by Catriona Mills

Is Nick Chopper Actually A Robot?

Posted 8 November 2008 in by Catriona

In a self-referential loop the likes of which you really only find on the Internet, I was inspired to start thinking about this as a result of a post on Smithology that was partly inspired by my own reading of L. Frank Baum’s Oz books.

It sounds complicated, but it’s not—Matt talks about a paper on cybernetics that he had been reading, which cites the Tin Woodman, otherwise known as Nick Chopper, as a precursor to the robots of 1930s’ science fiction.

And I thought, “Fair enough.”

But only briefly.

Because then I started wondering whether the piece also cites Tik-Tok, the mechanical man who makes his appearance in Ozma of Oz (1907)—Matt tells me it does—and that in turn reminded me of some exchanges between Tik-Tok and the Tin Woodman, which made me wonder whether the latter really is a robot, at all.

He could be a precursor to the robots of 1930s’ science fiction without himself being a robot, of course. But it seems to me that the situation is more complicated than that.

Tik-Tok is undoubtedly a robot: he was invented by two men in the Kingdom of Ev who were ultimately destroyed by their own artistry: one painted a river so lifelike that he fell in and drowned while trying to touch up some details on the far side, and the other built a ladder to the moon, which he found so enticing that he pulled up the ladder behind him and never returned.

He is also, he tells Dorothy, “the on-ly au-to-mati-ic me-chan-i-cal man they ev-er com-plet-ed” (Ozma of Oz, 45).

(Unfortunately, he does speak in that staccato fashion.)

But he is clearly a machine, and sentient only when fully wound (since he operates by clockwork). When imprisoned by the King of Ev, for example:

I shout-ed for help un-til my voice ran down; and then I walked back and forth in this lit-tle room un-til my ac-tion ran down; and then I stood still and thought un-til my thoughts ran down. Af-ter that I re-member noth-ing un-til you wound me up a-gain. (Ozma of Oz, 39)

For Tik-Tok, there is no clash here between science fiction and fantasy. In fact, he sees his existence as indicative of the latter, not the former, telling Dorothy, who has been speculating as to whether Ev is a fairy kingdom, “I do not sup-pose such a per-fect ma-chine as I am could be made in an-y place but a fair-y land” (Ozma of Oz, 40).

And he denies being alive. When the Scarecrow asks him point blank, he responds, “I am on-ly a ma-chine. But I can think and speak and act, when I am pro-per-ly wound up” (Ozma of Oz, 68).

And here’s the fascinating part: the Tin Woodman, who is a party to this conversation, immediately weighs in and rejects any comparison between himself and Tik-Tok:

I regret to say that you are greatly inferior to my friend the Scarecrow, and to myself. For we are both alive, and he has brains which do not need to be wound up, while I have an excellent heart that is continually beating in my bosom. (Ozma of Oz, 68-69)

The Tin Woodman does not see himself as mechanical? And his heart—the heart that we’re told in The Wizard of Oz is “a pretty heart, made entirely of silk and stuffed with sawdust” (155)—actually beats in his chest?

Of course, the idea of the heart beating might be exaggeration or imagination on the Tin Woodman’s part; he and the Scarecrow never do accept, as Dorothy does, that the Wizard is a humbug—and, indeed, they’re ultimately vindicated, when he returns to Oz to learn magic from Glinda the Good.

But I’m inclined to believe that his heart does beat, because it’s in keeping with his extraordinary origin story.

Nick Chopper, of course, starts life as a perfectly ordinary Munchkin man, whose love for a Munchkin maiden—whose name, revealed in The Tin Woodman of Oz (1918), is Nimmie Amee—attracts the ire of the witch to whom Nimmie Amee is in servitude. The witch enchants Nick’s axe, which “slips” as he works and chops off various limbs.

In each case, Nick replaces the limb with a tin prosthetic. When his head is removed, “at first I thought that was the end of me” (The Wizard of Oz, 42), but he is fortunate enough that the tinsmith who has been working on him is passing, and “he made me a new head out of tin” (The Wizard of Oz, 42).

This is where the ambiguities slip in.

There’s nothing more to the description than this: the Tin Woodman never explains whether he is aware while his head is lying separate from his body, whether there is a period of death before his metal head is reattached, or whether, in the latter case, the tinsmith has to transfer his brain from his first head to his second one.

