Talk:Through the Looking-Glass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Original talk questions[edit]

Why does the link for the html version with illustrations point at Alice in Wonderland?

Shouldn't it point to [[1]]?

Yes and no. Yes it was pointing at "Alice" and needed to be changed, but no, the suggested address doesn't have illustrations. I found an illustrated HTML edition at [2] (the TOC there has both books, and background music, so I linked to Chapter 1). Mpolo 09:46, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

"While the game described (a list of moves is included)" - where is this list? I have not found it in any text I know of.


Judging by your description and my research, it was probably 1938 or somewhere around that time, but I can't say for sure.

Title of article[edit]

Shouldn't this be renamed Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There for accuracy's sake? Rhindle The Red 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even in my recent copy of the book, the title page says "Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. The question is whether there should be a comma after looking-glass or not. 17:36, 01 April 2007
I disagree. Wouldn't "and What Alice Found There" qualify as a subtitle? If so, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles suggests that the main title should be used for the article name with a redirect for the full title (including the subtitle). I believe that is what has been done here. --Rtrace 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rtrace; searching the Library of Congress catalogs shows that none of the titles include "and What Alice Found There", save one record annotation which redirects to a search based on the title without that phrase. --Quaeler 23:37, 1.apr.07 (UTC)

Moving/cleaning References to Pop Culture section[edit]

