Who knew Toto was such a Bad Dog!? This book was so fun and I loved the story from not only Toto’s perspective but one that’s been a bit updated. If you love Wizard of Oz, this is a must read.

After a lifetime of seeing the movie of the Wizard of Oz based on the book first published in 1900 that has been in the public domain since before many of today's senior citizens were born it still resonates. Its themes of standing up for friends and honoring individual strengths while fighting evil never gets old. This take on the classic features a 21st century, hoody wearing ,independent girl and a talking Toto. It is not to be missed! The combination of heady imagination with a tale that feels imbedded in our DNA is not to be missed. Fresh AND familiar!

I LOVED Library of the Unwritten by A. J. Hackwith. I was very excited to see a new title available on NetGalley and was excited to be approved.
Thank you NetGalley. I am not accustomed to reading stories told in first person and I think this is the main reason I had a lot of difficulty feeling engaged with Toto's story. It is not a bad story, just not as interesting or snarky as the write up led me to believe.

I don't know what to do with this book. I think it is a interesting new take on a classic, and I will always love a snarky dog narrator/main character, but I really just wanted more from this than I got.

I liked the found family building and the parts of Wizard of Oz that were updated/added (Dorothy is a 21st century teen, we learn more about other kingdoms, and Emerald City and the Wicked Witch were captivating to me), but there were large sections that were almost word for word from the movie which kinda feels like a cop out. I love Toto and his decision to start being a "bad dog" but this was not consistent motivation through the book and felt a bit more like telling than showing as a narrative device for me. I also got frustrated that sometimes Toto understood human culture and other times didn't. The inconsistency really brought me out of the story. I also feel like almost all the side characters were just ... there, and could have been developed a bit more to really make this into its own story.

Maybe it's just me but when I pick up a retelling I really want there to be something new offered and I don't know that this delivered on what I expected. Generally its a fun read, but it just fell flat and was something I had read. Just meh which is fine, but nothing to really write home about.

Well, that was kind of fun. I mean, is it even possible to dislike a book that's narrated by a snarky terrier? I think not.

Honestly, though, I have to admit that I didn't enjoy it quite as much as I thought I would. I'm a big fan of both anthropomorphic animals and snarky humor, so I really expected this to be a five-star read. And, well, it was amusing. But was it mind-blowingly awesome? Eh, not quite. Overall, it was probably a solid 3.75 stars for me.

So, what did I like?

Toto, obviously. He's feisty and witty and brave and totally the best good (bad?) boy ever. And the Wicked Witch of the West is absolutely delightful … in a wicked witch sort of way, of course.

I really enjoy the “found family” trope, and Toto certainly didn't disappoint there. All of the characters from the original Oz make an appearance, and Dorothy and Toto also make a few new friends this time around.

There's a revolution led by birds who call each other “comrade,” one of them being a bird named Crow who isn't actually a crow. Need I say more?

And, finally, this is a super imaginative and original retelling of The Wizard of Oz. It's enough like the original that you kind of have a general idea of what's going to happen, yet it veers off in its own direction often enough that you're constantly surprised. It's kind of the best of both worlds, I think?

So what did I not enjoy?

Well, I can't really say that I “didn't enjoy” any of it. It was a fun read. But I do feel as if the characters' relationships with each other were lacking a little. Not all of them, but (the Cowardly) Lion, for example, really didn't seem to develop a relationship with anyone. He was just kind of … there.

This book also can't quite decide whether it's a dark retelling of Oz or not. When Scarecrow is first introduced, I was all “ooh, heck yeah, creepy!” and then ... nothing ever really happens with it? The Tin Man, too, to a certain extent. And there are several other points where things briefly seem (awesomely) dark and disturbing, but then it just kind of peters out.

But, still, I can't complain too much. Toto is a light, enjoyable read narrated by a witty canine. It's not perfect, but it is a whole lot of fun.

