Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Some chess sets are white and red. They're less common than white and black sets, but not unheard of.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
In the book, Alice eats a cake in order to become smaller, not a carrot.
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
*** Except that the only reason she ate the carrot was under the reasoning that foodstuffs seemed to be having effects on her size. Wait, are we actually trying to bring ''logic'' into '''Alice in freaking Wonderland??!'''
to:
*** Except that the only reason she ate the carrot cake was under the reasoning that foodstuffs seemed to be having effects on her size. Wait, are we actually trying to bring ''logic'' into '''Alice in freaking Wonderland??!'''size.
Added DiffLines:
** She’s also about seven years old, and a bit scatterbrained. She probably just forgot that the fan would be able to do that.
Added DiffLines:
*** He’s definitely not the dodo, because Alice notes in the book that his voice is one she hasn’t heard before.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Cleanup. Musings about how the book is perceived or adapted are not headscratchers.
Deleted line(s) 9,39 (click to see context) :
* Why does this book get so much DarkerAndEdgier stuff done to it?
** I suppose its mostly because of the MindScrew attached to the setting, or maybe because, frankly, the animated Disney version of the setting was quite dark and unusually unsettling for the kind of stuff Disney is most often associated with. The characters themselves, specially the Mad Hatter and the Queen(s), have qualities that make a darker and edgier interpretation seem not too far fetched.
** ValuesDissonance perhaps? In this day and age, people probably find the idea of a girl falling down a dangerously deep hole and wandering around aimlessly and alone with creatures that are either apathetic to her or want to kill her to be very dark and scary. It was probably put best in ''The Annotated Alice'', when the Queen of Hearts first shows up. The annotation mentions that parents have worried about the effect such a murderous character would have on children, but kids themselves seemed quite at ease with her (while the annotation mentioned that ''adults'' on the other hand had best be kept away from the Queen).
** Because madness is a common theme in the books, and madness/mental illness isn't the happy trippy funtimes that media likes to portray it as.
** My favourite interpretation of the book is that it's about how scary and illogical the world really is. Alice questions who she is, she's aware of changes happening to her body and her mind but can do nothing about them, she has to humour people who she doesn't like or understand, and she's constantly making up her own rules about how to exist in Wonderland because she doesn't understand everyone else's. That's how most of us feel about growing up/starting a new job/starting a new relationship/meeting new people/going abroad etc. That's just my opinion though :)
* Why is every single Alice "re-imagining" some variation on "OMG DA RED QUEN [[CompositeCharacter OF HARTZ]] IZ EEVIL AND ALIC MUST STOP HER AND STUF!!!1" How is it that the Wizard of Oz has so many good re-imaginings when all Wonderland re-imaginings are ripped off from American McGee?
** Because the Queen of Hearts is the closest thing to an antagonist the series has, the Red Queen is probably in second, and people like to combine the stories.
*** Why do they always have to be a CompositeCharacter? Okay, they're both queens and both red, but can't one adaption have them as separate characters? Especially as one is from a deck of cards and the other from a chess set. Now ''that's'' a type of adaption I want to see.
*** [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 two-part TV movie/miniseries]] has them as two separate characters, but that's because the first part is an adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and the second part is an adaptation of Through the Looking-Glass.
*** If they made the Red Queen a villain, I'd imagine her being a calm and collected woman who is an AffablyEvil, manipulative bitch who is tricking Alice into becoming queen so she can intercept the white army in some way and win the battle. And she wouldn't be interested in chopping heads off and isn't as violent as the Queen of Hearts. Now that's a type of adaption I want to see.
*** Like [[AlternateCharacterInterpretation the White Queen]] from the Tim Burton film?
*** Symbolically, as a color, red seems to be more prone to outbursts of temper, white's more calculating.
** Personally, I think the Literature/{{Jabberwock|y}} would make a better villain in an Alice re imagining. The Queen of Hearts is all talk, the Red Queen is evil but Alice doesn't really take her seriously, the Duchess is more of a bully than a villain, and in Carroll's other works the "antagonists" barely qualify as such; the Walrus and the Carpenter were just con artists and Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark had no antagonist (unless you count the Bandersnatch or [[spoiler:the Boojum]]). The Jabberwock seems like a much more serious villain than any of the others.
