I've only read the first in this collection of Baum's primary 5 novellas, but I am not sure I like it enough to continue, despite my 4-star rating. I think I may have gotten more out of it if I had been about the age of the heroine when I read it - a conscious choice at the time having to do with how distracted by the film version I felt, at that age. Now, I do not find distraction to be a problem. It is true I compared the two works off and on - and (I don't say this often) I think the filmmakers' choices were insightful, and true to the quest genre, ie, they may have improved on the book. The dream transitions near the beginning and end of the movie are a screenwriter's addition, for example, and the green goggles everyone wears in the novella, the film writer eschews - wisely - since Baum's care to include it ultimately goes nowhere. When I'd just begun the first volume, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, I made a quick trip to Wikipedia and looked up Baum, and what I found there gave me some interpretive balance. The fact that the original (and in my opinion far superior) illustrator dropped out of the project early solved some of my puzzlement with the images, and is an example of the kind of useful information I gleaned from there. What I like about the book, and reasons I think at least the first of these volumes belongs on a child's shelf are: the realization of quest tale - Joseph Campbell is vindicated - not that he needs vindication!; the forethought that went into Baum's choices of brains, heart, courage, and empathy as necessary elements of character; the limits of magic; the management of hereditary power; and the fact that Dorothy kills innocently. Cruelty to those who are weaker that ourselves is a grave error, as is inability to accept with equanimity the choices of others. Repeatedly characters act and speak on the principle that 'you' must do as you must do, while 'I' must do as I must do. People ask one another about their intentions, but they don't interfere. It's an important point for children, who are typically vulnerable to feeling guilty about other people's speeches and actions. What I do not like, although I can excuse some of it on grounds of Baum's historical environment, is the unquestioning reliance on class - a large servant caste whose experience is discounted, unconsidered - and this flaw runs deep because the story depends on it to a huge degree - it is setting; and - the repeated admonitions, in the form of actions, that tell us well-behaved and grateful children should embrace enthusiastically a diet of bread and water, clearly a turn-of-the-century value in child-rearing that echos Charles Dickens, but seems to have vanished from contemporary culture. I remember it from my own childhood as a half-discredited discipline. Finally, I like Baum's jovial formality of language, which is pleasantly humorous and true to the genre, a good part of the joy in reading this book. I should further note that I am certain Tolkien read at least this one of the Oz tales. Tolkien - as Baum demonstrates emphatically - is not the first author to invent an entire world, although Tolkien's cosmos is both more cerebral and complex, and it also better survives the skepticism of modernity.