Many thanks to NetGalley and Ace for providing me with an advance copy of this book to review. Its expected publication date is November 12, 2024.

I want to start out by stating that I am not a big fan of the Oz book series. I enjoyed the movie as a kid. I've read a few of them as a child and as a librarian. This book more than exceeded my expectations for Oz books.

Taking place in the 21st century, Toto is a [ankle] bitingly irreverent narrator who manages to take off the emerald colored glasses and look at OZ with fresh eyes. No more viewing the story from Dorothy’s childish innocence and wonder. Because Oz is nothing like we were told. You’ve got a corrupt government of witches, faeries, and an Elon Musk-esque wizard. You’ve got crows (and a few other birds) playing at revolutionary activist. You’ve got incels turning themselves into robots, and a wisecracking dog who act like your best friend sarcastically, making jokes all through your annual re-watch of the Judy Garland movie.

The Wizard of Oz as told by Toto is so much more interesting! Toto is a wee bit snarky, fiercely loyal and of course- the true hero of the tale. Loved this version!!
Thanks Netgalley for the ARC. My opinion is my own.

This really is a gem! As a Wizard of Oz superfan, I love a good retelling of this classic. Having the book told by Toto is brilliant and a fun take at looking at the story through Dorothy's pet's eyes. The running internal commentary was hilarious and I enjoyed the modern take and updates to the overall timeline.

Oh boy...
I just don't think Oz was the right setting for a narrative like this.

Readers and fans of the original stories, like myself, are going to find this novel's mangling of Oz to encompass modern issues ignorant to the original story.

Everytime I read an adaptation of a children’s classic into an adult novel I ask myself after reading, did this need to be an adaption?

Was the setting of Oz truly integral to the messages of this story?

I'm going to have to say no.

For example, in the case of series like Dorothy Must Die, the morbid reality blends seamlessly into the researched information from the original novels. Oz and its characters are integral to the plot but are warped.

Toto lacks an understanding of Oz as a setting. It's transformed into an amalgamation of the popularized movie adaptation, modernizations, and book faithful information that makes the book predictable.

The thing that kills me is there are places in the original Oz novels where such satire and commentary could be easily interjected. General Jinjur for example, the women revolutionary of Oz who is I kid you not stopped and settled by marriage.

Instead, what we see here is social commentary injected into places that do not logically make sense to an Oz reader-


It's so distressingly mundane for what should be a very magical setting. Changes made are more uncomfortable than thought provoking because it's glaringly overt satire that leaves little room for humor.

There are so many discrepancies in Toto's known information that it makes him an inconsistent and confusing character. It's like Hackwith constantly flips the switch of Toto's understanding of language and pop culture on and off.

Toto doesn't know the word politic but can reference Machiavelli. Knows about Netflix but not what to call a *phone*. It makes me not know what a wall is after banging my head into one for each time a logic leap like this happens in the novel.

Pop Culture references are abundant and would require

While his internal struggle of Good Dog vs. Bad Dog is the strongest and most consistent of the battles, everything else remains in flux.

This didn't make me feel much more than disappointment. I don't understand what there really was to gain in warping a preexisting property to this extent.

If it wasn't Oz, but instead was an expy of it, I could be a lot more forgiving of this novel.

The best of this text comes far too late. The interesting takes on the flying monkeys and the Witch of the West are barely present. What we get instead is a foghorn of irrelevant satire that brings nothing new to the conversations about these world issues.

Satire should be a mirror to the subject, reflecting back the flaws that are not acknowledged otherwise. Oz does not function in the same way that Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels does.

Swift constructed numerous fantastical settings to reflect aspects of the Enlightenment movement that he disliked whereas Baum made a Fairyland that was idealistic to a hyperbolic extent.

What I'm trying to say here is, Hackwith should've taken a page out of Swift’s tactics and not Baum's. The basic plot structure of Oz could still be there, the picking up of colorful characters, but with settings that intentionally have the foundation to support these satirical moments.