Sunday, February 18, 2007
Alice in Wonderland (first half)
OK I have no idea what I just did about ten minutes ago but this is the right way. God I hate computers . They aren't as easy as they seem. Couldn't we have done Myspace? OK anyway when I started reading this version of Alice and Wonderland I thought at first that it followed the Disney version (which is the only other I have heard of) pretty closely in terms of how Alice starts out. Then it got a little different. For example the mouse that Alice offends multiple times. Alice seemed a little dim to me in this version. I thought it might be obvious that she was offending people, or what would offend animals, but she would only notice after saying so. She seemed like a very little girl rather than the young lady I had pictured in my head. The way the story is told is also very odd, which I understand is supposed to be the whole point of the story. I guess I'm also turned off to Alice in Wonderland because I heard it was based of a drug high. I would like to know how people felt about Alice in this version and if they had any other versions to compare it to. Do you like the differences or is it hard to get past the Disney version? I would like to see how it turns out in the second half.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree, this version so far is a little odd. It is hard for me to get past the Disney version because I have seen it many times. The story is odd and has many weird adventures. I have never heard of any other versions other than this one and the Disney one. It is interesting to read the differences but it hard to not want to compare to the movie. I think that is one thing I will try to get past while reading this.
Alice In Wonderland is quite an interesting read! I saw the movie years ago, and really don’t remember any of it, so I’m not sure how well the book follows the book, but based on the other comments, not very well. Upon reading the first 2 chapters, my perception of Alice is that of a dumb little girl with scattered emotions. Alice is incredibly bizarre! She has intense conversations with herself and at one point scolds herself to tears. Does anyone else find this odd?? Also, I am assuming it’s the bottle of liquid and the cake, which she ingests that cause her act so silly. I also thought it was odd that she runs off from her sister, falls down the hole, enters a long hall and is unable to get out, and it takes her quite a while before she actually breaks down and cries. I would think that upon falling for as long as she did, any *normal* little girl would become frightened, but Alice stays calm and thinks about longitude, latitude, falling thorough the earth, New Zealand, and how she will miss her cat Dinah. I must remember that Alice is not a *normal* girl and this is not going to be a *normal* story. While she was wandering through the long hall of doors, I was reminded of the Original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, which has some outlandish ideas and an eclectic mix of characters. Alice has a strong character and I am interested in seeing how she will develop through the book. I am also wondering if there is a moral to the story like many children’s books have.
I went searching for more information about Lewis Carroll and I came across some information about his diary, which was published after his death. Very interesting and disturbing claims…..
“Perhaps above all else, it is a portrait of a man emotionally focused on pre-pubescent female children; a man who sought comfort and companionship exclusively through serial friendships with "little girls", and who almost invariably lost interest in them when they reached puberty. His emotional life is usually presented as an ultimately sterile and lonely series of "repeated rejections", as the little ones grew up and inevitably left him behind. Since Freudian analysis plucked out the heart of his mystery sixty years ago, and found it cankered, this obsession has been seen by many as evidence of a repressed and deviant sexuality, and Carroll has been described as a man who struggled to master his "differing sexual appetites". To the popular press and the popular mind he is seen as a "paedophile". To distinguished scholars he is a man who "desired the companionship of female children" (Cohen 1995, pp. 340, 530).
In the most high profile and respected of modern biography, Carroll is variously described as one "[whose] sexual energies sought unconventional outlets" (Cohen 1995, p. 530), who was "utterly depend[ent] upon the company and the affection of little girls" (Bakewell 1996, p. xvii). It is said with certainty that he was infamous for this passion even during his own lifetime, his photography of their bodies "perilously close to a kind of substitute for the sexual act". (Bakewell 1996, p. 245). Even those who do not accept the sexual connotation, and set out to "defend" him against a supposed Freudian stigma -- like Derek Hudson's 1954 biography , and Roger Lancelyn Green's preface to the edited Diaries of 1953 -- make no attempt to question his supposed exclusive passion for the girl child. Their contention is merely that this obsession was largely sexless, because Lewis Carroll was too emotionally immature, too "simple hearted" to experience adult sexual desire for anyone or anything, or too prim to give any expression to it.”
http://www.lookingforlewiscarroll.com/mythinmaking.html
I agree with the previous posts. The only other Alice in Wonderland that I had heard of was the Disney movie. Although I do remember some parts of this version because my mother would read me the Lewis Caroll one when I was younger. Now that I am re-reading it I am finding many bizarre twists and events. I think when I was younger I wouldn't have noticed all the wierd details that I am noticing now. I didn't realize how dumb Alice really was! I am almost done reading the book and now I am looking forward to re-watching the Disney movie to catch differences and similarities.
Post a Comment