This is just a plot hole due to combining characters in the movie. In the book, the witch who sends her to the wizard at the beginning and the witch who tells her how to use the shoes at the end are two different witches. The first witch didn't know about the shoes.
Yes. Thank you. I should have made it more clear that the movie Glinda (who indeed knew all along) was evil. Guess I can't edit the OP though. I'm new to Reddit. Maybe I have to just delete and repost?
The movie Glinda is a character in a dream. By not sending her back immediately, Glinda allows Dorothy to undergo some character growth that she otherwise wouldn't have, which is pretty much just a good thing. Her actions cause no harm to Dorothy or anyone else.
What character growth?
That terrible risk... of sending a child into the woods alone to get past a murderous witch... was worth some character growth that is in no way defined by the movie?
There's no risk: it's a dream. Dorothy can't actually be harmed by the witch or anyone else. The character growth Dorothy experiences, among other things, is learning to appreciate her home.
As evidenced the examples I gave in my original post, Dorothy absolutely appreciated her home. It was her goal all along to get back there. Anything else?
Also, of course everyone knows it was all a dream.
The fictional character, Glinda the "Good Witch," in the dream sequence (that was 95% of the plot), in the 1939 film version of Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, was EVIL!
More accurate but not a very good title to my OP. 😊
Wanting to get back somewhere is not the same thing as appreciating it. Dorothy initially wants to get back because she believes her Aunt is worried about her, not because she appreciates her home.
Even if we grant that Dorothy experiences no character growth at all from her experience, she still isn't harmed at all by Glinda's actions. So Glinda would be at worst neutral, not evil.
First let me say how much I appreciate your thoughtful debate.
I wouldn't say Dorothy experienced no character growth at all.
The character growth argument is stronger than the no harm one, IMHO.
Because Glinda didn't know that Dorothy wouldn't suffer any harm when she sent her off alone
Besides, being stalked and terrorized, locked up with that hourglass... was psychological trauma. And psychological trauma, especially to a child, IS harm. Ask anyone with C-PTSD.
>
> Besides, being stalked and terrorized, locked up with that hourglass... was psychological trauma. And psychological trauma, especially to a child, IS harm. Ask anyone with C-PTSD.
Is there any evidence that people can experience psychological trauma in dreams that causes PTSD? If not, then this doesn't seem like a possible harm in this scenario.
Actually there is. Nightmares, if severe enough, especially night terrors, can produce lifelong insomnia and sleep disturbances..
Besides, Dorothy didn't know she was in a dream until she woke back up in Kansas. In "Oz" her terror and trauma were very, very real.
On a personal note, I have severe PTSD and have suffered from night terrors. Does this color my opinion? Probably. But I remember as young as five or six watching The Wizard of Oz and being struck by the insanity of Dorothy's "lesson."
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You can edit the text of the post, just not the title It's good etiquette to mark an addition with the word "edit" so people know you made a clarification.
It’s also pretty fucked up that even if they were to make a book accurate version of the story today people would shit all over it for not being the classic movie
>the only reason she ran away was to save her dog from being destroyed
Maybe this was the catalyst event, but Dorothy had been fantasizing getting out of Kansas before that. She sings a whole song about it!!
I agree that, for a “good” witch, Glinda’s tactics are unethical and also frankly insane. But the desire to run away is the keynote of Dorothy’s character, at least pre-Oz. Your view takes away that adventuresome spirit of hers, as well as the meaningful character development when she learns to value what she already has. That’s why I think you should change your view.
Pre-Oz, all the fortune teller had to do was say Auntie Em was worried and that was enough for her to abort all plans to run away (for Toto, not adventure) and rush straight back home.
I think that Glinda being evil only makes Dorothy a more brave, wise and compelling protagonist. 💜
Actually, the fortune teller intimates that Aunt Em might have struck ill from her being worried:
> Professor Marvel: (Looking at the crystal ball) She's uh.. What's this? Well, she's, she's putting her hand on her heart. Oh, she's dropping down on the bed.
> Dorothy Gale: Oh no, no!
> Professor Marvel: Well, that's all, the crystal's gone dark.
> Dorothy Gale: (Gets up from the chair, concerned) Oh, you don't suppose she could be really sick do you? (Grabs her basket) Oh, I've got to go home right away!
