Talk:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alice's Adventures in Wonderland article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Literature Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

This article has been rated as B-Class.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the Novels WikiProject Collaboration of the Month (November 1, 2007–December 4, 2007). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.

This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (rated as Top importance)

This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (rated as Top importance)

Assessment comments

Books Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments.

alice in wonderland is a pretty crunk book. especially the part about the drug mushroom and the catapillar smoking crack. so yeah whatever. deuces up cause peace is out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.75.158 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wording

Can anyone correct the misplaced modifier under Symbolism? It says "Being a mathematician etc etc, IT etc etc" and this does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.184.244 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authorship rumours

There is a cherished rumour (which I hope has been proven false), that Queen Victoria herself was the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Does anyone know anything more about this? Mattabat 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never once heard this rumour, & very much doubt that its true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.9.100 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Drugs??

Its pretty damn sad that this article, written in an Encyclopedia, does not have even the slightest mention of the drug overtones that many suspect. Poor article IMO209.244.188.168 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See Lewis Carroll#The possibility of drug use, and discussions below. If you can find a reputable source for this claim, eager editors await. Notinasnaid 19:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the book itself was pretty good proof :P

Yes, because any book that seems silly or nonsensical in any way must have been the result of drug use, not a good imagination and writing skill. [unsigned]

I think drugs should be at the top of the major themes or not at all. If we cant agree or not, it should be off the list or not at all.(felix) ¨¨¨¨

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildes) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh

Should there be anything discussing the theories of hidden messages, psychology or philisophical meanings of the things in Alice and Wonderland? I, at least, have heard in the past many things about the hidden messages or ideas within this story. An example would be the references within the Matrix trilogy, and Matrix fan-base (Red Queen, Looking Glass, Rabbit, etc) and the story may even have a cult following.

Why not, as long as it's also mentioned that Carroll himself didn't seem to be aware of any such "hidden messages" (beyond private jokes for his friends and child-friends. Carlo 18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates are confusing

why is the dat of the boat trip where the sotry of alice was originally told LATER than the date of the manuscript being given to Alice??!?!

[edit] Nonsense

The articile attributes Freudian elements to Alice in wonderland. While it is true the book can be interpreted in this way, Lewis Caroll was not influenced by Freud because Freudian psychology hadn't started when he wrote Alice in Wonderland.

Look at the Trivia part of the article. I don't quite understand how that is accurate. It says:

In what might seem to be nonsensical, Alice says 'Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is - oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate!' This may seem mathematically absurd, until you consider that she's working in basic math: 4*5=12 in base 18, 4*6=13 in base 21 .. if you keep doing this and increase the base increment by three each time, it's actually impossible to reach 20.

But that's not true at all. The pattern here is 4*x in base [3*(x-5)+18]. You start with x=5 and increase it by one each time. So, 4*7=14 in base 24, 4*8=15 in base 27, 4*9=16 in base 30, 4*10=17 in base 33, 4*11=18 in base 36, 4*12=19 in base 39, and 4*13=20 in base 42. So, if you maintain the pattern, you will reach 20.

That's not necessarily true. 4*13 does not equal 20 at base 42, it would more likely equal something like 1A, as the decimal value of 11 is represented in another symbol, like in Hexadecimal. Put simply, 4 * 13 = 52 in decimal, and 20 at base 42 = 84 in decimal.

Agreed - 4 x 13 does not equal 20 in base 42. 4 x 13 is 52 in base 10 notation; to be equal to that value in another base and still produce a '20' it would have to be 20 in base 26 notation, which violates the pattern that is presented (each base value increases by 3).

The value following 4 x 12 = 19 (base 39) has to be something in base 42, the next base in the sequence. Since 4 x 13 is 52 base 10, the next number has to be a 1 followed by a symbol that represents the value 10 - which, following hex notation as an example, would be "A" - thus 1A.

