The white rabbit's hole

Bloodmist · Post by **Bloodmist** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:44 pm

Now I haven't read the book, and the last time i saw the movie i was to young to figure it out. So, I hated it

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:48 pm

Oh God...they did a Disney of it? I can not for the life of me imagine Disney doing even an acceptable job of conveying AiW...

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:02 pm

Originally posted by Kameleon
Oh God...they did a Disney of it? I can not for the life of me imagine Disney doing even an acceptable job of conveying AiW...

Well its been out for some time now. Thats what Jae's avatar is from.

I dont remember it very well, though...

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:03 pm

Originally posted by Tybaltus
Well its been out for some time now. Thats what Jae's avatar is from.

Errgh...*pukes*

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:03 pm

Originally posted by Kameleon

Errgh...*pukes*

LOL!

I daren't say how many years ago I saw this film, but let us say that it was a while

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:13 pm

The movie was well-animated, but it did take enormous license with Dodgson's originals. Can't say I've encountered a filmed Alice that didn't, however, and I've seen three or four.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:34 pm

Originally posted by fable
The movie was well-animated, but it did take enormous license with Dodgson's originals. Can't say I've encountered a filmed Alice that didn't, however, and I've seen three or four.

Yes, ..while the animations were fabulous, the story was rather watered down for the "holsom Disney" audiences. Much of the satire and darkness was white washed to suit the pallet of the American families of the Ozzy and Harriet generation

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:37 pm

I've been trying to recall how many Alice films I've seen over the years.

There's Disney; and then there's a poor 1930s Hollywood version with famous actors, that's fun but has even less to do with Dodgson than Disney did. There was a horrific 1960s hour length Alice cartton for television with Sammy Davis Junior as the "Black Rabbit," terrible rock, and Alice suddenly cutting loose in a mini-skirt before psychedelic lights.

Then there was a British Alice about twenty years ago, with actors in full costume--even Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan were impossible to see, as they mugged mercilessly. The actress appeared much too old. It fell flat.

And there was a Czech Alice about 15 years ago, a surrealistic film with a lot of "in" digs at various things, that bore almost no resemblance to Dodgson. It ended though on a wonderfully chilling note: Alice saying that "Now I've got the key, so I'm in charge. Who shall I kill, first?"

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:39 pm

My 2 cents

Well i personally think AiW is a story written by a great logician, who fused logic with "drugs". Well if you ask me the whole story rotats about Alice and her VERY wierd adventures in Wonderland right? I mean please: The writer was obviously into mushrooms or LSD. Just think about it: You've got talking animals, falling into a deep hole and emerging into another world while following a white rabbit(Some LSD tabs have white rabbits on them), (huge)flowers who talk to her, especially suspicious is the fact that you've got a catterpillar smoking herbs from a pipe on a mushroom who then encourages Alice to eat a piece of the mushroom to transport her somewhere???(i think, i'm working on memory here) and the list goes on: Walking cards etc, etc... but that's just my interpretation.
All in all it's a great story, i guess.

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:50 pm

Originally posted by fable
I've been trying to recall how many Alice films I've seen over the years.

There's Disney; and then there's a poor 1930s Hollywood version with famous actors, that's fun but has even less to do with Dodgson than Disney did. There was a horrific 1960s hour length Alice cartton for television with Sammy Davis Junior as the "Black Rabbit," terrible rock, and Alice suddenly cutting loose in a mini-skirt before psychedelic lights.

Then there was a British Alice about twenty years ago, with actors in full costume--even Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan were impossible to see, as they mugged mercilessly. The actress appeared much too old. It fell flat.

And there was a Czech Alice about 15 years ago, a surrealistic film with a lot of "in" digs at various things, that bore almost no resemblance to Dodgson. It ended though on a wonderfully chilling note: Alice saying that "Now I've got the key, so I'm in charge. Who shall I kill, first?"

You sat through all those, but you still won't watch Star Wars? Baffling

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:53 pm

Re: My 2 cents

Originally posted by Lintelyg
I mean please: The writer was obviously into mushrooms or LSD. Just think about it: You've got talking animals, falling into a deep hole and emerging into another world while following a white rabbit(Some LSD tabs have white rabbits on them)...

Most of the people I've known who took drugs couldn't write a decent memo, much less a novel.

And yes, I know you're joking.

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:57 pm

Re: Re: My 2 cents

Originally posted by fable
Most of the people I've known who took drugs couldn't write a decent memo, much less a novel. And yes, I know you're joking.