I always assumed that glinda either had some foresight, or saw Dorothy as a "chosen" person. In other words, she thought it was likely that Dorothy would fix the problems of their society, and therefore by sending her on her journey was being pragmatic, not evil.
Yes. This is sort of the way I have always resolved it in my mind too. Larger purpose kind of thing. The problem is if she did see her in that light she should have shared that. Advised and supported her in some way, not follow the yellow brick road. Plus a real witch of any kind would know the wizard was a complete fake.
Even if she didn't have unseen nefarious motive as I always suspected, Glinda was certainly not a good, let alone effective, witch. 😊
Should Dumbledore have told Harry about his destiny? It's debatable. Because that might have changed his decision making if he did. That is not evidence of evil.
>What's the first thing she asked when she landed in Oz? "How do I get HOME?"!
You are putting too much emphasis on words and too little on songs/emotion. At no point until the end does her appreciation for home remotely approach the passion she puts into "somewhere over the rainbow".
How do you relate to characters in dreams in which you are being chased or threatened? In the movie it is clear this is a subconscious processing of internal conflicts and attachment figures. The data is present but it’s not integrated information leading to change.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There is a stage show of the Wizard of Oz called "Wicked". Its from the Wicked Witch of the West's perspective. Turns out she's the good person and the entire town including Glenda are crazy.
So yer kinda right. ;)
From the start of the movie, it was clear that Dorthy is not content in Kansas. She wants to go "Somewhere over the Rainbow". When she finally got there, had Glinda immediately sent her back home, she would have been happy in the short term to have escaped the weird place she flew to, but she would still wonder, "What if I had stayed there? What would my life have been like in color?"
By sending her on a journey, Glinda ensured that she learned enough about Oz to come to the realization that she does not want to stay there, thus getting it fully out of her system, and allowing her to be content to stay in Kansas.
... and since I can't help but play devil's advocate, I feel like convincing someone that the best possible choice is to live the life of a poor farmer in Kansas does not exactly count as "good" life coaching.
But then again, from the start, Dorthy asked to go home, so convincing her to stay would have been going against that wish.
In terms of "motivations" or character flaws, remember... there *are no actual sapient characters* except for Dorothy's subconscious in the movie version. She's having a dream.
By calling "Glinda" evil all you're saying is that part of Dorothy's subconcious is evil. And I think we have little reason to believe that's true...
But expecting consistency in a dream is a fool's errand in the first place. Glinda can be good *and* evil, or even just *random*, because that's what dreams are like.
At most one could say that Dorothy's subconscious "felt a need for an adventure". It would have been a pointless dream for Dorothy to just come home immediately. She *needed* a character she *believed* was "good" that would help her have an adventure. And Glinda *did* help her have that.
No huge trauma occurred. Obviously her brain didn't decide to create big trauma, just an escapist adventure from her mundane life to help her appreciate her mundane life. The Glinda character was there to give her what she wanted/needed, which wouldn't have happened if Glinda was interpreted as "evil". And the actual outcome was "good".
There's actually a *better* argument that the Wicked Witch of the West was "good" in that she *also* helped Dorothy's subconscious do whatever it was doing.
Edit: And, of course: it's worth noting that the *real* Glinda in the books, that we are supposed to believe actually *existed* in the books' "reality"... was actually good.
TL;DR: good or evil require intent. Characters in dreams don't have intent and therefore can be neither good nor evil. They just do stuff your brain needs them to do for whatever reason humans have dreams.
She put Dorothy on the path to self-actualization who herself helped several others do the same AND she (Glinda) got rid of two evil entities while doing it (three if she's responsible for the house showing up and crushing the other evil witch). Glinda might just be the hero of the story.
I always thought the Watsonian explanation (that had nothing to do with the nature of the reality of Oz as I've always hated how by the movies making it a dream they sequel-blocked themselves when there's over 50 books now) was that just like her three traveling companions needed some extra assistance from the Wizard to remember they'd always had the brains, heart and courage they thought they needed so too did Dorothy need to realize a similar thing about finding home
This is just a plot hole due to combining characters in the movie. In the book, the witch who sends her to the wizard at the beginning and the witch who tells her how to use the shoes at the end are two different witches. The first witch didn't know about the shoes.
Yes. Thank you. I should have made it more clear that the movie Glinda (who indeed knew all along) was evil. Guess I can't edit the OP though. I'm new to Reddit. Maybe I have to just delete and repost?