*** The Jabberwock has been the villian in at least two TV adaptations.
* Why the (please excuse my language) fuck is everyone convinced that the book is an hallucination by an insane woman, or a drug trip? WHY? Because it's fantasy? But why this book in particular? Why not ''Literature/HarryPotter'' or ''Literature/TheChroniclesOfNarnia'' or ''Literature/TheWizardOfOz'' or ''Literature/PeterPan'' or ''Literature/TheSpiderwickChronicles'' or ''Literature/TheNeverendingStory''? Why can't anybody suspend disbelief and use their fucking imagination? No, everything needs to have a rational explanation, even Wonderland.
** Its mostly because of how outright absurd it seems; from a generic person's view, [[Literature/TheLordOfTheRings having Earth's prehistory as magical, with medieval European looking civilisations, with elves, orcs and dwarves and with a fallen dark lord that once disguised himself as a bishounen to fool the elves]] or [[Literature/TheChroniclesOfNarnia a multiverse with Jesus incarnated as a lion]] makes more sense, because as a whole things seem to follow a certain logic. ''Literature/AliceInWonderland'' is not by any means logic, in fact its the opposite of it, not even having a recognisable plot, and thats what leads people to think it was the result of drugs, which is quite sad because MindScrew is an awesome trope.
** The Caterpillar was a big contributor to that. (Know what it was smoking in the hookah? It wasn't tobacco, that's for sure. But the thing it, that was far more common in Victorian England than it was now.)
** Not to mention the fact that the author was a known drug user and was possibly under the influence while coming up with the story. With that in mind its not that much of a stretch to think that the protagonist too would be under the influence.
*** I've never heard he was a drug user, and I've read several biographies. I think you've mistaken him for someone else.
*** Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) never used drugs. That is pure fiction. He was a surprisingly sane and logical fellow.
*** Although he might have been a paedophile.
*** The pedophilia is also entirely made up by misinformed biographers (and largely based in values dissonance) and ''any'' reliable source will tell you so.
*** Speaking of the false rumors of pedophilia, why don't people even mention that the entire book was based around trolling his students? Since from some records that he believed that the mathematics his students were thinking was pure lunacy.
** Both stories are openly revealed as dreams, at the end. Dreams, hallucination, and madness are all akin.
** But most people have dreams and they aren't mad.
** I've seen ''Harry Potter'' fanfictions where Harry or another character was insane. They aren't published as adaptions because ''Literature/HarryPotter'' is still under copyright, but it's definitely a type of fan fiction. I don't know about the other fantasy books listed.
* Not necessarily about the book, but why don't we have a separate article for Through the Looking-Glass? It has the same number, if not more characters than the first book, is just as witty as it, and is quite possibly the first major ChessMotif in literature. (We have an article on Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark, why not this?)
** It is this troper's personal opinion that the two ''Alice'' stories are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. Besides, two separate articles would just confuse people who are unfamiliar with ''Alice''.
** Why not call it "Through The Looking Glass" with "Alice in Wonderland 2" as an alt title?
*** Because Alice In Wonderland 2 is not and never has been the tile of the story?
** Many pages for films also include the sequels. Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark is not really linked as closely to AIW as TTLG.
** I suppose its mostly because of the MindScrew attached to the setting, or maybe because, frankly, the animated Disney version of the setting was quite dark and unusually unsettling for the kind of stuff Disney is most often associated with. The characters themselves, specially the Mad Hatter and the Queen(s), have qualities that make a darker and edgier interpretation seem not too far fetched.
** ValuesDissonance perhaps? In this day and age, people probably find the idea of a girl falling down a dangerously deep hole and wandering around aimlessly and alone with creatures that are either apathetic to her or want to kill her to be very dark and scary. It was probably put best in ''The Annotated Alice'', when the Queen of Hearts first shows up. The annotation mentions that parents have worried about the effect such a murderous character would have on children, but kids themselves seemed quite at ease with her (while the annotation mentioned that ''adults'' on the other hand had best be kept away from the Queen).
** Because madness is a common theme in the books, and madness/mental illness isn't the happy trippy funtimes that media likes to portray it as.
