http://theyomen.com/2008/11/30/alice-in-wonderland-and-through-the-looking-glass/ Reflection on ancient and contemporary worship and literature. Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:15:25 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 http://theyomen.com/2008/11/30/alice-in-wonderland-and-through-the-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-498 Amira Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:03:04 +0000 http://theyomen.com/?p=103#comment-498 Well at least now I don't feel stupid. I NEVER got these books and I tried because it was kind of expected in the UK, but I got lost and gave up. Well at least now I don’t feel stupid. I NEVER got these books and I tried because it was kind of expected in the UK, but I got lost and gave up.

]]> http://theyomen.com/2008/11/30/alice-in-wonderland-and-through-the-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-497 Adam B. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:19:01 +0000 http://theyomen.com/?p=103#comment-497 I read an introduction that spoke of those things you mentioned, but sadly they were not enough to redeem the basic story. (As an aside, the introduction was so scholarly and opaque you would have needed to be an 18th century scholar, an expert in the disciplines of logic, etymology, psychology, and non-sense, and a ridiculous fan of Carroll to make any sense of it at all.) I felt like Carroll corrected some of his plot mistakes in the sequel The Looking Glass by having a definite goal to the book (her becoming a queen) and an organizing principle (the chess game). In the second book he was able to maintain all the word games and logical queries without making a muck of the story. Despite the obvious strengths you mentioned that have made the book a classic, the book is, at the end of the day, a story and as a story it was unsatisfying. I read an introduction that spoke of those things you mentioned, but sadly they were not enough to redeem the basic story. (As an aside, the introduction was so scholarly and opaque you would have needed to be an 18th century scholar, an expert in the disciplines of logic, etymology, psychology, and non-sense, and a ridiculous fan of Carroll to make any sense of it at all.) I felt like Carroll corrected some of his plot mistakes in the sequel The Looking Glass by having a definite goal to the book (her becoming a queen) and an organizing principle (the chess game). In the second book he was able to maintain all the word games and logical queries without making a muck of the story. Despite the obvious strengths you mentioned that have made the book a classic, the book is, at the end of the day, a story and as a story it was unsatisfying.

]]> http://theyomen.com/2008/11/30/alice-in-wonderland-and-through-the-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-496 Brian Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:35:50 +0000 http://theyomen.com/?p=103#comment-496 Haha but the entire point of the book wonderland is language, not story or plot. He never answers any questions because if he did answer them, he would have gone against his assertions about language. The man was, and is still is, one of the most notably Logicians. He wrote the book trying to show the foolishness of arguing with only informal logic. I guess if you go into the book Wonderland expecting to come out with a knowledge of the story's conclusion it would be quite a let down. However, if you read it enlightened of its actually point, you may find it to be quite spectacular. Haha but the entire point of the book wonderland is language, not story or plot. He never answers any questions because if he did answer them, he would have gone against his assertions about language. The man was, and is still is, one of the most notably Logicians. He wrote the book trying to show the foolishness of arguing with only informal logic. I guess if you go into the book Wonderland expecting to come out with a knowledge of the story’s conclusion it would be quite a let down. However, if you read it enlightened of its actually point, you may find it to be quite spectacular.

]]>