I suggest moving the unique elements of this section to the Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland page, and replacing the contents of the section with a wiki-main-article tag pointing to that page... if there are no objections prior 13:00 22.may.07 UTC, i'll do the migration. Quaeler 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I thought that most everyone saw the sexual elements in the Alice books. Thus, linking them to the burgeoning Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) would simply act as another link, one of many to which the Alice books could be privy. James Nicol 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you could enumerate those themes in Through the Looking-Glass for that apparent minority that isn't "most everyone"? Quaeler 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, Quaeler. There is the sensuality of the opening scene between Alice & the black kitten (an obvious symbol for her own genitalia). There is the conflict between the Red Queen (menstruation, her incipient womanhood, the future) & the White Queen (virginity, childhood, purity, the past)--no wonder that the White Queen is forgetful, and the Red Queen exhorts Alice to run faster & faster. There is the disappointing nature of all the male figures (the childishness of Tweedledum & Tweedledee; the White King, asleep; the Red King, impotently making notes as the Lion & Unicorn [two highly sexed figures, esp. the Unicorn] fight for his crown; and the Knight, Carroll himself, who attempts to seduce Alice, but cannot quite, though it is the most romantic scene in the book, as she ends her childhood, becoming a Queen herself). And, of course, there is the last riddling rhyme of the book, spoken by the White Queen, as she tells Alice to bid farewell to childhood. The answer to the last rhyme is "an oyster", which, again represents the female genitalia.
That's just a start, Quaeler. There's much more. James Nicol 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, is that a joke or a serious analysis of the books? That's amazing. Who first came up with all that? --JayHenry 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say i'm usually all for the alternative point of view and entertaining a certain amount of art-bell-ish-ness, but this is stunning. If there's some sort of peer-reviewed published analysis supporting your viewpoint, then it would merit further review; otherwise i'm pretty sure there's long wikipedia precedent that individual interpreted symbolism generally doesn't merit inclusion. Quaeler 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Quaeler, I made a small correction to my initial statement. We shouldn't call them sexual themes, but, rather, sexual elements. I'm not sure what you mean by "individual interpreted symbolism", but seeing the sexual elements in the Alice books is standard fare for a literature seminar. Yes, if I dig, I can find articles that mention some of these (see Grotjahn, "About the Symbolization of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", American Imago, 1947; Nina Auerbach's "Alice in Wonderland: A Curious Child", in the Norton Critical Ed. of the Alice books, touches on a couple of these aspects as does Empson's article in the same book; Roger Henkle, in "Comedy from Inside" points out that T.T.L.-G. is about a rushing toward adulthood, though he says less about the sexual aspects, focusing more on fear of death; and you can find some of this in James Kincaid's book, Child-Loving). I'm not trying to add my list of observations to the articles on the Alice books. I simply wanted to add to the article a link to the category Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls). Articles on literature should stick strictly to full summaries & other factual matters & not get into interpretation at all. However, if Wikipedia will have such categories as the several on pedophilia & child sexual abuse in literature, film, &c., then the Alice books should be listed. James Nicol 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm mistaken. But my interpretation is that a page like Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) is intended to document books in which pedophilia or child sexual abuse occur. So Lolita is an example of something that belongs on the list, as it's a book about a pedophile who sexually manipulates a 12-year-old. But even the interpretation mentioned above, even if universally accepted (which it's not), is not about pedophilia or sexual abuse. The only connection is that due to these interpretations and other biographical evidence some people believe that Carroll himself was unduly interested in the sexuality of young girls and therefore a pedophile. But this is already adequately covered in the Lewis Carroll article. I don't see sufficient evidence to justify this link in this article. --JayHenry 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Any sexual elements involving children are instances of child sexual abuse, are they not? Also, Lolita is NOT a book about a pedophile who sexually manipulates a 12-year-old. It's a story told by an pseudonymous man about his claimed lust & paranoia over a girl of early adolescence. He may be utterly crazy. He's not a reliable narrator. Further, please find the actual OCCURRENCE of child sexual abuse in Lolita. (Lolita, by the way, alludes to the Alice books often.)
You see the problem in creating such a category. James Nicol 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm... have you read Lolita? Regardless of whether or not you think Humbert is insane, he explicitly narrates having sex with a 12-year-old girl. I'm confused. Are you seriously arguing that this is not pedophilia, but an outlandish metaphor about a Red Queen representing menstruation is? --JayHenry 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
From the definition of pedophilia linked from the proposed category page: "Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the mental state of being sexually attracted preferentially or exclusively to prepubescent or early pubertal children." Lewis Carroll's hypothetical personal predilections aside, i don't see where this is applicably linked to the story in question. You, yourself, may see it, but this is individual interpretation, and doesn't have any critical relation to what may have been the aims of Carroll in writing the story. The story in question lacks any overt actions concerning, nor narrations describing contemplation of, sexual facets of Alice; the examples of sexuality that you see are subtle enough that they could be applied similarly freely to any work. Can you think of any piece of literature involving children in which you couldn't just as easily spin a yarn of sexual symbolism?
I think that perhaps this aspect of critical inspection is missing in your assessment here - no? For example, I can sit at my desk and see that the ratio between the height and the depth is amazingly close to the ratio of unemployment in france to unemployment in germany, but that doesn't mean that the desk was designed with that in mind (not even if the carpenter was keen on EU economic data). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Quaeler 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I've read Lolita at least twice & discussed it with many people. You misunderstand my remark. Please read my remarks closely. I object to your glib sentence as to what Lolita is "about". Your statement summarizing Lolita is no closer to that book's richness & complexity than mine. If Lolita were as simple as you made it sound, then it would hardly have rewarded readers for fifty years. Such glibness would call Invisible Man a book about a troubled Black guy who lives underground; Ulysses, a book about a man who walks around Dublin; Walden, a book by a man living by a pond. Well-wrought literature cannot be summed up in a line.
Now, if such a Wiki category as Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) exists, then Lolita belongs there as do the Alice books. That's all I'm saying. (By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite an actual OCCURRENCE of child sexual abuse in Lolita.)
The category, Quaeler, is "Pedophilia AND child sexual abuse in fiction (girls)". Thus, a text need not describe explicit pedophilia as long as it has sexuality concerning children. By that token, as you yourself admit, the category extends to almost any text. As to the Alice books, just because you & jay hadn't seen these elements hardly makes them subtle. I cited a handful of mentions of some of them w/out even delving into research. The issue is not whether the Alice books belong in this category (Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls)). The issue is the usefulness, besides bland prurience, of creating such a category. A cigar may be a cigar, but THIS cigar may be more than a cigar. The important word in this over-quoted line is "sometimes". James Nicol 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
'Subtle' as opposed to 'overt', is what i intended; the symbolism you cite is definitely not overt — the 'sexuality concerning children' you see only exists in your derived symbolism (whereas, continuing with Lolita, it is overt in the text - one needn't employ mechanisms of waxing philosophic).
Additionally, if we're in agreement that the classification, when employing such subjective uses of symbolism, can be extended to most any text - then i fail to see the value of labeling an individual item as a member of that grouping. Quaeler 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Quaeler, let’s recap: To the articles on each of the Alice books, I added a mere link to a peculiar & questionable category that I had come across, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls). You removed it, saying that such a link was “a bit steep”. Instead of simply re-attaching it, I moved to the Discussion page to state that I thought that the sexuality of the Alice books was common knowledge. You asked for examples. I supplied them. You asked for scholars who had noted the sexuality. I supplied citations. NOW, you claim that merely pasting the link back into these articles requires that the symbolism be “overt”, which must mean, if you see it. You have now become the individual master of this article & are employing what you called “individual interpreted symbolism” only the individual refuses to see it. No place in the category, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls), does the requirement “overt” appear. I have answered your every objection, but you just don’t like this category as one of the categories into which the Alice books fall. The fault is not with me nor with the Alice books nor even with you, really. The fault is with this peculiar & questionable category. If it shall continue to exist, then the Alice books belong w/in it, as I have shown. My question—and yours, too, I imagine—is why need this category exist? Shouldn’t Wikipedia stick to factual categories: “Fiction published in 19th-century England.” “Fiction w/ girls as the hero(in)es.” “Fiction that includes ‘nonsense verse’.” (Possibly a small category.) “Fiction organized around or by a game.” “Fiction written by mathematicians.” “Etc.,” as Kurt Vonnegut wrote.James Nicol 04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
       Ok, let's step back and look at your suggestions more abstractly. We have an item, a, which is an element of B (all books), which you believe belongs in a subset of B (let's call it C); the discussion must then turn to what are the rules of membership for an element's admission to C. As seemingly agreed to above, you present a standard which when applied to any element of B admits that element to C. In this scenario, there is no new information gained by attaching membership to C since everything that is in B is also in C.
       I don't think your goal is to really argue that everything belongs in C, so there must be something faulty about the standard - and what's faulty about that standard, imo, is that it is wildly subjective. As anyone who has sat through literature classes, or spent time in a room with people smoking pot, will note: in most any text, one can attach new symbolic meaning which is not literally mentioned in that text. To make this, then, the standard for admission to a group is equivalent to the proclamation of "because i said so"; this devolves quickly, for in most cases of symbolic representation in art, if there are 50 people saying "it's X", there are also 50 people saying "it's not X".
       Therefore, the standard must be whether there is an overt instance of the theme or not — whether there is literal mention of the topic at hand — for if it isn't, the grouping of anything artistic then becomes only an exercise of "how many people can i get to agree with my interpretation". This standard isn't nearly perfect, for it would certainly give the shaft to a number of works of political satire, but the standard is much much better than letting people's personal visions cloud the pool with invention. Quaeler 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Quaeler, your last remark begins very mathematically but then has some soft spots in it before it concludes, excepting the one remark that we shouldn’t place any text into this category, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls), unless it literally mentions the topic. I can live with that, but that would certainly, as you point out, eliminate many works. ‘’Lolita’’, for example, never actually mentions the word “pedophilia”. Indeed, I would need to check to see how it uses the word “sex”. Perhaps we should change the name of the category: Texts that explicitly mention sexual inclination between adults & children or between children.
I disagree w/ your dismissive remarks about literature classes. You must have had a poor education in that field or felt that your own opinions weren’t heard. There are plenty of interpretations that do not survive. Indeed, the “because I said so” is a good criterion for an unsuccessful interpretation. Further, interpretations aren't either/or. To say that the Alice books hold a lot of sexuality is neither to deny them a place as texts containing literary & political satire nor to deny them a place as stories of fantastic childhood exploits.
You have misunderstood one part of my argument, which is that this category, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls), is, indeed, the kind of subjectivity that proffers no real benefit in the objectively factual world of Wikipedia & should be eliminated to be replaced w/ the more objective standard (Texts that explicitly mention sexual inclination between adults & children or between children) you propose. James Nicol 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Adding a section break just so we have an easier edit button to click on. First off, my comment about Lolita was not meant to be interpreted as "Lolita is a book that is only about pedophilia, and it has nothing else meaningful in it." It's one of my favorite books, and my feelings are completely the opposite. All I meant was, the book Lolita contains explicit description of an adult male having sex with a 12-year-old girl. The book contains written passages of pedophilia and child sexual abuse (and yes, adults having sex with 12-year-olds is sexual abuse). Alice does not. But you seem to be saying above not that you think Alice belongs in the category, but that the category should be deleted. What do you want? Do you want the Pedophilia in fiction page deleted? Or do you want Alice on the page? Obviously you can't have both. --JayHenry 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