** My favourite interpretation of the book is that it's about how scary and illogical the world really is. Alice questions who she is, she's aware of changes happening to her body and her mind but can do nothing about them, she has to humour people who she doesn't like or understand, and she's constantly making up her own rules about how to exist in Wonderland because she doesn't understand everyone else's. That's how most of us feel about growing up/starting a new job/starting a new relationship/meeting new people/going abroad etc. That's just my opinion though :)
* Why is every single Alice "re-imagining" some variation on "OMG DA RED QUEN [[CompositeCharacter OF HARTZ]] IZ EEVIL AND ALIC MUST STOP HER AND STUF!!!1" How is it that the Wizard of Oz has so many good re-imaginings when all Wonderland re-imaginings are ripped off from American McGee?
** Because the Queen of Hearts is the closest thing to an antagonist the series has, the Red Queen is probably in second, and people like to combine the stories.
*** Why do they always have to be a CompositeCharacter? Okay, they're both queens and both red, but can't one adaption have them as separate characters? Especially as one is from a deck of cards and the other from a chess set. Now ''that's'' a type of adaption I want to see.
*** [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 two-part TV movie/miniseries]] has them as two separate characters, but that's because the first part is an adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and the second part is an adaptation of Through the Looking-Glass.
*** If they made the Red Queen a villain, I'd imagine her being a calm and collected woman who is an AffablyEvil, manipulative bitch who is tricking Alice into becoming queen so she can intercept the white army in some way and win the battle. And she wouldn't be interested in chopping heads off and isn't as violent as the Queen of Hearts. Now that's a type of adaption I want to see.
*** Like [[AlternateCharacterInterpretation the White Queen]] from the Tim Burton film?
*** Symbolically, as a color, red seems to be more prone to outbursts of temper, white's more calculating.
** Personally, I think the Literature/{{Jabberwock|y}} would make a better villain in an Alice re imagining. The Queen of Hearts is all talk, the Red Queen is evil but Alice doesn't really take her seriously, the Duchess is more of a bully than a villain, and in Carroll's other works the "antagonists" barely qualify as such; the Walrus and the Carpenter were just con artists and Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark had no antagonist (unless you count the Bandersnatch or [[spoiler:the Boojum]]). The Jabberwock seems like a much more serious villain than any of the others.
*** The Jabberwock has been the villian in at least two TV adaptations.
* Why the (please excuse my language) fuck is everyone convinced that the book is an hallucination by an insane woman, or a drug trip? WHY? Because it's fantasy? But why this book in particular? Why not ''Literature/HarryPotter'' or ''Literature/TheChroniclesOfNarnia'' or ''Literature/TheWizardOfOz'' or ''Literature/PeterPan'' or ''Literature/TheSpiderwickChronicles'' or ''Literature/TheNeverendingStory''? Why can't anybody suspend disbelief and use their fucking imagination? No, everything needs to have a rational explanation, even Wonderland.
** Its mostly because of how outright absurd it seems; from a generic person's view, [[Literature/TheLordOfTheRings having Earth's prehistory as magical, with medieval European looking civilisations, with elves, orcs and dwarves and with a fallen dark lord that once disguised himself as a bishounen to fool the elves]] or [[Literature/TheChroniclesOfNarnia a multiverse with Jesus incarnated as a lion]] makes more sense, because as a whole things seem to follow a certain logic. ''Literature/AliceInWonderland'' is not by any means logic, in fact its the opposite of it, not even having a recognisable plot, and thats what leads people to think it was the result of drugs, which is quite sad because MindScrew is an awesome trope.
** The Caterpillar was a big contributor to that. (Know what it was smoking in the hookah? It wasn't tobacco, that's for sure. But the thing it, that was far more common in Victorian England than it was now.)
** Not to mention the fact that the author was a known drug user and was possibly under the influence while coming up with the story. With that in mind its not that much of a stretch to think that the protagonist too would be under the influence.
*** I've never heard he was a drug user, and I've read several biographies. I think you've mistaken him for someone else.
*** Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) never used drugs. That is pure fiction. He was a surprisingly sane and logical fellow.
*** Although he might have been a paedophile.
*** The pedophilia is also entirely made up by misinformed biographers (and largely based in values dissonance) and ''any'' reliable source will tell you so.
*** Speaking of the false rumors of pedophilia, why don't people even mention that the entire book was based around trolling his students? Since from some records that he believed that the mathematics his students were thinking was pure lunacy.
