The Sheila Variations

Talk about arrogance, "I'm going to rewrite 'Alice in Wonderland!'".

Why not write something of your own, pal?

Maybe I'll "reimagine" Ben Hur on the NASCAR circuit.

heh heh heh. Actually, I might like to see that one!! Write the screenplay, Bill! It could be another Hot Shots!

This author-guy sounds like he thinks he has done a better job than Carroll - appealing to the masses or whatever - "also, kids need more violence these days ..." Or whatever boneheaded thing he said.

So arrogant.

This sounds like totally thoughtless dreck. "Oh, look at me: aren't I so inspired and original and kewl to modernize a literary classic?! I mean, NO ONE has ever done anything like that before!" Blah.

Alice in Wonderland is a wicked satire of Victorian society, and of the absurd realities behind social conventions generally. Through the Looking Glass is more universal, more abstract, even more self-conscious. But they're both treasures of the English language, and this pompous fool clearly doesn't have the slightest understanding of that.

Yeah - it's the equivalent of someone saying: "God, those Anne of Green Gables books would be so great if there was more violence in them! Let's re-write them, putting in sex and murder and stuff that 'boys' would like."

arrrghhhhhhh

Billy Bob Hur

hahahahaha

In general, I think total rewrites are bad. Influences are okay. Stealing bits of material isn't bad, as long as you use it in your own way. But that's like an idea, or an image, not a whole paragraph.

I'd much rather have Alice and the Jabberwocky go on a cross-country escapade, dodging police and picking up boys along the way, and then holding hands as they drove off a cliff.

But ... that's ... just ... me.

And I definitely also hear the voice of Gilda Radner as Roseanna Roseanadanna: "Too much violins on television? I don't think there are enough violins."

"Oh. Never mind."

Dave,
That was Emily Litella that said that, not Roseanne Roseannadanna. The latter was the one who told the story about seeing Bo Derek come out of a restaurant bathroom with toilet paper stuck to the bottom of her shoe. Remember?

Oh yeah, and this guy writing that book is a schmuck.

I shudder to think what classic goes on the chopping block next, if this wretched rewrite is successful.

Winnie-the-Pooh retold in the style of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"?

The Oz books reworked to "explain" current geopolitics?

"The Borrowers" as a Marxist treatise?

Ugh. One of the things I love about children's literature, and one of the reasons why I still read "kids' books" (despite being 35) is that they are an escape from all that - from sexual descriptions, and geopolitical theory, and usually violence. And for someone to declare that the books need to be rewritten, with all that stuff put in, to make them "relevant" makes me very very tired.

I think it's the guy's tone - the idea that it "needs" to be updated for "modern" readers that so rubs me the wrong way. That, and the idea that it needed a little of the ultraviolence to make it palatable to the post-MTV, post-x-box generation.

I love the Alice books. I have a copy of "The Annotated Alice" which makes them even more wonderful - Martin Gardener giving lots of detail on the various references and Victorian in-jokes.

I always had sort of a soft spot for poor ol' Bill the Lizard.

Wow. My Fanwank Alarm is going off full blast. This thing sounds like utter crap.

Well, Red, what do you think then about "Wicked" (the book or the musical)?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060987103/qid=1094750203/sr=8-1/ref=pd_cps_1/102-5823715-9136153?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I don't have a problem with Wicked. I think that's a rather clever idea, actually. Almost like The Mists of Avalon, or something like that. Taking peripheral characters, and moving them center stage. If it's well-written, I think it can be quite effective.

It's the TONE of the author's comments in the article about the ORIGINAL Alice that rubbed me the wrong way. "Kids need violence today ... also, boys don't read Alice ... so let's 'fix' it." Yuk.

Like - if you're gonna re-write a classic, then at least admit that the fucking thing is a classic for a REASON. Show some respect.

Gregory Maguire has nothing but respect for Baum's original creation.

I read "Wicked", and enjoyed it - then I went back and re-read Baum's original "Wonderful Wizard of Oz" to refresh my memory about some of the situations.

I was surprised that a number of details were altered, such as places and situations. I also have a book called "The Encyclopedia of Imaginary Places" (I think that's the title) that has a large map of the Land of Oz, and a lot of the details in it and in "Wicked" don't match up very well.

I also wasn't thrilled with the Maguire's characterizations of the Tin Man/Scarecrow/Lion in his book - they just seemed too "adult" for the established spirit of the book, and the movie too.

Don't get me wrong - I loved "Wicked" - but I don't think Maguire was as respectful of Baum's original vision as you think he was...

Well, as far as I know, Maguire didn't make any boneheaded ignorant statements like that other dipshit did.

Also, I was always more of an Alice fan than a Dorothy fan. Alice is one of my all-time favorite books, so I feel more proprietary towards the genius of the Alice books, I suppose.

That Encyclopedia sounds fun!

I'll see if I can find the exact title.

I am much more of an Oz fan than I ever was of Alice. Alice and the denizens of Wonderland were just creepy... ;)

The other difference between "Wicked" and this current thing, is that "Wicked" is very definitely for adults, not for children.

Apparently, this new "Alice" is supposedly for children.

I think that's part of my objection there - it's not an artistic reimagining through an adult's eye, it's a total redo. Kind of like the advertisement for a home-dec show with the supposed decorating student who walks around the house and says "I love it! Let's gut it!"