((thanks for the section break)). I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here; let's say i write the following poem: "through vast outer space; my ship speeds past our planets; spread the human race". The objective classifier reads this can say, "this should be tagged as senryu about space travel". One has every right to potentially read this and go, "this is some metaphor for creation in the womb" - but that right ends there. Barring interviews with me, or further referential writings i publish, which state it as my intentions, one cannot say, "this should be tagged as senryu about conception and prenatal existence'.
Sticking with the Lolita v. Alice argument as a parallel: there are pedantic explicit ((overt)) passages in Lolita which qualify it for inclusion in a grouping concerning pedophilia in fiction; in opposition, there are no such passages, but rather only interpreted symbolism, in Alice.
I don't know how else i can attempt to point out that grouping based on someone's interpreted, subjective, view of something must be fervently discouraged for it opens the door to any and all future claims of grouping, whether whimsical or not. Quaeler 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Even supposing this interpretation of all the motifs in the book is true, I still don't see what it has to do with paedophilia. Girls grow up physically and sexually. An acknowledgement of that is not paedophilia. (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have another question: I don't see what a discussion of Lolita is doing in a discussion of Through the Looking Glass. JHobson3 (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Through the Looking-Glass --Lox (t,c) 09:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been listed on WP:RM but seems to have been moved without waiting for discussion.