In turn this makes the next entry 4 x 14 = 1B (base 45, the next in the sequence) -> (1 x 45) + a symbol for 11, equalling 56 (4 x 14). Logically this makes all following numbers conform to the form "1x" where "x" is a symbol representing a two (or more) digit number, usually a letter. The sequence therefore never reaches 2... anything. IMHO, of course :)

Where it gets interesting is when you head the other way (decrease the bases by 3). You end up looking for a symbol (or series of symbols) to represent negative numbers, and the number format still remains "1x". AncientBrit 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I though it was an laugh at how people conventionally only learn upto their 12th times table: therefore Alice having only learnt upto the 12th times table would "never get to twenty at that rate" because the system she is using only goes to 4 x 12=19 falling short of her target, being 20 by one. Remember Alice is a child (JoeRowland 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

somebody deleted the nonsense section. i vote to bring it back. personally i find it interesting because it further explains the knowledge of the author and that the book is not merely a "children" book. much like Dr. Sus' work.

I don't agree with the word nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it's just the sense of the subconscious (which is not logical). The book is full of sense, if you see it as what was the function of those stories before the book generalization : a tutorial easy to memorize. But the book is coded, made out of the average adult understanding. (Because he was afraid of the social judgment, and he was wright). And more accessible to children subconscious. That's why so many children dream/bad dreams are related to this reading. As for the Freudian references: the object of the Freudians theories was existing well before Freud did describe them. And it most probable that he was not the first to notice some of his points. ([--Brillen Otarie (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)user:Brillen Otarie] 7 avril 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.224.140 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug Reference

Is someone planning to write about the drug undertones of this book or should this link be removed? -Adrian

I added a picture of the Caterpillar and a hookah; I see no reason why not, since the picture is already used in the Hookah article anyway. -- Lament

(although this reverse the orders of posting it makes more sense to stick it here)

I wasn't having a go at you, Lament, it's just the link here made no sense. Hookah probably isn't the 'drug overtones' the writer of that link had in mind. Why did the page refer to The Matrix and not older references? Surely people who've read the book would have some interest in the surreal?-Adrian

Instead of "drug overtones" i used the term "similarities to psychedelic experiences," which i think is more neutral. "Drug overtones" (or undertones) seems to suggest these were intended by the author, which i doubt was the case. -- Flearosca

I think my drug referances should be left up there are obviouse overtones in the book, so I dont understand why my drug referances keeps getting deleted.It isnt nonsense and this side of interpritation should be looked at as well as the others User:Ro-man

If you can supply some reputable references that support your conjectures and you're able to avoid weasel words, then your references can be re-introduced. Until then, they stay out. - EurekaLott 02:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break it to you, but these "drug overtones" lie soely in your imagination and the imaginations of like-minded (probably the same people who try to find Satanic overtones in rock music) others...They weren't intended by the author. 70.162.66.142 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break it to you, 70.162.66.142, but unless I'm mistaken, Dodgeson didn't send any memo to you regarding what he ‘intended’. Even if only for creative purposes, it would be entirely fathomable - which is NOT to say deductible - that Dodgeson found some form of inspiration in the insights associated with drug use, be it through reports by others, or any of his own (a commonly dismissed possibility). Furthermore, it would be counterproductive of us as editors of Wikipedia to ignore the fact that Alice's story IS often associated with drug culture, regardless of the author's explicit or implicit intention.

Having said this, I would be forced to disagree that any reference to drugs are 'obvious', if for no other reason (like the fact that the book was a children's story, not an adult novel) than that the surreal elements of the narrative are explained solely through the 'nonsense' universe into which Alice adventures. Finally, I personally have never endeavored to discover satanic overtones in rock music, nor – presumably – have any of my friends with whom I have talked with about the book, who also share the observation that the themes are distinctively psychedelic. So I advise you revise your judgment accordingly. Cheers.