** Both stories are openly revealed as dreams, at the end. Dreams, hallucination, and madness are all akin.
** But most people have dreams and they aren't mad.
** I've seen ''Harry Potter'' fanfictions where Harry or another character was insane. They aren't published as adaptions because ''Literature/HarryPotter'' is still under copyright, but it's definitely a type of fan fiction. I don't know about the other fantasy books listed.
* Not necessarily about the book, but why don't we have a separate article for Through the Looking-Glass? It has the same number, if not more characters than the first book, is just as witty as it, and is quite possibly the first major ChessMotif in literature. (We have an article on Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark, why not this?)
** It is this troper's personal opinion that the two ''Alice'' stories are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. Besides, two separate articles would just confuse people who are unfamiliar with ''Alice''.
** Why not call it "Through The Looking Glass" with "Alice in Wonderland 2" as an alt title?
*** Because Alice In Wonderland 2 is not and never has been the tile of the story?
** Many pages for films also include the sequels. Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark is not really linked as closely to AIW as TTLG.
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
** I always thought he was either a human or a pig
to:
** I always thought he was either a human or a pigpig.
Changed line(s) 67 (click to see context) from:
* Another question about that book. Are the White Queen and the sheep (in the shop) meant to be the same character?
to:
* Another question about that book. Are the White Queen and the sheep (in the shop) meant to be the same character?
Changed line(s) 69 (click to see context) from:
* If Humpty Dumpty only explained the first (and, since it's [[BookEnds repeated at the end]], last) stanza of "Jabberwocky," what the hell does the rest of the poem mean?
to:
* If Humpty Dumpty only explained the first (and, since it's [[BookEnds repeated at the end]], last) stanza of "Jabberwocky," what the hell does the rest of the poem mean?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 2 (click to see context) :
Changed line(s) 20,22 (click to see context) from:
*** Like [[AlternateCharacterInterpretation the White Queen]] from the Tim Burton film? [[FridgeBrilliance Interesting]]...
*** Symbolically,as a color, red seems to be more prone to outbursts of temper, white's more calculating.
** Personally, I think the [[Literature/{{Jabberwocky}} Jabberwock]] would make a better villain in an Alice re imagining. The Queen of Hearts is all talk, the Red Queen is evil but Alice doesn't really take her seriously, the Duchess is more of a bully than a villain, and in Carroll's other works the "antagonists" barely qualify as such; the Walrus and the Carpenter were just con artists and Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark had no antagonist (unless you count the Bandersnatch or [[spoiler:the Boojum]]). The Jabberwock seems like a much more serious villain than any of the others.
*** Symbolically,as a color, red seems to be more prone to outbursts of temper, white's more calculating.
** Personally, I think the [[Literature/{{Jabberwocky}} Jabberwock]] would make a better villain in an Alice re imagining. The Queen of Hearts is all talk, the Red Queen is evil but Alice doesn't really take her seriously, the Duchess is more of a bully than a villain, and in Carroll's other works the "antagonists" barely qualify as such; the Walrus and the Carpenter were just con artists and Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark had no antagonist (unless you count the Bandersnatch or [[spoiler:the Boojum]]). The Jabberwock seems like a much more serious villain than any of the others.
to:
*** Like [[AlternateCharacterInterpretation the White Queen]] from the Tim Burton film? [[FridgeBrilliance Interesting]]...
film?
***Symbolically,as Symbolically, as a color, red seems to be more prone to outbursts of temper, white's more calculating.
** Personally, I think the[[Literature/{{Jabberwocky}} Jabberwock]] Literature/{{Jabberwock|y}} would make a better villain in an Alice re imagining. The Queen of Hearts is all talk, the Red Queen is evil but Alice doesn't really take her seriously, the Duchess is more of a bully than a villain, and in Carroll's other works the "antagonists" barely qualify as such; the Walrus and the Carpenter were just con artists and Literature/TheHuntingOfTheSnark had no antagonist (unless you count the Bandersnatch or [[spoiler:the Boojum]]). The Jabberwock seems like a much more serious villain than any of the others.
***
** Personally, I think the
Changed line(s) 24,26 (click to see context) from:
* Why the (please excuse my language) fuck is everyone convinced that the book is an hallucination by an insane woman, or a drug trip? WHY? Because it's fantasy? But why this book in particular? Why not Harry Potter or the Chronicles of Narnia or the Wizard of Oz or Peter Pan or the Spiderwick Chronicles or the Never Ending Story? Why can't anybody suspend disbelief and use their fucking imagination? No, everything needs to have a rational explanation, even Wonderland.
