The Wizard of Oz is a classic which has been endlessly updated and adapted. In my youth, I read it and enjoyed it, and I still have a soft spot for it (though I now prefer Gregory Maguire’s Wicked novels).

Leafing through the original recently, I found a very instructive horror story.

The story

The Winged Monkeys are introduced to us as the Wicked Witch of the West’s most powerful servants. Once Dorothy has melted the witch, she takes with her a golden cap that looks pretty. Later, she discovers that the Cap allows her to call on the Winged Monkeys three times for help, and so she gets them to take her back to the Emerald City.

On the way, she asks why they have to obey the cap, and the King himself gives “a winged laugh” and recounts the horrifying tale:

“Once,” began the leader, “we were a free people, living happily in the great forest, flying from tree to tree, eating nuts and fruit, and doing just as we pleased without calling anybody master. Perhaps some of us were rather too full of mischief at times, flying down to pull the tails of the animals that had no wings, chasing birds, and throwing nuts at the people who walked in the forest. But we were careless and happy and full of fun, and enjoyed every minute of the day. This was many years ago, long before Oz came out of the clouds to rule over this land.

“There lived here then, away at the North, a beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress. All her magic was used to help the people, and she was never known to hurt anyone who was good. Her name was Gayelette, and she lived in a handsome palace built from great blocks of ruby. Everyone loved her, but her greatest sorrow was that she could find no one to love in return, since all the men were much too stupid and ugly to mate with one so beautiful and wise. At last, however, she found a boy who was handsome and manly and wise beyond his years. Gayelette made up her mind that when he grew to be a man she would make him her husband, so she took him to her ruby palace and used all her magic powers to make him as strong and good and lovely as any woman could wish. When he grew to manhood, Quelala, as he was called, was said to be the best and wisest man in all the land, while his manly beauty was so great that Gayelette loved him dearly, and hastened to make everything ready for the wedding.

“My grandfather was at that time the King of the Winged Monkeys which lived in the forest near Gayelette’s palace, and the old fellow loved a joke better than a good dinner. One day, just before the wedding, my grandfather was flying out with his band when he saw Quelala walking beside the river. He was dressed in a rich costume of pink silk and purple velvet, and my grandfather thought he would see what he could do. At his word the band flew down and seized Quelala, carried him in their arms until they were over the middle of the river, and then dropped him into the water.

“‘Swim out, my fine fellow,’ cried my grandfather, ‘and see if the water has spotted your clothes.’ Quelala was much too wise not to swim, and he was not in the least spoiled by all his good fortune. He laughed, when he came to the top of the water, and swam in to shore. But when Gayelette came running out to him she found his silks and velvet all ruined by the river.

“The princess was angry, and she knew, of course, who did it. She had all the Winged Monkeys brought before her, and she said at first that their wings should be tied and they should be treated as they had treated Quelala, and dropped in the river. But my grandfather pleaded hard, for he knew the Monkeys would drown in the river with their wings tied, and Quelala said a kind word for them also; so that Gayelette finally spared them, on condition that the Winged Monkeys should ever after do three times the bidding of the owner of the Golden Cap. This Cap had been made for a wedding present to Quelala, and it is said to have cost the princess half her kingdom. Of course my grandfather and all the other Monkeys at once agreed to the condition, and that is how it happens that we are three times the slaves of the owner of the Golden Cap, whosoever he may be.”

What’s so horrifying about that?

At first, it seems a fairly innocuous story. But to me the horror rests in two details:

  1. The princess Gayelette is described as using all her magic to help her people, and she never hurts anyone who was good.

  2. She is willing to sentence an entire race to death because they spoiled her fiancé’s wedding clothes.

At first, these two things seem to contradict each other. But it’s possible to fit them together, with a world where anyone is fair game for any punishment once they’ve strayed the merest trifle from the path called “good”

In addition, it seems to show a world with massive power imbalances. In practice, the moral system allows the rich and powerful to treat everyone else however they want to while still considering themselves good (in fact, they’ve probably done the commoners a favour just by noticing them).

Just letting the punishment fit the crime?

At first, the punishment seems to be Mikado-like: The winged monkeys will be dropped in the river, the same as they dropped Quelala in the river. However, the consequences are very different: Quelala laughed and swam out unharmed, while we are told the monkeys would have drowned.