Exemplar sententia 09:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Though what your saying is true, then we could find overtones of any kind inany work. People could find anti-semetic overtones in The Wind in the Willows or Communist overtones in Now We Are Six. It is my personal opinion that there is little room for the the ridiculous things people interperate from books in an encyclopedia article. If you have a reputable reference that the Drug overtones were intended by Dodgson, write away; though I personally am fed up with all the idiots who think a story about a little girl having a dream is about drug abuse. Is it not faintly possible that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is a creative work of liturature and not the result of someone under the influence of a drug? PS. You weren't sorry in the least to 'break it to' the other user writing on this subject. Let me suggest in the future you only write what you acctually think.

You say "Is it not faintly possible that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is a creative work of liturature and not the result of someone under the influence of a drug?" but the two are not in any way mutually exclusive24.22.53.24 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canonical

What does "canonical" mean in this context? -- Zoe

I'd assume its used in relation to comparisons with the book (cannon), & say, the Disney film (Non-Cannon), which cut aspects like the mock turtle, while adding things like talking with the flowers & the door knob characters & changing aspects such as what poem the caterpillar asks for.

[Canon (fiction)|Canon] is generally the works considered to be official. Each work of fiction seems to have its own rules about canon. For example, in most works, only the original author's writing is considered canonical. However, both the Wizard of Oz series and the Peter Pan series have canonical works by different authors.

For Lewis Carroll's Alice, I'd include everything he wrote which can be tied together. As far as I know, that's Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, Jabberwocky, The Hunting of the Snark, and Sylvie and Bruno. It would not include movies and games based on any of these, nor works by other authors. Shui9 16:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudonym

I have reverted Ed Poor's change - aren't I daring? ;) As I see it, a book should be credited to its author, even if the author wrote it under a pseudonym. Furthermore, Dodgson is referred to as "Dodgson" throughout the article, and we shouldn't expect readers to already know that Carroll = Dodgson. And we certainly shouldn't expect people to click on the "Lewis Carroll" link just to find out that they are the same person. Of course, changing "Dodgson" to "Carroll" throughout the article would overcome this problem, but it would be crazy to call him "Carroll" when discussing his real life! -- Oliver PEREIRA 03:59 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

As someone who uses a pseudonym in all his writings, i disagree with your point of view, but i am not reverting the changes you made. -- Flearosca

For the recording of an author's works in a factual, historical, and posthumous context for encyclopedic purposes, I am inclined to agree with Oliver. And especially for someone so famous, much like nobody really refers to Stephen King's pseudo-published works as Richard Bachman. --Super Jamie 23:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Custom Classics

"Customized classics" are a range of "editions" that put your picture on the cover, add a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet, and replace the names in the texts with the names of your choice: "Oh, Brad, Brad, wherefore art thou Brad?" You can get a customized edition of Moby Dick, with either Ahab or Moby bearing your own name. I'm trying hard to suppose that such links are added in good faith, and not as vandalism. Try to imagine EB referring to this type of product in its articles about literary classics. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia too. I've removed one of these links from this article, just as I have removed the same user's nonsense text in Romance novel and Romantic fiction. --Bishonen 19:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is Alice in Wonderland really about a bad trip?

