitter is not nearly as charming as the Jordan Peterson on Youtube.  The Jordan Peterson on Twitter isn't a thoughtful philosopher, but a typical knee-jerk reactionary rightist.  

Here are some random examples from his recent Twitter feed:

Leave those kids alone you virtue signaling puppet @JustinTrudeau https://t.co/pOR3xqKs9f

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 25, 2022

Enough. Enough COVID mandates. Drop the damn masks and the idiot rules and get on with life. Today. https://t.co/hReCA19rMH

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 24, 2022

You're not an "environmental leader." You're a hypocritical moralist willing to sacrifice whole productive provinces to your own apocalyptic doom-ridden delusions @s_guilbeault https://t.co/9lDIR2YFpE

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 24, 2022

Those are just examples pulled from the past couple days, but take my word for it, it's frequently like this. Go ahead and follow him for a bit on Twitter, you'll see him angrily railing against environmentalists and Covid precautions in a way that make him indistinguishable from any other right-wing crank.

I'm not sure if this is because of the limitations of the medium, or if this is his true colors coming out.   (Or, as I sometimes suspect, Peterson might be mixing his drinking with his Twitter.  That's just pure supposition on my part, but it would explain it.) 

But either way, it's done a lot to disillusion me.

Jordan Peterson likes to portray himself as a nuanced thinker--and in his videos, sometimes he is--but on his Twitter account, he's full on right-wing, and he's completely embraced the goodguy/badguy tribalism of modern politics.

The issue that gets me the most though is his climate change denier stuff that he frequently spouts off on Twitter. This bothers me partly because I personally am really worried about climate change, but it also bothers me because Jordan Peterson is not a climate scientist, so I don't know where he gets his confidence to make pronouncements in this area.

P.S.--I've been thinking about writing this post for a while.   (I expressed these same opinions before HERE), but it was seeing this several times on Twitter today that finally prompted me to opine.  

Holy moly. I don't think I can do this. First words out of Peterson's mouth in the Joe Rogan interview are complete self parody. I can't even dunk on it. pic.twitter.com/hIDYPi0KDc

— bad_stats (@thebadstats) January 25, 2022

2013 Reading List

(Year End Reading List)

1.  The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton January 1, 2013

2.  The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible by Robin Lane Fox January 27, 2013

3.  Flashman and the Tiger by George MacDonald Fraser February 9, 2013

4.  The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine February 16, 2013

5.  Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are by Bart D. Ehrman February 23, 2013

6.  Learning Teaching by Jim Scrivener [Second Edition] March 2, 2013

7.  Rebels and Traitors by Lindsey Davis April 17, 2013

8.  Understanding Second Language Acquisition by Lourdes Ortega May 1, 2013

9.  Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman May 3, 2013

10.  Procrastination by Jane B. Burka, PhD and Lenora M. Yuen, PhD [25th Anniversary Edition] June 5, 2013

11.  Globish: How English Became the World’s Language by Robert McCrum June 9, 2013

12.  Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman June 24, 2013

13.  Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross August 5, 2013

14.  From Reader to Reading Teacher by Jo Ann Aebersold and Mary Lee Field August 11, 2013

15.  The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame August 12, 2013

16.  Flashman and the Mountain of Light by George MacDonald Fraser August 16, 2013

17.  Mr American by George MacDonald Fraser September 11, 2013

18.  SLA Research and Language Teaching by Rod Ellis October 13, 2013

19.  Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne October 19, 2013

20.  The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas (Revisited) November 8, 2013

21.  Twenty Years After by Alexandre Dumas November 10, 2013

22.  Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing by I.S.P. Nation November 13, 2013

23.  Destination Cambodia by Walter Mason November 21, 2013

24.  At War With Asia by Noam Chomsky December 3, 2013

25.  Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore December 11, 2013

For an explanation of why I'm posting this now, see HERE.

Playlist HERE: 

New episode of Revolutions Podcast: 10.83- Terror is Necessary: But is it though?

What can I say?  Another great episode.  I'll write some random observations down below:

As I catch up on the back issues, I'm currently listening to the episodes from Season 3: The French Revolution.  So it's interesting to hear that the Bolsheviks were drawing their lessons from the French Revolution.  

(Sidenote: I remember my history professor back in college say that one of the reasons Trotsky got pushed  out of the party in the 1920s is because everyone in the Russian Revolution was studying the French Revolution, and they thought Trotsky was the most likely to become the next Napoleon.  We'll see if that gets mentioned at all in future episodes.)
Mike Duncan mentions they were also drawing their lessons from the Paris Commune--Lenin that that the reason the Paris Commune failed was because they weren't vicious enough.  (Although that part I actually  knew already.)

And speaking of parallels to the French Revolution, it was interesting to hear how ruthlessly Trotsky executed commanders and soldiers who had fled.  (This was something that also happened in the French Revolution.)  It's a reminder that, although it's tempting to romanticize Trotsky, he really had a lot of blood on his hands.  (As I previously noted in my review of Young Stalin.)  

As is quite usual with this podcast series, the actual contents of the episode is much broader than the title.  This episode is not only about the Terror, but also about the growing civil war,  the attempted assassination of Lenin, and the involvement of the allies in the Russian Civil War.  

The attempted assassination of Lenin I knew was coming eventually, but I didn't know when in the chronology it would occur.  

I've heard it said before that Lenin's death in 1924 (he was only 53) was because of the injuries he received in the attempted assassination.  Mike Duncan didn't say so in this episode, but maybe it will come up later.

The allied involvement in the Russian Civil War is also an interesting topic in itself.  Most Americans have no idea that American soldiers were sent to fight in the Russian Civil War.  Mike Duncan mentions this briefly, but I hope it gets expanded on in future.  The ending of this episode hints that it be a big theme in next week's episode.

2012 Reading List

(Year End Reading List)

1.  Charles Dickens: Best Ghost Stories published by Wordsworth Classics February 22, 2012

2.  Flashman on the March by George MacDonald Fraser March 2, 2012

3.  A History of Malaysia by Barbara Watson Andaya and Leonard Y. Andaya [Second Edition] March 27, 2012

4.  The Gift of Rain by Tan Twan Eng April 10, 2012

5.  God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens May 14, 2012

6.  Shakespeare: The World as a Stage by Bill Bryson June 13, 2012

7.  Colonial Cambodia’s “Bad Frenchmen”: The Rise of French Rule and the Life of Thomas Caraman, 1840-87 by Gregor Muller August 24, 2012

8.  The Magicians by Lev Grossman September 26, 2012

9.  Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne November 6, 2012

10.  Flashman and the Angel of the Lord by George MacDonald Fraser December 18, 2012

For an explanation of why I'm posting this now, see HERE.

Playlist HERE: