Review: The Sweet Cherry Publishing Oz Books

So back when I was first getting into the Oz books, I was a lot less knowledgeable about what the best published versions of the books were and how many different editions there were to choose from. I was at Costco and saw this box set of Oz books for sale there; 15 books in a colorful and attractive box for around $50, which if you break it down to price per book seems like a good deal. It was wrapped up in plastic when it was at the store so I didn't get a chance to pull a book out and actually take a look at it. It was an impulse buy. One that I kind of regret now.

I mean look at this pretty landscape. I know that looks more like just a castle than an entire Emerald City, but these are things you don't always think too deeply about when you impulse buy. What I should have done was had a look at the book spines.

You'd have to look closely to see it, but the problem is apparent right there; these are not the original illustrations. Mind you, that's not necessarily a problem in and of itself. There have been some amazing illustrators besides John R. Neill that have illustrated Oz books, such as Greg Hildebrandt, Eric Shanower, and others. However, those artists all seem to have at least a basic understanding of human anatomy, among other things. Each book only has two illustrations total, leaving the pages rather empty except for text. The artist who did these can draw landscapes and inanimate objects pretty well, but when they try to draw people...you'll see what I mean in a moment. Let's have a look at some of these covers.

Ahem...yes. This is supposed to be Ozma. What have they done to you, my princess?! I know Ozma was actually said to be blonde in her first appearance, so maybe we can at least excuse that aspect of the artwork. Let's have a Neill illustration for juxtaposition.

I'm not here to bash people. I know I couldn't draw like Neill. Now there's nothing wrong with having your own unique art style, and perhaps it's not entirely fair to compare someone to a master artist like Neill. But the comparison is inevitable when he was the original illustrator of the book and was replaced in this edition. Neill's art is public domain now, they could have just used that and not had to pay anyone a dime, yet for some reason they hired someone to do these. Let's have a look at the back of Ozma of Oz here.

Here's Dorothy. Note how those uneven, differently-sized eyes pierce the viewer's soul. Note how her head makes up about one third of her total height. Let's see how Neill drew her.

Which Dorothy do you prefer? I dunno about Neill's Dorothy here, her eyes are too even and they're not looking directly into my soul. I don't feel like she's gazed into the abyss as long as the Sweet Cherry Publishing Dorothy. How boring.

Speaking of The Road to Oz, here's the Sweet Cherry Publishing cover. This is their interpretation of Polychrome. She's probably supposed to be dancing, but I think she's stuck in this awkward position because her head is too big for her neck and back to support. Let's have a look at how she was originally drawn, and compare.

Nah, I don't think Neill's Polychrome is big-headed enough. She's too realistically proportioned. It just doesn't do it for me. She needs to have more scoliosis.

Here's the back of the book:

Poor Button-Bright. The book never mentioned that when the Fox King changed his head into that of a fox he also made the head twice as big as the rest of his body! How awful that must have been! I can't imagine why Baum left that detail out.

The back covers all follow the same formula. A creepy illustration, and then a random quote from the book that usually isn't at all plot relevant and was picked seemingly at random. We get a brief synopsis, and then they always end their description with a "suspenseful" question. I suppose I can sort of forgive them for asking "Will they manage to get to Ozma's party in time?" because really, that actually is all that was at stake in The Road to Oz. It's not exactly a book that keeps you on the edge of your seat. But I think it's possible to have done better. "Will Dorothy and her friends reach Oz, or will they succumb to the many perils along the road to Oz?" Or how about "On this bizarre and surreal journey down the road to Oz, will Dorothy and her friends ever return to Kansas?" They should have tried to jazz it up a bit, make it sound more interesting.

Anyway, let's look at the back of Tik-Tok of Oz.

Now, does that quote tell you anything at all about the story? They must have just picked a random sentence from the book. And I love to think how their suspenseful question would sound to someone who's never read the book before. "Will they ever find Shaggy Man's brother?!!" Oh no! Will they find Shaggy Man's brother?!! I'm biting my fingernails in anticipation. And why the jab at the "failed" Army of Oogaboo in the synopsis? That seems uncalled for, as they were still trying to take over the world when they met up with Shaggy Man and Betsy. As impossible as their goal was, they hadn't failed at it yet.

Oh, and by the way, here's how Betsy Bobbin and Hank the Mule originally looked.

*Yawn* Ho hum. How dull. Her head isn't even wider than her shoulders. Where's the fun in that? Does she have microcephaly or something?

Let's have a look at another noteworthy cover.

Welp, I know what my sleep paralysis demon is going to look like tonight. I'm pretty sure there's never been a book where the Scarecrow was said to have button eyes. He's always had painted eyes. This must be how the Scarecrow in the Dorothy Must Die series looked.

And let's look at one more cover.

Perhaps this cover is the worst of all, not because of the art itself but on principle. At least the others tend to follow canon (other than the button-eyed Scarecrow). You could argue for a blonde Ozma, after all. But you see the color of those slippers? Doesn't look very silver, does it? You could almost describe it as...ruby! Did they not read the book? I wonder when Warner Bros. is going to sue Sweet Cherry Publishing over this.

Conclusion

Anyway, I have no idea why they couldn't have used the public domain Neill illustrations. This bookset exists to prey on newbies to Oz who've never seen the original books. The set is not for collectors or fans. I already had the original books on Gutenberg.org to compare them to when I bought this set, hence my extreme disappointment. I should have sprung for the Books of Wonder ones, or a multitude of others that use the original illustrations. But, I already have these, so getting better editions is a bit low on my financial priorities right now. I'll probably just give these to my son when he's a bit older and not worry about it if he wrecks them. My advice: avoid this Oz box set. The originals are available for free online anyway, and if you really want hard copies, you can do better than this and still not break the bank.