I have recently read Alice in Wonderland. I checked it out from the library, and found it a most difficult book to read. Much of it made no sense. However, I did conclude that Caroll was a drug user. I mean, the mushroom, the hookah. There are so many things about that book that could most undeniably be seen as someones trip on shrooms or acid. The Disney movie didn't help much either, with all the colors and everything all over the place. I've done shrooms once and I didn't like it, but once was enough to be able to associate the trip with the story. I mean, I felt like I was lost in some sort of wonderland. Then I watched the movie while I was on it. You do weird things, like my girlfriend. I went up to her and held her hand while on it. She looked at me and just said, "why are you touching me?" not angry, just asking. As I look back, that just reminds me of the way the characters were in the movie and book. Like you ask yourself hard questions. It's a simple show of affection, but she asks me why? "Well, I don't know because I love you" I say. "Why do you love me?" she asks. I really couldn't answer that. I mean how could I, being young and in a fairly new relationship. I was faced with a question I couldn't answer yet couldn't ignore. You think of those things that you normally wouldn't put thought to. Then I ask myself, what is love. I started to think that love was nothing. It's really weird, by the end of the whole thing I was laying on the floor, in a corner, in the fetal position. About the book though, no one seemed to worry about anyone but themselves. The feel of the book, and it may also be that the movie is influencing my perspective, is what it felt to be on shrooms. I feel as though I can associate with the mind set of the characters. It's hard to explain if you've never done them, I just wanted someone elses opinion. I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me. Perhaps someone has read other more intellegent peoples theories as to why this seems to be a drug users story.

I think that anyone who has actually read about Lewis Carroll would find it very, very hard to imagine the man smoking psyllocibin. Carroll was a logician who liked to play word games and who enjoyed twisting logic until it broke. His personal habits appear to have been very, very abstemious.

Well, to correct you there, you sure don't smoke mushrooms... spores will get in your lungs and it could make you go blind if your eyes come in contact with the smoke. I bet he was a user.

He may have seemed that way to the people to the people that knew him, but fact tells a different story. It's a fact that Lewis CArroll smoked opium. He was also in love with the person alice was based off of. (A 7 year old niece or something.) As for the bad trip thing I don't know but it's possible that he tried to imagine what it would be like to be on different drugs. I'm just looking for what drug each character is on so it can give more insight on the movie.

It might or might not be about drugs, it just "could" be. Consult the characters Tweedledee and Tweedledum for further insight on that comment. Also, maybe you're too young to recall the Jefferson Airplane song White Rabbit which tells you to Go Ask Alice, speaking directly to this theory. Wahkeenah 22:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this bit be updated with the info from the Lewis Carroll wikipedia entry?

I don't think the whole book is about drugs and bad trip. I think it is about life. Esspecialy about the Lewis Carroll's life. He wrote the things he encountered while growing up. In Chapter IV: The Rabbit Sends in a Little Bill, Alice says:

There ought to be a book written about me, that there ought! And when I grow up, I'll write one--but I'm grown up now.

- b.evrim

He may have seemed that way to the people to the people that knew him, but fact tells a different story. It's a fact that Lewis Carroll smoked opium. He was also in love with the person alice was based off of. (A 7 year old niece or something.)

Ummm...no, that is not a "fact," and I would like you to source that fact. Your near complete ignorance of the person the story was based on ("A 7 year old niece or something") sort of demonstrates that you are really in no position to be making pontifical pronouncements about "facts."

The story isn't really "about" anything (aside from perhaps nonsense). It's sole purpose was to entertain the many child friends that Carroll had; so to say it was about life or drugs wouldn't be very accurate. The periodic references to people doesn't give the book any sort of deeper meaning.

There's no proof that Carroll was involved with any drugs or hallucinagens, and if there is I'd like to see it. I don't remember the quote exactly, but in one of the notes from Martin Gardner in The Annotated Alice, he says that Carroll most likely wasn't on drugs and was probably just a very imaginative person.

[edit] Jeff Noon's Automated Alice

Maybe there should be a reference to the book "Automated Alice" by Jeff Noon, a writer from Great Britain. He describes the book as a trequel to the first two alice books by Lewis Carrol.