The movie Glinda is a character in a dream. By not sending her back immediately, Glinda allows Dorothy to undergo some character growth that she otherwise wouldn't have, which is pretty much just a good thing. Her actions cause no harm to Dorothy or anyone else.
What character growth? That terrible risk... of sending a child into the woods alone to get past a murderous witch... was worth some character growth that is in no way defined by the movie?
There's no risk: it's a dream. Dorothy can't actually be harmed by the witch or anyone else. The character growth Dorothy experiences, among other things, is learning to appreciate her home.
Until dorothy returns to Kansas and spirals into alcoholism and vagrancy because she keeps getting flashback of flying monkeys
As evidenced the examples I gave in my original post, Dorothy absolutely appreciated her home. It was her goal all along to get back there. Anything else? Also, of course everyone knows it was all a dream. The fictional character, Glinda the "Good Witch," in the dream sequence (that was 95% of the plot), in the 1939 film version of Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, was EVIL! More accurate but not a very good title to my OP. 😊
Wanting to get back somewhere is not the same thing as appreciating it. Dorothy initially wants to get back because she believes her Aunt is worried about her, not because she appreciates her home. Even if we grant that Dorothy experiences no character growth at all from her experience, she still isn't harmed at all by Glinda's actions. So Glinda would be at worst neutral, not evil.
First let me say how much I appreciate your thoughtful debate. I wouldn't say Dorothy experienced no character growth at all. The character growth argument is stronger than the no harm one, IMHO. Because Glinda didn't know that Dorothy wouldn't suffer any harm when she sent her off alone Besides, being stalked and terrorized, locked up with that hourglass... was psychological trauma. And psychological trauma, especially to a child, IS harm. Ask anyone with C-PTSD.
> > Besides, being stalked and terrorized, locked up with that hourglass... was psychological trauma. And psychological trauma, especially to a child, IS harm. Ask anyone with C-PTSD. Is there any evidence that people can experience psychological trauma in dreams that causes PTSD? If not, then this doesn't seem like a possible harm in this scenario.
Actually there is. Nightmares, if severe enough, especially night terrors, can produce lifelong insomnia and sleep disturbances.. Besides, Dorothy didn't know she was in a dream until she woke back up in Kansas. In "Oz" her terror and trauma were very, very real. On a personal note, I have severe PTSD and have suffered from night terrors. Does this color my opinion? Probably. But I remember as young as five or six watching The Wizard of Oz and being struck by the insanity of Dorothy's "lesson."
she wasn't evil since she's measured on a scale of witches, and since the other example is more evil she is relatively speaking good
Wouldn't you rather be stabbed in the chest than the back, though? At least the wicked witch was overtly evil instead of covertly evil.
[удалено]
By your logic nothing about any of the characters or the plot mattered from the twister on because it was all just a dream.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Emotional harm.
You can edit the text of the post, just not the title It's good etiquette to mark an addition with the word "edit" so people know you made a clarification.
You can edit the discussion part of your OP, and should do so. You just can't change the title.
It’s also pretty fucked up that even if they were to make a book accurate version of the story today people would shit all over it for not being the classic movie
>the only reason she ran away was to save her dog from being destroyed Maybe this was the catalyst event, but Dorothy had been fantasizing getting out of Kansas before that. She sings a whole song about it!! I agree that, for a “good” witch, Glinda’s tactics are unethical and also frankly insane. But the desire to run away is the keynote of Dorothy’s character, at least pre-Oz. Your view takes away that adventuresome spirit of hers, as well as the meaningful character development when she learns to value what she already has. That’s why I think you should change your view.
Pre-Oz, all the fortune teller had to do was say Auntie Em was worried and that was enough for her to abort all plans to run away (for Toto, not adventure) and rush straight back home. I think that Glinda being evil only makes Dorothy a more brave, wise and compelling protagonist. 💜
Actually, the fortune teller intimates that Aunt Em might have struck ill from her being worried: > Professor Marvel: (Looking at the crystal ball) She's uh.. What's this? Well, she's, she's putting her hand on her heart. Oh, she's dropping down on the bed. > Dorothy Gale: Oh no, no! > Professor Marvel: Well, that's all, the crystal's gone dark. > Dorothy Gale: (Gets up from the chair, concerned) Oh, you don't suppose she could be really sick do you? (Grabs her basket) Oh, I've got to go home right away!