** Its mostly because of how outright absurd it seems; from a generic person's view, [[Literature/TheLordOfTheRings having Earth's prehistory as magical, with medieval European looking civilisations, with elves, orcs and dwarves and with a fallen dark lord that once disguised himself as a bishounen to fool the elves]] or [[Literature/HisDarkMaterials a multiverse with a god like particle of which angels are made and with armoured polar bears]] makes more sense, because as a whole things seem to follow a certain logic. Literature/AliceInWonderland is not by any means logic, in fact its the opposite of it, not even having a recognisable plot, and thats what leads people to think it was the result of drugs, which is quite sad because MindScrew is an awesome trope.
** The Catepiller was a big contributor to that. (Know what it was smoking in the hookah? It wasn't tobacco, that's for sure. But the thing it, that was far more common in Victorian England than it was now.)
** Its mostly because of how outright absurd it seems; from a generic person's view, [[Literature/TheLordOfTheRings having Earth's prehistory as magical, with medieval European looking civilisations, with elves, orcs and dwarves and with a fallen dark lord that once disguised himself as a bishounen to fool the elves]] or [[Literature/HisDarkMaterials a multiverse with a god like particle of which angels are made and with armoured polar bears]] makes more sense, because as a whole things seem to follow a certain logic. Literature/AliceInWonderland is not by any means logic, in fact its the opposite of it, not even having a recognisable plot, and thats what leads people to think it was the result of drugs, which is quite sad because MindScrew is an awesome trope.
** The Catepiller was a big contributor to that. (Know what it was smoking in the hookah? It wasn't tobacco, that's for sure. But the thing it, that was far more common in Victorian England than it was now.)
to:
* Why the (please excuse my language) fuck is everyone convinced that the book is an hallucination by an insane woman, or a drug trip? WHY? Because it's fantasy? But why this book in particular? Why not Harry Potter ''Literature/HarryPotter'' or the Chronicles of Narnia ''Literature/TheChroniclesOfNarnia'' or the Wizard of Oz ''Literature/TheWizardOfOz'' or Peter Pan ''Literature/PeterPan'' or the Spiderwick Chronicles ''Literature/TheSpiderwickChronicles'' or the Never Ending Story? ''Literature/TheNeverendingStory''? Why can't anybody suspend disbelief and use their fucking imagination? No, everything needs to have a rational explanation, even Wonderland.
** Its mostly because of how outright absurd it seems; from a generic person's view, [[Literature/TheLordOfTheRings having Earth's prehistory as magical, with medieval European looking civilisations, with elves, orcs and dwarves and with a fallen dark lord that once disguised himself as a bishounen to fool the elves]] or[[Literature/HisDarkMaterials [[Literature/TheChroniclesOfNarnia a multiverse with Jesus incarnated as a god like particle of which angels are made and with armoured polar bears]] lion]] makes more sense, because as a whole things seem to follow a certain logic. Literature/AliceInWonderland ''Literature/AliceInWonderland'' is not by any means logic, in fact its the opposite of it, not even having a recognisable plot, and thats what leads people to think it was the result of drugs, which is quite sad because MindScrew is an awesome trope.
** TheCatepiller Caterpillar was a big contributor to that. (Know what it was smoking in the hookah? It wasn't tobacco, that's for sure. But the thing it, that was far more common in Victorian England than it was now.)
** Its mostly because of how outright absurd it seems; from a generic person's view, [[Literature/TheLordOfTheRings having Earth's prehistory as magical, with medieval European looking civilisations, with elves, orcs and dwarves and with a fallen dark lord that once disguised himself as a bishounen to fool the elves]] or
** The
Changed line(s) 34,35 (click to see context) from:
** But most people have dreams and they aren't mad. Though YMMV, I suppose.
** I've seen Harry Potter fanfictions where Harry or another character was insane. They aren't published as adaptions because ''Literature/HarryPotter'' is still under copyright, but it's definitely a type of fan fiction. I don't know about the other fantasy books listed.