It's actually a well known theory that Charles Dodgson was on drugs when he wrote Alice, or at least that he had lots of experience with them. Probably 'shrooms it was, too.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:03 pm

I know for sure there have been some of the best poets have done their finest work while drugged out. And we read some of that stuff in Early British lit class. So there is very little doubt that when he came up with the idea of AiW, that he was drugged out.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:20 am

Ahah, I take it you mean Keats and that ilk. One word. Opium.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:26 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus
I know for sure there have been some of the best poets have done their finest work while drugged out.

So name several. I don't know of one. I know of a couple of beat poets who took drugs occasionally, but tore up whatever poetry they tried to write while under the influence; it was extraordinarily bad.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:36 am

Originally posted by fable
So name several. I don't know of one. I know of a couple of beat poets who took drugs occasionally, but tore up whatever poetry they tried to write while under the influence; it was extraordinarily bad.

Lets see, Xanadu was apparently written while Coleridge was ill and on opium. Poe was also apparently a drug abuser.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:40 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Lets see, Xanadu was apparently written while Coleridge was ill and on opium. Poe was also apparently a drug abuser.

The Xanadu/Coleridge myth is just that, a myth, as he himself admitted; but he never could shut the thing down. Poe did take drugs for a while, but he never wrote while using 'em. And much of his best and wildest work was done before that period. (Besides, Poe isn't unusual in his subject matter, which is what the drugs-free-you-to-be-an-artist crap tries to maintain. He was a standard gothic author in that respect. Rather, it's the sustained control of suspense and emotion through meticulous vocabulary and grammar that makes his stories thrilling, and you don't get precision from a drug high.)

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:43 am

Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents

Originally posted by Kameleon
It's actually a well known theory that Charles Dodgson was on drugs when he wrote Alice, or at least that he had lots of experience with them. Probably 'shrooms it was, too.

There's no indication that Dodgson's delightful logical paradoxes were done on drugs. Hell, mathematicians (of which Dodgson was one) have been turning out the kind of thing that made up much of both Alice and LookingGlass on a far smaller scale for centuries. Could I have some references for this? Here's all I have been able to find on the subject, from a consensus of the experts who regularly post in the Lewis Carroll (International) Discussion Forum:

"The idea that Lewis Carroll's imaginative characters and stories are a product of drug stupor was first spread in the 1960's by adherents of the then new LSD subculture. The rumor is believed to have originated from the psychiatrists who introduced LSD into our society. The Lewis Carroll rumors claimed that Carroll used drugs when he wrote his stories, suggesting that a drug, not Carroll's fertile imagination was responsible for these creative literary works. These rumors have been a huge marketing success for the business of psychiatry, serving to instill the common belief that drugs are a useful remedy to an otherwise unimaginative lifestyle. However, the rumors are not based on facts. There is no evidence linking "Lewis Carroll" (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) with mind-altering drug use."

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:56 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents

Originally posted by fable
There's no indication that Dodgson's delightful logic paradoxes were done on drugs. Hell, mathematicians (of which Dodgson was one) have been turning out that kind of thing on a much smaller scale for centuries. Could I have some references for this?

I said theory, just as a counter to your assertion that Lintelyg must have been joking - I have no belief of this myself, although it does seem strange to me that most of the arguments against the theory go along the lines of "LSD wasn't invented until the 50's". Why these people refuse to acknowledge the existence of magic mushrooms is beyond me. Anyway, I was just playing Devil's Advocate really, rather than stating my personal beliefs. It's very hard to find proof of such things one way or another, as drug use wasn't a socially accepted thing in these people's day either. There are rumours that Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Sir Walter Scott and Shelley were all on opium, too.

Oh, and even if Carroll did do drugs, I think that it's a far better proposal that he was merely writing some of the exceedingly weird things in Alice from memory of trips, rather than being on one when he wrote it. I agree that people don't do their best work under the influence of various substances...hell, I could probably show you a couple of examples

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:13 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents

Originally posted by Kameleon
I said theory, just as a counter to your assertion that Lintelyg must have been joking - I have no belief of this myself, although it does seem strange to me that most of the arguments against the theory go along the lines of "LSD wasn't invented until the 50's".

I know you said it was a theory, and you'll note my questions weren't addressed at you.

Even so, it's more of a myth than a theory, since there's no evidence Dodgson ever took drugs, during a time when drug use had a lot less negative connotations than it has, today.

I agree that people don't do their best work under the influence of various substances...hell, I could probably show you a couple of examples

Unfortunately, the myth still persists that drugs enhance the imagination. This is nonsense. The hard part isn't accessing extraordinary visions; many people have them, and totally without drugs. The problem comes in developing and maintaining the incredibly delicate control needed to realize those visions for others in a specific medium. And that takes an enormous amount of hard work and concentration.