Full disclosure: I don't remember much about Sherwood Smith's first Oz book, The Emerald Wand of Oz. I read it two or three years after publication - probably 2007 or 2008 - and I didn't like it. All I really recall now was a strong sense that it was highly derivative, that it was overly keen to work in modern dysfunctional family issues, and that a large chunk of it appeared to take place in a My Little Pony-style land. (And this was before My Little Pony came back and became cool, too.) Additionally, I remember thinking that Smith was simply aiming low in terms of her readership: Emerald Want felt like an Oz book for a small child, maybe about 7 years old. And with that in mind, I have to admit Trouble Under Oz has the same issue. It just feels too young. Too simple. I don't get the impression that Smith trusts her audience; it's a very hand-holding sort of story.

When I think about that, I'm struck that I can't quite figure out the goal behind the Smith Oz books. Smith was selected, commissioned and is now endorsed by the Baum Family Trust - which is fine, except that over half of the Famous Forty Oz books are in the public domain (including all of Baum's), so such an endorsement really means very little. You could publish an Oz book. I could publish an Oz book. There are fans out there with staggeringly little writing talent who have published Oz books, as well as some who are gifted and brilliant storytellers. The idea that the "official license" of the Baum Family Trust has any weight is, frankly, laughable.

I find myself wondering, though, if the point wasn't to re-ignite public interest of the Baum books within the mainstream. If so, I think the Smith books have spectacularly failed, but they do make somewhat more sense. There might have been some hope that a well-published, modern YA fantasy writer would bring both credibility and interest to the franchise (so to speak), and the idea might really have been to try and attract new readers who were 7, 8, 9 years old. That would explain the somewhat kiddie-fied adventures and the heavy emphasis on modern child protagonists a reader could relate to, as well as Smith's insistence on referring back to Baum's own books, both in terms of her story's settings and the protagonists' reading material (reading Dori and Em consulting the original Oz books practically screams, "Kids! Buy the other books in the series TODAY!").

What it doesn't explain is how highly derivative Trouble Under Oz feels. Yes, it's traditional to include old Oz characters in new adventures, so I can hardly fault Smith for reintroducing Prince Inga (from Rinkitink in Oz) or various Nome characters. However, if one of the drives of the series is to get kids to read the Baum books, they will surely be disappointed how many scenarios are ripped straight from them. The trial pits and the magic pearls? Those are from Rinkitink again. The Giant with the Hammer is from Ozma of Oz. The Mangaboos and the Valley of Voe are from Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. The Phanfasms are from The Emerald City of Oz. One or two of these might have been okay, but it just becomes an endless litany of unoriginal ideas, with only the Tasca birds and a few ideas about Nome society truly feeling "new." (For grown-up readers, even Smith's names are groan-inducingly derivative: Dori and Em are bad enough, but Nome Prince Rik's friends are said to be "Tiki! Tavi! Jubjub! Jabi! [and] Wok!", which are the most unsubtle references to Kipling and Carroll I've heard in many a day.)

When you strip away all of those less successful elements, there frankly isn't much story left. Again, I think a child would be suitably entertained - one who hasn't read many Oz books. I'm not surprised, however, to learn that Smith's planned four-book series went on hiatus after this second volume, only to be renewed later this year (after a full eight-year gap). My hope is Smith and her editors have reconsidered the direction of their series. There are a lot of Oz books out there, and with the original Baum books still in print, there's little to make anyone recommend a book like Trouble Under Oz instead. ( )

While the book is well written, it doesn't have the looseness or creativity of the Baum originals, but that isn't really Smith's fault since adding to a classic series is naturally a less free and creative medium than starting something from scratch. The book is illustrated by William Stout, who did a great job except that all his drawings show Dori with short hair and in one scene Em makes a point of saying that Dori's hair is very long -- am I a nerd for being bothered by this? I did like that Smith makes a point of having Dori ask where all the female Nomes are, since you never see or hear anything about them in the original Oz books, and the answer is excellent.

I'm not sure that this is a book that needs to be read by anyone except those who have a love for the Oz world, but if you do, then Smith's new additions to the series seem to be worth checking out.

[full review here: http://spacebeer.blogspot.com/2009/11/trouble-under-oz-2006.html ] ( )

http://www.lonelymountain.net/books/aug06.html#smithtuo ( )