The Tin Woodman himself has no qualm or concern about this: it is only the final stage of his alteration that concerns him, when his axe slips a final time and cuts his torso in half. Although this is replaced with a tin one, he loses his heart and, thus, his love for Nimmie Amee is also lost (until The Tin Woodman of Oz, when, as it turns out, she hasn’t been waiting for him to return, as he fondly hopes).

But he’s alive all the way through this experience; he is alive as a Munchkin wood chopper, and he is alive as a Tin Woodman—with no apparent delineation between the two states.

The Tin Woodman is not unique. Many other inhabitants of Oz are alive without being human—or, perhaps, “Munchkin” would be a better term than “human” here.

The clearest examples are the four people brought to life with the Powder of Life created by the Crooked Magician, Dr Pipt (though Dr Pipt’s involvement is ambiguous until The Patchwork Girl of Oz): Jack Pumpkinhead; the Gump; Scraps, The Patchwork Girl; and Bungle, the Glass Cat.

The Gump—as a composite creature created from sofas, palm leaves, a broomstick, and the head of a Gump, shot and mounted as a trophy on the wall—doesn’t last long before he begs to be restored to his former state. But when the head is remounted on Ozma’s palace wall, it remains alive and speaks randomly to visitors.

But Jack Pumpkinhead is an odd case; created in The Marvellous Land of Oz (1904), he spends the entire book crippled by the terror of his approaching death: with a body constructed of hardwood but a jack o’lantern head, he is devastated by his awareness that pumpkins eventually spoil. Though the Powder of Life is sprinkled evenly along his body as well as his head, it is the eventual spoilation of his head that he fears.

It is not until The Road to Oz (1909) that Jack learns he can carve himself a new face when he feels that his old one is spoiling.

Jack Pumpkinhead is alive—as are Scraps, Bungle, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodman, where Tik-Tok is not.

So is the Tin Woodman—entirely made from tin, though later plated in nickel—a robot?

Many of the classic science-fiction novels and films that deal with the clash between humans and robots question whether robots are alive or not.

The Tin Woodman is certainly alive, for all that he is made from metal (barring his silk and sawdust heart)—with the ambiguity of his origin, the continuity of his memories of his early life, and his later attempts to track down the woman he loved when he was a Munchkin.

The Tin Woodman may be a progenitor of 1930s’ science fiction robots, but I’m not convinced he’s a robot himself.

(All the quotes from Ozma of Oz are taken from the 1985 Puffin paperback reprint.
All quotes from The Wizard of Oz are taken from the 1977 printing of the 1956 Grosset & Dunlap hardback.)

Share your thoughts [9]

1

Matthew Smith wrote at Nov 10, 06:18 am

Ok so Tik-Tok is really a robot (I seem to recall a film where he appeared as a round brass pressure vessel with a big key sticking out of the back). The Tin Woodman aka Mr Chopper is a bit more ambiguous due to the magical/fairy-land nature of Oz. I suppose most of the audience doesn’t think too hard about it and perhaps the reading of robot into Tin Woodman is something we do looking back having read Asimov and watched Dr Who. It’s not just the actual mechanics of it either. Nick Chopper (I keep wanting to call him Nick Drake) ‘s narrative is much different to that of Tik-Tok. Nick Chopper is more like Darth Vader where as Tik-Tok is more like C-3PO.

2

Catriona wrote at Nov 10, 06:30 am

That film would have been Return to Oz, which is based on both The Marvellous Land of Oz (the second book) and Ozma of Oz (the third book). It is, to my mind, vastly superior to the Judy Garland original—which I don’t care for at all; I don’t think I was exposed to it early enough—and also a better evocation of the spirit of the books.

The Darth Vader/Threepio comparison is an interesting one, since I want to call Nick Chopper a cyborg, except that he doesn’t have any flesh components left—and I don’t think a silk and sawdust heart is sufficient for me to call him a “cyborg.”

Baum’s distinction seems to be that Tik-Tok isn’t alive—he’s sentient, in a way, when he’s wound up (he thinks independent thoughts, for example), but he isn’t alive.