  • Oppose the move. Through the Looking Glass, with no mention of Alice, is an abbreviated title, and most English speakers would IMO see it as that. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There is a far better article title. Andrewa (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move. "Through the Looking Glass" has a number of contexts already requiring disambiguation, and a fair chunk of people have fallen into mistaken beliefs that the whole title has reference to Alice in it. (But let's not change reality - Through the Looking Glass is the title of the book - not an abbreviated title. See previous discussion on this page to dispel the wafting wisps of crack-rock smoke.) Quaeler (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Support I've been swayed. Quaeler (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is the title of the book, and what it is usually called. Most, if not all, of the uses on the dab page are references to it, less known than the original. (and will need to be disambiguated whether it is moved or not). We should not astonish the reader with the subtitle, although we should duly mention it; as we use Gulliver's Travels, not Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is what it is normally called, few people know and fewer use the subtitle. If disambiguation were needed, I'd support including the subtitle over various other options, but I see no big need for disambiguation here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Short title already redirects here so there is some kind of acknowledgment that it is the primary topic. If disambiguation is truly needed, then use "(novel)" or something similar rather than a cumbersome title which is not commonly known. --Polaron | Talk 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The article was at Through the Looking-Glass for years until it was moved last month without discussion. - EurekaLott (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Gulliver's Travels is a very different case, in that the informal title is almost universally used, so it's clearly the common name.

Here's what I think is going on: Many, perhaps even most, people don't even realise there were ever two books! They know Alice in Wonderland as a book or a film, and if as a film they know there was a book. And they're right; Some (not all) combined editions of the two books have been simply titled Alice in Wonderland, as have many adaptations, notably several films. Those who do know of the two books refer to them as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There (perhaps with a comma, but in my experience more often without it).

I deny this; and I grew up with Martin Gardner's annotated edition. Most people who know the difference call the books Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. The Red and White Kings do not reign over Wonderland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. So we have two differing opinions. It would be good to have others too IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
While I don't have a synopsis, I do notice that there's a Red Queen in the cast of Alice in Wonderland (1933 film), and that the movie is based on both books. So that's at least one Wonderland in which I'd guess the Red and White Kings do reign. I'm sure there are others, that just came to hand in quickly going down the links in the disambiguation page. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is true then the current redirect of Alice in Wonderland to Alices Adventures... is probably the most serious problem. This should instead be (or at least redirect to) the disambig currently at Alice in Wonderland (disambiguation), or better still a high-level article giving the information common to all the various books and adaptations, and linking to the more detailed articles on those that have them. Andrewa (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Please supply citations for significant use of the subtitle (except in contexts of extreme accuracy, where Swift's original title would also be used.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I get the idea, but who decides what is significant and what is a context of extreme accuracy? Even Wikipedia (;-> is sometimes extremely accurate. I'll have a look. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth my experiences mirror Pmanderson's. I've most often seen and referred to the books as Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • That's exactly the sort of report I think we need... a shame it goes against me! I guess I've always felt it a bit pretentious to shorten it to Through the Looking Glass, knowing that many people wouldn't know what it meant, whereas if you add the ...Alice... to it there's a good chance the light will dawn. The other title I've often heard is Alice Through the Looking Glass, which I don't think has ever been an official title but I notice we already have a redirect, a year or so old. Hmmm. Andrewa (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To Andrewa: Who decides? Consensus here once we have the data, I guess; but I would trust Andrewa not to twist data like one of our Fooish nationalists proving his national claim to Barland. ;>

By significant, I meant a significant proportion of English usage, in more or less the statistical sense. By "extreme accuracy", I meant to exclude such contexts as bibliographies, library catalogs, accounts of the publication history, and so on, in favor of writing for the general reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

I think that in issues such as this the general reader is heavily influenced by what library catalogs and similar use, particularly since Disney's Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) combined plot elements from the two books under the one title (it was not the first significant film or other adaptation to do so, but was IMO highly influential in establishing this usage). Many who would instantly recognise an Alice and know the who an Alice band is named after now (unfortunately IMO) only even distinguish the two books in situations of extreme accuracy, or even pretentiousness. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