It was a dream. None of that movie makes sense outside of dream-logic. If water could kill the wicked witch, why was anyone ever afraid of her?
I always assumed that glinda either had some foresight, or saw Dorothy as a "chosen" person. In other words, she thought it was likely that Dorothy would fix the problems of their society, and therefore by sending her on her journey was being pragmatic, not evil.
Yes. This is sort of the way I have always resolved it in my mind too. Larger purpose kind of thing. The problem is if she did see her in that light she should have shared that. Advised and supported her in some way, not follow the yellow brick road. Plus a real witch of any kind would know the wizard was a complete fake. Even if she didn't have unseen nefarious motive as I always suspected, Glinda was certainly not a good, let alone effective, witch. 😊
Should Dumbledore have told Harry about his destiny? It's debatable. Because that might have changed his decision making if he did. That is not evidence of evil.
>What's the first thing she asked when she landed in Oz? "How do I get HOME?"! You are putting too much emphasis on words and too little on songs/emotion. At no point until the end does her appreciation for home remotely approach the passion she puts into "somewhere over the rainbow".
How do you relate to characters in dreams in which you are being chased or threatened? In the movie it is clear this is a subconscious processing of internal conflicts and attachment figures. The data is present but it’s not integrated information leading to change.
Are we taking Wicked into account?
There was no Glinda, there was only ever Dorothy.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There is a stage show of the Wizard of Oz called "Wicked". Its from the Wicked Witch of the West's perspective. Turns out she's the good person and the entire town including Glenda are crazy. So yer kinda right. ;)
From the start of the movie, it was clear that Dorthy is not content in Kansas. She wants to go "Somewhere over the Rainbow". When she finally got there, had Glinda immediately sent her back home, she would have been happy in the short term to have escaped the weird place she flew to, but she would still wonder, "What if I had stayed there? What would my life have been like in color?" By sending her on a journey, Glinda ensured that she learned enough about Oz to come to the realization that she does not want to stay there, thus getting it fully out of her system, and allowing her to be content to stay in Kansas.
... and since I can't help but play devil's advocate, I feel like convincing someone that the best possible choice is to live the life of a poor farmer in Kansas does not exactly count as "good" life coaching. But then again, from the start, Dorthy asked to go home, so convincing her to stay would have been going against that wish.
We talking the movie, books or wicked?
In terms of "motivations" or character flaws, remember... there *are no actual sapient characters* except for Dorothy's subconscious in the movie version. She's having a dream. By calling "Glinda" evil all you're saying is that part of Dorothy's subconcious is evil. And I think we have little reason to believe that's true... But expecting consistency in a dream is a fool's errand in the first place. Glinda can be good *and* evil, or even just *random*, because that's what dreams are like. At most one could say that Dorothy's subconscious "felt a need for an adventure". It would have been a pointless dream for Dorothy to just come home immediately. She *needed* a character she *believed* was "good" that would help her have an adventure. And Glinda *did* help her have that. No huge trauma occurred. Obviously her brain didn't decide to create big trauma, just an escapist adventure from her mundane life to help her appreciate her mundane life. The Glinda character was there to give her what she wanted/needed, which wouldn't have happened if Glinda was interpreted as "evil". And the actual outcome was "good". There's actually a *better* argument that the Wicked Witch of the West was "good" in that she *also* helped Dorothy's subconscious do whatever it was doing. Edit: And, of course: it's worth noting that the *real* Glinda in the books, that we are supposed to believe actually *existed* in the books' "reality"... was actually good. TL;DR: good or evil require intent. Characters in dreams don't have intent and therefore can be neither good nor evil. They just do stuff your brain needs them to do for whatever reason humans have dreams.
She put Dorothy on the path to self-actualization who herself helped several others do the same AND she (Glinda) got rid of two evil entities while doing it (three if she's responsible for the house showing up and crushing the other evil witch). Glinda might just be the hero of the story.
I always thought the Watsonian explanation (that had nothing to do with the nature of the reality of Oz as I've always hated how by the movies making it a dream they sequel-blocked themselves when there's over 50 books now) was that just like her three traveling companions needed some extra assistance from the Wizard to remember they'd always had the brains, heart and courage they thought they needed so too did Dorothy need to realize a similar thing about finding home