Some info about the book can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Noon

and here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552999059/ref=ase_125/202-6476551-2460615

[edit] Article size

As the article size is currently over 32 KB, we should consider dividing it. I think the Works influenced section, which currently makes up ~1/3 of the article, could easily be split into a seperate article, especially as it's both not that important for the original work itself and continuesly growing. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What is the optimal title? Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland or Cultural influences of Alice in Wonderland or something else? Kusma (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. One comparable example is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references. - EurekaLott 17:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the current section heading, Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland seems like the right choice to me. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree on separating this section under the proposed title. Blahma 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just split the articles. Please help cleaning up the lead paragraph of Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland. Kusma (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My additions "unhelpful"

My additions are allegedly unhelpful. The article doesn't discuss multiple translations of the book, quality of translations, graphical visions of the book by different designers. What is wrong with "Alice" (by Bromski and Gruza) movie? Are only strict adaptations O.K.? Xx236 10:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Mushrooms or simply cannabis?

Obviously a story like this may have involved the use of drugs (even during the 19th century), I haven't tried shrooms but enough cannabis to get the idea. Like someone wrote in the earlier part of this thread it is a difficult story to comprehend.

It was written for children, and they comprehended it just fine. The trick is to stop trying to find meaning beyond what's written. Drugs have nothing to do with it. 70.162.66.142 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

The person who wrote this:

Taken from this perspective, the novel (as well as Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There) is a sinister, pernicious world characterized by persons who exist fully by a self-sustaining logic that exists without reference to outside influence, including the influence of a sane, rational, and moral mind. By this perspective, at its essence, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is not a dream but a surreal nightmare involving loss of control, inability to communicate or reason, rampant uncontrolled change of one's self and everything around, and a total inability to gain any foundation in the world.

deserves a big shiny medal.

Thank you, though it's a summarized version of the thesis of Donald Rackin's. Hope my anonymity isn't a big problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.163.0.36 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Genre: fantasy or horror?

I cleaned up the last part of this section on American McGee so that it makes more sense to the average reader. However, given the format and tone of the rest of the section, I'm not sure if this part is even necessary or particularly relevant. I just want to see what everyone else thinks. - Runch 14:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious what it's really about. All that craziness and inability to reason with people is how a lot of people, particularly children, see real life.. with all its baseless rules and ability to make you feel powerless.

As the original (anonymous) author, I would state that the American McGee section is not mandatory, but is intended as an additional cite on the concept of the original novel (not any of the adaptations) as horror more than simple fantasy. However, adding it might make take it away from NPOV - presenting a thesis against a the perspective taken in most of the rest of the article isn't really POV (indeed, to my mind it the definition of NPOV), but adding a series of incidental "and this person agrees, and this person agrees" might be belaboring the point. I'll leave it for more nonymous (sic) writers to work out - with hindsight, I sit the fence.

[edit] adding to the cinematic adaptations section

I am a terrible writer (or at least I seem to think so) and so I do not wish to add anything to this article on my own. But I would like to point out that in the cinematic adaptation section, at least one adaptation was missing. In 1998, there was a made for TV adaptation Called "Alice Through the Looking Glass" starring Kate Beckinsale. here is the link to IMDB with the information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167758/

I do hope this is helpful to someone.

It's listed in the section for 'Through The Looking Glass...' here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass

It's a rather good adaptation. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.159.136 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pratchett on Alice

The article says "One of the best-known critics is fantasy writer Terry Pratchett, who has openly stated that he dislikes the book". While true (wow, he "openly stated" it?), its placing in the article seems to convey (upon careless reading) that Pratchett is one of the most outspoken critics of the Alice books or that his has a somewhat central place among Alice criticism, but the the reference only has a line or two about the books being unfunny and revolting. I think the proper place for mentioning Pratchett would be as just an entry in a (small) list of people hating Alice, if such a list could be put up here. --Shreevatsa 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett is quite successful, and in my opinion, quite good. And he is often regarded as a children's writer, although he writes for all ages. There's no need to make the article a puff piece. Carlo 11:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read some Terry Pratchett, and I agree he's quite good. But that's beside the point. The mention of him should obviously stay on the page; my comment was more a formatting issue than a content one. I mean, does "best-known critic" mean that he is well-known and a critic, or that he somehow spearheads the anti-Alice movement? :) It probably means the former, but sounds like the latter (to me). Has he repeatedly criticised Alice, as others (I assume) have done? Are there references besides the one given, which is scant?