In all three pairs, the first is included in the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to favor the shorter version. Although, I must say, as long as we all agree that Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There should be retained as a redirect to Through the Looking-Glass or vice-versa it makes no practical difference where we place the article. The precision will be maintained in the lead either way. Another point to consider is Special:Whatlinkshere/Through_the_Looking-Glass,_and_What_Alice_Found_There. The vast majority of which point to the short version. As there's no practical difference, we seem to have a lot of evidence that both on Wikipedia and in general Through the Looking-Glass is a somewhat more common usage. If I may, I suggest we simply go with that and move along. --JayHenry (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No question it should be a redirect; if anyone searches for all that, they should get here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC) uses both titles but suggests that the long version is the proper title, no suggestion on the page that part is a subtitle (the page name does shorten it too). Andrewa (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I would read that as suggesting that the bookseller thought Alice Through the Looking-Glass was the most common title; it is not impossible he's right, but I doubt it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • In either case, this particular bookseller pointedly avoids the title that omits Alice. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm the owner of; I'm not a bookseller. By "Proper title" I meant, actual title. The half-title page of the edition I have (Macmillan and Co., London, 1935) and the title page both have, THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS / And What Alice Found There, so Through The Looking Glass was used as the title for this edition, with And What Alice Found There in a subsidiary role, although, since it does not stand alone, it cannot, strictly speaking, I suppose, be a sub-title. I used Alice Through The Looking Glass for the URL partly because that's a popular (however incorrect) title people might use in searches, and partly just because I wanted to get "Alice" in the URL. Barefootliam (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC) is another interesting page... it does render the second half in slightly smaller letters. Does that make it a subtitle? I don't think so, but there's something going on obviously. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would especially appreciate any comments from editors of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, since it's had a vigorous discussion about subtitles in the past (and I see you just moved it). You can direct any comments over to WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superlusertc 2007 December 23, 08:36 (UTC)

Infobox image?[edit]

So is that an image of a first printing in the infobox? I guess I ask because I don't think it's really a very interesting image, and since all the wonderful John Tenniel illustrations are in the public domain, might it not be more interesting to use some more of them? commons:John Tenniel? --JayHenry (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support this. The a gold imprint of the Black Queen. What could be more boring? May I suggest the John Tenniel picture of the Chessboard landscape? --15lsoucy (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary[edit]

Is it bothering anyone else that the Plot Summary doesn't include the part about the deer and the forest where everyone forgets their names? My guess is probably not, but I tried to insert it into the Plot Summary and this was reverted. Comments? --15lsoucy (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm surprised there is no mention of the psychedelic context of the story. I'm sure there has been some academic stuff on this. No? Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Publication Date[edit]

It is my understanding, also shared among other Alice books (such as the Annotated edition by Martin Gardner), that the book was published in 1872. I think LC was still writing it in 1871. Can someone change this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasp in Wig status[edit]

Two things. Firstly, the article refers to the "Wasp in a Wig" chapter as "suppressed." While this term has often been used, it is generally in inverted commas and is clearly a joke that plays on the vogue for conspiracy theories. Jokes are inappropriate for encyclopaedia entries. When a section of text is voluntarily removed by its own author, a more appropriate term is simply "deleted."

More importantly, the article currently claims:

The discovery is generally accepted as genuine, though some doubting voices have been raised.

This claim is made without reference, nor any description of how "general acceptance" could be assessed. I have only been aware of the deleted chapter for a few hours; but from those few hours of visiting Lewis Carroll blogs, it seems to me that this claim is almost certainly untrue. A number of Carroll enthusiasts refuse to take a position, on the grounds that the debate is too unenlightening and too acrimonious. Those that do take a position are roughly equally divided, and many of them defend their positions, well, acrimoniously.

(I don't take any position myself, as I am not a Carroll scholar and know too little about the issue -- although I am deeply puzzled as to how an art object or document appearing without provenance could be accepted as probably genuine without a shred of positive evidence.) -- (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic Windows encoded characters in citation[edit]

The web citation in the reference on

a 1982 38-minute Soviet cutout-animated film made by Kievnauchfilm studio and directed by Yefrem Pruzhanskiy,

included characters that look weird and out of place


because the page cited uses Cyrillic Windows-1251 encoding. I've replaced those with their Unicode equivalents:


Thnidu (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


Im doing a test and i cannot find this answer anywhere. Alice advances one square on the chessband everytime she crosses a little what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you Google "alice crosses chessboard" then the answer should be clear. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)