I don’t condone their actions. It’s presented as a joke, but to me it was well over the line. For their own amusement, they assaulted Quelala and caused both property damage and inconvenience. This probably deserved some punishment - it just should also be abundantly clear it wasn’t a capital crime.

I’d agree Gayelette was entitled to be annoyed. I don’t think she was entitled to sentence those who annoyed her to death. To do that and continue to call herself “good” would be a travesty (fortunately Quelela had enough wisdom and goodness - enhanced by her magic, seemingly - to keep her from that).

Collective punishment

We don’t really get a sense of how many Winged Monkeys there were. Were they all equally guilty? Perhaps they were just a small band, but for all we know they could have been a large company.

What does Gayelette do? She summons all the Winged Monkeys, and threatens to punish all of them. She wasn’t even on the spot when it happened, and it’s not clear that she’s expert in Winged Monkey identification. Perhaps she has powerful enough magic to determine which monkeys are guilty and which aren’t, but if so, the text gives no indication of her using that magic.

Let’s remember our original description of her: She was never known to hurt anyone who was good. That doesn’t fit well with collective punishment. As she hastily passed judgement, how could she be sure she’s punishing the guilty and sparing the innocent? And which would be the greater crime here? Letting some who are guilty go without punishment, or risking punishing those who weren’t guilty? (personally, I’d think the latter).

Perhaps she’s relying on the reputation of the Winged Monkeys as notorious pranksters? Basically, that it doesn’t matter whether all of them were guilty of that particular crime. At some point, all of them must have been in on some other prank that crossed the line. That means they’ve left the path of “good”, and are worthy of any punishment she sees fit to mete out.

The rights of aristocrats

The world of Oz is a world where class distinctions are very important. Those at the top of the ladder who are good and powerful may be benevolent - but they’re not (usually) in favour of common people being free to talk back to their betters. They’re never said to enslave those below them - that’s something for wicked characters to do - but I imagine when they give orders they expect those orders to be obeyed.

Gayelette may well have been good and noble, but she has no qualms calling all of the men under her stupid and ugly (let’s hope she didn’t do that to their faces). She also has no problem with being angry - that can’t be allowed to upset her carefully cultivated image as a good ruler.

Given that context, we have to ask: Why exactly did the Winged Monkeys drop Quelala in the river? The answer is simple: They were ordered to by their king. Did they even have the option of refusing?

Let’s just imagine Gayelette herself had given the order “Tie those monkeys’ wings and drop them in the river”. Would she have expected her stupid and ugly subjects to question whether that was really a good idea? I suspect she’d have expected them to obey without question, and then to keep calling her good and loving her (as a monarch deserves…), also without question.

Why should the Winged Monkeys not apply that level of deference to their ruler?

Long-term consequences

In the face of threatened genocide, servitude to the Golden Cap was the plea bargain the Winged Monkeys couldn’t refuse (yet another sign of justice being done!).

They thought they got off lightly, and at first perhaps they were right. But it got worse:

“Quelala being the first owner of the Golden Cap,” replied the Monkey, “he was the first to lay his wishes upon us. As his bride could not bear the sight of us, he called us all to him in the forest after he had married her and ordered us always to keep where she could never again set eyes on a Winged Monkey, which we were glad to do, for we were all afraid of her.

“This was all we ever had to do until the Golden Cap fell into the hands of the Wicked Witch of the West, who made us enslave the Winkies, and afterward drive Oz himself out of the Land of the West. Now the Golden Cap is yours, and three times you have the right to lay your wishes upon us.”

Firstly, I’d like to note that this great princess, so noble, so good, so willing to help her subjects, loved by everyone - she inspires fear in these poor monkeys. I think the word “good” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here…

But if we are judging her, another good question is: Should we judge her by her intentions, or by the consequences of her actions (whether intended or not)? I don’t think she comes out looking good by either measure, but she looks a lot worse on the “consequences” front. We see a so-called “good” princess turning some prankster monkeys into a weapon to be used for evil. There was seemingly no thought of a decency clause, and no ability for them to refuse instructions that are distasteful or frankly immoral.

Not only were those monkeys enslaved, but their enslavement led to the enslavement of another race - the Winkies. This was probably a more serious enslavement, too - there was no “grant three wishes and then you’re free”.