Nick Chopper is alive, though. It’s how Baum makes tht distinction that fascinates me; it’s thoroughly ambiguous. (If something can be thoroughly ambiguous.)

3

Tim wrote at Nov 10, 07:05 am

Tik-tok prefigures robotics; the Woodman prefigures cybernetics and transhumanism. Presumably Chopper’s consciousness was destructively uploaded into his new frame.

4

Tim wrote at Nov 10, 07:13 am

I should have said non-destructively, for of course Chopper’s consciousness also remains intact in his original head, as revealed in The Tin Woodman of Oz.

5

Catriona wrote at Nov 10, 07:54 am

D’you know, I’d forgotten that aspect of The Tin Woodman of Oz—it was never one of my favourites (there’s a cruel streak in the books, sometimes) and I haven’t read it in years.

How do you remember all these plot points, Tim? You did the same in my piece on Narnia.

That’s a neat way of putting it, though—it gets around my reluctance to describe him as a cyborg. I like the idea of him prefiguring transhumanism; they’re already complicated books, and that just adds another dimension.

Your explanation partakes of the vagueness of Baum’s original description, though: how and by whom is his consciousness uploaded? And how is is done with, apparently, no shift whatsoever in his self-awareness?

6

Tim wrote at Nov 10, 10:25 am

> How do you remember all these plot points, Tim? You did the same in my piece on Narnia.

Wikipedia knows all, or close enough to fake it. :)

> Your explanation partakes of the vagueness of Baum’s original description, though: how and by whom is his consciousness uploaded? And how is is done with, apparently, no shift whatsoever in his self-awareness?

The conversion is the work of the tinsmith Ku-Klip.

Are you assuming the Woodman is a reliable narrator? Even if he is, he may be glossing over the details of what happened (or he may have suppressed the most traumatic parts of the process). Presumably Ku-Klip does the whole thing by magic.

7

Catriona wrote at Nov 10, 10:38 am

Tim, you’re ruining the illusion, again!

But bless Wikipedia. I only hope that my students never stumble across this blog, or they’ll ignore all my warning about not using it as a source.

I remember the intervention of Ku-Klip—and the idea of the Tin Woodman being an unreliable narrator is an interesting point. I admit, I’d not considered that possibility.

But, to come back to the main point, there’s that word, again: “presumably.”

I’m not saying your explanation is not plausible: it is. I’m just drawing attention to the fact that the entire process is opaque—presumably (see?) that’s deliberate on Baum’s part.

But it is, for example, in direct contrast to the events of The Patchwork Girl of Oz and the magic Powder of Life that is at the centre of that book.

We know there that the powder takes seven years to produce—seven years of constantly stirring four cauldrons.

We know all the primary ingredients in the powder.

Sure, there are still some opaque areas in the process, but it’s so explicit compared to the opacity of the Tin Woodman’s transformation.

And don’t even get me started on how the Scarecrow comes to life.

But I can see I’m going to have to re-read The Tin Woodman of Oz—maybe, since I’ve finished marking, for a follow up to this post.

8

Tim wrote at Nov 10, 11:16 am

If you like, for the good of your students, feel free to remove ‘Wikipedia knows all, or close enough to fake it’ from my previous post and replace it with ‘By extensive reading, methodical note taking and the application of critical thinking’. :)

As for the processes, it’s all handwaving and fairy-tale logic, but (possibly due to queries from readers) Baum makes a bit more effort to show steps in the processes in later books. That simply moves the mystery into smaller gaps. (And introduces inconsistencies — you’re not actually looking for a consistent Ozian magical theory, are you?)

9

Catriona wrote at Nov 10, 11:32 am

Well, no: I know there’s no coherent pattern behind the way magic works in Oz. Baum in no Diana Wynne Jones.

But I do think that the distinction between Tik-Tok and the Tin Woodman—the proto-robot and the proto-cyborg, as you say—is an interesting one.

Comment Form

All comments are moderated and moderation includes a non-spoiler policy based on Australian television scheduling.

Textile help (Advice on using Textile to format your comments)
(if you do not want your details filled in when you return)

Categories

Blogroll

Monthly Archive

2012
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
2011
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
August
October
November
December
2010
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
October
December
2009
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2008
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December