I guess all this is too much nitpicking. It just sounded odd to mention, in the very second line, the name of one random person (albeit famous) without any reason for his being special. I'd be happier if there were names of more people who dislike Alice. --Shreevatsa 14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical Symbolism

This article does not talk about the mathematical symbolism of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland at all. That is a very important part of the book. It should be discussed. FDR MyTalk 0:500:09 October 21, 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the mathematical symbolisms?--Jimmyjrg 10:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The author Lewis Carroll, was a mathematics teacher whose real name Charles L. Dodgson. He wrote mathematics books such as Euclid and His Modern Rivals. One of the mathematical symbolisms in the book is when Alice sees the cards talking to each other and they all refer to each others' names as numbers. Another example is how there is the White Rabbit wearing white gloves, those are a symbol for a secret society dedicated to the study of mathematics called the Masons, the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was both a professor of mathematics and a Mason. In Through the Looking one of the characters asks what 8-9 equals, this has to do with negative numbers. There are cards in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and cards involve a lot of mathematics and there is chess in Through the Looking Glass and chess involves a lot of mathematics. And Alice talks about latitude and longitude at the beginning of the book and tries to remember her multiplication tables. FDR MyTalk 4:31:21 December 5, 2006

Wikipedia needs sources. I assume this has been written about in scholarly books or papers, so the author of any such section just needs to add citations. Under no circumstances can you include insights you had yourself (unless you later found them in a source, of course). Notinasnaid 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin Gardener, an American mathematician, essayist, and author, has commented about this. Robert Lomas makes a comment about it in Turning the Hiram Key. And Mathematical Ideas Tenth Edition by Charles D. Miller, Vern E. Heeren, and John Hornsby, a mathematics textbook also comments about the mathematical symbolism in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. FDR 2:05:22 December 6, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill the Lizard and Disraeli

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but how would "Bill the Lizard" be a pun on Benjamin Disraeli's name? Recury 13:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess "lizard" and "Disraeli" have that same izz sound, but that is pretty weak. Recury 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen that claim elsewhere, but some have speculated that the Lion and the Unicorn in Through the Looking-Glass represent Gladstone and Disraeli, respectively. That doesn't really answer your question, though. - EurekaLott 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

This artilce switches back and forth a lot referring to the author as Dodgson and Carroll. One should be chosen and I suggest it be Carroll, since that is what he is best known as. Sparsefarce 17:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He was never (AFAIK) known as Carroll in real life. The right convention to use would be Carroll for the author and Dodgson for the person. It seems that the page is consistent with this. Shreevatsa 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this of relevance?

I have in my possesion a collection of books, which includes alice, and was prited in 1962. i am not positive, but i was told that it came along with an edition of Collier's Encyclopedia, along with 9 other books in the set called "The young folks shelf of books". The first one has been lost, but i have the rest intact..., and i can't find any article's about them on wikipedia. Is this of any relevance? Lord GaleVII 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with first sentance

Hi, Someone has added the word shit to the first sentance.

124.150.75.137 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving sections to 'works influenced...'

I suggest that the Cinematic adaptations, Songs based, and Live performances sections be migrated to the Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland page; this is beneficial in that it will cut down on the size of this article, and that these sections are both partially duplicated, and thematically better placed, in the influenced page. Should there be no objection prior to 23.59 UTC 15.may.2007, i'll do the migration. Quaeler 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The only thing is that it'd probably be good to keep some of the information about Carroll himself doing live performances. ShadowHalo 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The songs section definitely needs to be merged into the works influenced page, but I'm not as sure about the others, since they're adaptations of the story as opposed to works informed by the book. If the cinematic adaptations sections stays, though, it should be cleaned of the cruft that's accumulated there. - EurekaLott 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooph.. you have a point about the adaptations; however there are items listed under that section which are no more direct representations of the story than works already listed on the 'works influenced...' page in the film/etc. sections.. Quaeler 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. That's why I said it needed cleaning. Sorry I wasn't more clear. - EurekaLott 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I made this change; i left live performances untouched, and moved all cinematic adaptations that weren't (apparently) direct adaptations into the 'works influenced...' page if they didn't already exist there. Quaeler 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation absurdity