And somehow we’re meant to give this all a pass because won’t someone think of the spoilt wedding clothes? Her subjects may have been stupid and ugly and have lacked her inherent aristocratic goodness, but I think we can confidently say they would not have made such a mess of this situation.

But, but - good (occasionally) triumphs over evil…

So, to recap, these winged monkeys were bound to the golden cap. Under this binding, it was OK enslaving the Winkies, and it would have been OK killing Dorothy. But, curiously, not when she’d been kissed with the kiss of good:

The leader of the Winged Monkeys flew up to her, his long, hairy arms stretched out and his ugly face grinning terribly; but he saw the mark of the Good Witch’s kiss upon her forehead and stopped short, motioning the others not to touch her.

“We dare not harm this little girl,” he said to them, “for she is protected by the Power of Good, and that is greater than the Power of Evil. All we can do is to carry her to the castle of the Wicked Witch and leave her there.”

This is not the decency clause I talked about earlier. The winged monkeys just reached the limits of their power, that’s all. It’s plot-convenient - and that’s about all I can say of it.

At least it does give us an idea of how Gayelette should have solved the problem she created. Since we know she’s good, she should just have travelled through the land kissing everyone (like it or not…) to protect them. What could go wrong with such a cunning plan?

An intergenerational punishment

I’ve already objected to the concept of collective punishment. But it gets worse, because it sounds like the punishment was also intergenerational.

Perhaps the Winged Monkeys originally involved in #SuitGate deserved some punishment. But it sounds like the consequence of the particular punishment chosen was that those who were guilty got off comparatively easily, while their descendants were the ones bound to perform the difficult tasks.

Should such a good princess really be punishing people for the deeds of their ancestors?

Let’s talk about the grooming

To me, there’s one final WTF moment in the story: Gayelette’s perfect partner procurement program. It’s not about the winged monkeys, sure, but it’s another thing that, to me, casts serious doubt on her moral rectitude. She wanted a husband, and given the class structure I’ve described, I expect she thought she deserved one. After all, it was a great sorrow that she couldn’t find any ready-made candidates.

Not to worry - eventually she found a suitable boy, then adopted him and prepared him to be her husband. She even magicked him to be a better match for her (absolutely nothing creepy about that…).

Perhaps Gayelette and Quelala had the perfect love story off screen. But I see nothing in that story that suggests Quelala’s feelings or desires mattered. Gayelette was good and wise and powerful and in charge, so of course she got what she wanted.

Quelala was fortunate, we are told, and perhaps in such a society it’s good fortune to be plucked from obscurity. But I’d have thought it less fortunate if you don’t get a choice in the matter. At least she didn’t seem to expect him to be grateful that she deigned to recognise and adopt him.

So I have even more questions: How much of the original Quelala was left, and how much was her pulling magical strings? And does using your magic to make someone a more desirable marriage partner count as hurting them? We’re supposed to assume not, I guess (OK, we’re not supposed to think about it at all…).

The enslavement of Quelala

I think we need the fan-fic where he broke free of the script and rejected her proposals.

How would she have reacted? Flying into an oh-so-righteous rage? Weeping at his ingratitude? Pouring all her magic into forcing him to accept her? Or just throwing him out into the street and leaving him to pick up the pieces?

To do it justice, I think the story needs to involve the Golden Cap. Probably in her mind, him rejecting her proposals would have meant that he had left the path of goodness. Very likely she strikes him with the back of her hand and says:

You wouldn’t take this wondrous cap, though I freely offered it to you, so now it will take you. You must for ever after do three times the bidding of the cap’s owner.

In this alternate world she is still husbandless, so she would be the first owner of the Golden Cap. Perhaps she used the three wishes to gain his advice, his companionship, and his sexual favours* and thus got her own way regardless.

* Sorry, in the horror of the situation I continue to forget that this is a children’s story. There shall be none of that here.

Just a quaint origin story?

I digress, of course. I assume the Winged Monkeys were nothing more than a convenient plot device, and L Frank Baum wanted to give them a quaint origin story. As I’ve quoted before, he was not trying to write a morality tale:

[The] story of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” was written solely to please children of today. It aspires to being a modernized fairy tale, in which the wonderment and joy are retained and the heartaches and nightmares are left out.