** I've seen Harry Potter fanfictions where Harry or another character was insane. They aren't published as adaptions because ''Literature/HarryPotter'' is still under copyright, but it's definitely a type of fan fiction. I don't know about the other fantasy books listed.
to:
** But most people have dreams and they aren't mad. Though YMMV, I suppose.
mad.
** I've seenHarry Potter ''Harry Potter'' fanfictions where Harry or another character was insane. They aren't published as adaptions because ''Literature/HarryPotter'' is still under copyright, but it's definitely a type of fan fiction. I don't know about the other fantasy books listed.
** I've seen
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 54 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Rabbit:''' Now tell me, Pat, what's that in the window?\\
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why are the Chess pieces white and red instead of white and black? Keep in mind that the book was published in 1871, so the answer is most likely not "political correctness".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
*** [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries]] has them as two separate characters.
to:
*** [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part two-part TV movie/miniseries]] has them as two separate characters.characters, but that's because the first part is an adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and the second part is an adaptation of Through the Looking-Glass.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
*** {{Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries}} has them as two separate characters.
to:
*** {{Film/AliceInWonderland1985 [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries}} movie/miniseries]] has them as two separate characters.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
*** [Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries]has them as two separate characters.
to:
*** [Film/AliceInWonderland1985 {{Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries]has movie/miniseries}} has them as two separate characters.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
*** [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries has them as two separate characters.
to:
*** [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 [Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries has movie/miniseries]has them as two separate characters.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** [[Film/AliceInWonderland1985 The 1985 2-part TV movie/miniseries has them as two separate characters.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 72,73 (click to see context) :
** I have my own ideas about word meanings, but remember this list is not canon unless noted:
Jabberwock: A large fearsome draconic animal. Jub-Jub Bird: An enormous bird with a piercing shreik. (Canon) Frumious: Fuming and furious. (Canon) Bandersnatch: A murderous creature of some sort. Vorpal: The quality of being made with the material Vorpal. Manxome: Fearsome, powerful, and mysterious. Tum-Tum Tree: A variety of Carrolian tree. Uffish: A state of mind when the voice is gruffish, the manner roughish, and the temper huffish (Canon) Whiffling: Swift and whistling. (As in moving quickly.) Tulgey: Tangley, ugly, and bulgey. Burble: A sound halfway between a bubble and a gurgle. Snicker-snack: Onomatopoeia for the sound of a sword swinging and cutting. Galumphing: Galloping triumphantly. Beamish: Bright, energetic, or making one beam. Frabjous: Fabulous, rapt, and joyous. Callooh! Callay!: Exclamation of joy. Chortled: Combination of snorted and chuckled.
Jabberwock: A large fearsome draconic animal. Jub-Jub Bird: An enormous bird with a piercing shreik. (Canon) Frumious: Fuming and furious. (Canon) Bandersnatch: A murderous creature of some sort. Vorpal: The quality of being made with the material Vorpal. Manxome: Fearsome, powerful, and mysterious. Tum-Tum Tree: A variety of Carrolian tree. Uffish: A state of mind when the voice is gruffish, the manner roughish, and the temper huffish (Canon) Whiffling: Swift and whistling. (As in moving quickly.) Tulgey: Tangley, ugly, and bulgey. Burble: A sound halfway between a bubble and a gurgle. Snicker-snack: Onomatopoeia for the sound of a sword swinging and cutting. Galumphing: Galloping triumphantly. Beamish: Bright, energetic, or making one beam. Frabjous: Fabulous, rapt, and joyous. Callooh! Callay!: Exclamation of joy. Chortled: Combination of snorted and chuckled.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 48 (click to see context) from:
** The exact wording is important here. He doesn’t say “One can’t, but two can”. After Alice says “One can’t help growing older” he says “One can’t, perhaps, but two can”. The “perhaps” is key. I think he is saying to Alice “Well, if you claim that you can’t kill yourself, I won’t insist on the point, as you know yourself better than I do. But I’m quite sure that someone else could kill you”.
to:
** The exact wording is important here. He doesn’t say “One can’t, but two can”. After Alice says “One can’t help growing older” he says “One can’t, perhaps, but two can”. The “perhaps” is key. I think he is saying to Alice “Well, if you claim that you can’t kill yourself, I don't necessarily agree, but I won’t insist on the point, as you know yourself better than I do. But I’m quite sure that someone else could kill you”.