Some idiot is requesting citations for three books, but the books are linked at the bottom (literal interpretation!!). I think this kind of article is not suitable for lots of citations. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sypnosis

I have deleted the Plot Summary and made a sypnosis. I hope this would not be a problem. I don't know how to do the links, so you may have to do that yourself. There may be spoilers, and I don't know how to do that. If it is not satisfactory, you can delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.98.170 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend going back to the original. The purpose of including a summary in Wikipedia is not to give chapter-by-chapter plot points but to give context to out-of-universe information. 17Drew 10:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Cheeser1 10:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed, also Quaeler 13:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.67.2 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Somebody slapped a "laundry" tag on the article. Looking at it, I agree that the "Themes" list is pretty much waste space. I don't want to just delete it without some sort of agreement. Do others feel the same way? 15:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-place lists are supposed to be integrated into the article, if possible. Categorically deleting them may remove content that isn't necessarily bad - just presented in the wrong format. --Cheeser1 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Hampshire play

Is this, that I deleted, really notable? In October 2007 The award winning Peacock Players of Nashua, NH preformed a modern mix of both Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. There was four performances - October 5th trough the 7th and it was set to be adjudicated for the 6th annual New Hampshire Theater Awards, but the NHTA judges backed out at the last second. Jok2000 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COTM

Is anyone actually working on this COTM? If so, perhaps it'd be useful to start with a discussion here on talk about what direction to take the article? --JayHenry 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea is working on it, but here is one place to start looking for sources. Awadewit | talk 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Film Reference

A new AAiW movie sounds pretty cool, even though I am not a fan of Tim Burton. I think there should be a reference, because on IMDb it is not listed in his filmography. I noticed that there is a film entitled "Alice" scheduled for 2009, except I do not have IMDb Pro so I can not view it. Can someone please tell me where this was announced, otherwise I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.98.170 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication dates

There's a possible contradiction in the publication dates that I'd like confirmation on. The History section states that the first print run was all-but-destroyed and the second print run didn't occur until December 1865. But the Publishing highlights subsection says the first American edition was also in 1865. In those days it took a week or more just to get from England to the US, which would leave little time for someone to 1) realize the market potential for the new book, 2) get it to the US, and 3) arrange and go to press with a pirate edition before the close of the year. Or did one of the July first-prints serve as Copy Zero for America? Could someone with hard info about this please clarify? - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Burton movie

In my opinion the Tim Burton movie passes the threshold set out for future events at WP:CRYSTAL. I would have no objection to mentioning the film supported by citation to one of these sources: Reuters, SMH, BBC, Variety. --JayHenry (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If the only metric we use is whether a media member has managed to get press about their project, shouldn't we also allow the forever-being-made Marilyn Manson version as well? (Rhetorical: i vote no). Quaeler (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of sources exist about the Marilyn Manson project. Reuters, BBC and Variety are serious outlets. They won't just write a story about anybody pitching any project. And if we have reliable sources saying that Marilyn Manson is trying to make a film version, why would we not say as much? --JayHenry (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've only got the wiki article to go on, which cites Rolling Stone and MTV. My main problem is that this stuff sometimes simply never makes it to release - that's the nature of the business. For example, all of Tim Burton's projects which were never released: http://www.timburtoncollective.com/unfinished.html . How many of those chronicled actually got PR in 'serious outlets', i don't know -- though i would bet money that the answer isn't zero. It's a fickle business with fickle people. Quaeler (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.