Probably most children don’t see the horror in this tale - I certainly didn’t as a child. Perhaps I’m overreacting (and definitely I’m over-analyzing 😉), but the reason I see it now is because I’ve seen some of these things in real life, both in society and in religion.

Religious implications

Regular readers will know I can write at length about religion, but I’ll try and keep this brief.

The question I started with was “How can a good princess condemn an entire species to death for a comparatively minor transgression?” I could equally have asked “How can a good God condemn an entire species to eternal torment for - in the final analysis - acting according to the human nature he created them with?” So, while I was interested in exploring the implications of this short story, I was really thinking more of the God I grew up with than of the spoilt princess too used to getting her own way*.

Like Gayelette’s subjects, we’d probably have said we loved God, and we’d probably have described him as someone who used his magic (sorry, divine power) for good, and also as someone who wouldn’t hurt those who are good. There was a catch, though: It turns out no-one is actually good. Here’s the word of God on it:

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

There’s an intergenerational element to this, too: Sin is a direct result of “the Fall” in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (though it depends on your theology how exactly that works out).

The fact is, though: Whether by birth or by our actions, everyone has been moved out of the “good” category, so a good God is entitled to hurt anyone he likes in any way he likes and still remain good. In some circles, this has led to the concept of “sinners in the hands of an angry God”: God is angry with all humanity, because everyone has sinned - and yet, he’s also the only thing that is keeping individuals from burning in hell. Well, for now, anyway. Don’t trust in that mercy for too long…

By this measure, Gayelette was being incredibly merciful not tying up her subjects and dropping them in the river face-first. After all, they weren’t on her level (do I have to remind you they were stupid and ugly?)

In the denomination I grew up in, we didn’t believe in Hell or eternal torment, so perhaps God wasn’t quite so obviously the villain, but he still had free rein to do whatever he wanted and it would be good by definition. And we were all sinners, so had no right of appeal.

* What do you reckon, dear reader? Have I left the path of good - in Gayelette’s eyes, at least - with this description of her? Will winged monkeys pursue me after my death, dress me in fine clothing, then repeatedly drop me in the river while taunting me about my spoiled clothes? Or perhaps - to preserve the appearance of letting the punishment fit the crime - drop me in rivers of ink while writing rude words about me?

Only time will tell, I guess. 🪽🐒

Freedom at last!

At the end of the book the Winged Monkeys gain their freedom. Glinda the Good Witch (another character called “good”!) frees them after having used her three wishes to tidy up remaining loose ends in the plot:

Then, having used up the powers of the Golden Cap, I shall give it to the King of the Monkeys, that he and his band may thereafter be free for evermore.

They doubtless went back to their terrorising / prankish ways (depending on perspective…). But I assume they didn’t do anything majorly wrong like enslaving another race or driving the Princess Ozma out of her just domain. Whether you consider them “good” or “bad”, they needed a master with absolute power over them to cross into the seriously bad category.

Personally, I don’t reject the concept of good and evil (though I do think it can be grayer in real life than in fairy tales). I also don’t wish to harm others, whether prankishly like the Winged Monkeys or more deliberately like the sainted Gayelette.

The Bible purports to offer freedom - but it’s freedom on God’s terms. It’s like saying the winged monkeys had freedom because they freely chose to accept the servitude of the Golden Cap rather than being killed. And some of the followers of God have done terrible things acting in his name.

If you are bound to serving the God of the Bible - as I was for many years, by a combination of upbringing and choice - no-one is going to give you the Golden Cap and tell you you have the power to make your own decisions. You have to take it for yourself. But perhaps it will help asking whether that God is really as good and as just as he’s supposed to be.

Final thoughts

It’s easy to say Gayelette’s response was incredibly disproportionate. To call her a spoilt princess, like I did earlier. I think it’s a little harder with God, just because societally I feel there is a lot invested in both God and religion as good things.

Last year I wrote about the case of Uzzah. It was a case where I felt God reacted like a spoilt child, and a vastly over-powered spoilt child at that. And yet, many believers are deeply invested in finding some reason, any reason to put Uzzah in the wrong and God in the right.

I don’t believe the God of the Bible exists. But if he did exist, he should be resisted.

I don’t care whether he thinks he’s doing the right thing, or whether his followers think he’s doing the right thing. People who do terrible things while thinking they’re doing good are dangerous. Gayelette sounds like she was one such person. And so does the God of the Bible.