Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Through the Looking-Glass/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2025 [1].

Through the Looking-Glass

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 12:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second Alice book by Lewis Carroll, the sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, which was published six years earlier. The article has had the benefit of a thorough and enormously helpful peer review by UndercoverClassicist, Dudley Miles, Gog the Mild, KJP1, Dmass, Wehwalt and SchroCat, to all of whom I am most grateful. As always, suggestions for further improvement will be gladly received. – Tim riley talk 12:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I shall send in the king's men.

  • "It was the sequel to his Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), in which many of the characters are anthropomorphic playing-cards." Consider "are" → 'were' to avoid confusion as to whether the "in which" refers to Wonderland or "the sequel"
  • OK. Done. While you're here, Gog, taking note of your comment about the length of the Plot section I've whittled it down to 1,100 words, and as there are existing FAs about novels with Plot sections over 1,000 words I hope the latest version will be found acceptable. Tim riley talk 12:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me. I didn't realise that my words carried such weight. I shall have to wield them with care. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words, my dear Gog, always carry weight, and the more so when you are commenting in line with the Manual of Style, which specifies "between 400 and 700 words" for a plot summary. It adds that if an editor believes more words are needed for a particular article s/he should "be prepared to explain why", which I think I am, for the reasons discussed at PR. Tim riley talk 13:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I have followed that up with a rationale here and would value your comments. Tim riley talk 16:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at her house, Hetton Lawn, Charlton Kings, near Cheltenham". Maybe 'at her house, Hetton Lawn, in Charlton Kings, near Cheltenham'?
  • Is "about 1,400 words" "substantial"?
  • "Alice will be a queen if she can advance all the way to the eighth rank on the board." Perhaps a footnote explaining that this is indeed one of the rules of chess?
  • "The brothers begin suiting up for their battle". "suiting up" is not going to communicate with most readers.
  • "frightened away by the monstrous crow." Perhaps 'a'?
  • "The March Hare and Hatter". Not 'the Hatter'?
  • I do like the new improved plot. It is virtually publishable in its own right.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^"with Angela Glynne as Alice, with Derek McCulloch as narrator". Perhaps one use of "with" could be tweaked? Or the second deleted.

Indeed! Trimmed.

That's all from me. What can I say? Other than that I am jealous. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog! As for jealousy, your Hundred Years' War articles are a continuing series of excellences, whereas this is a one-off. (If this one gets to FA I might look at Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but that's rather a daunting proposition.) Tim riley talk 16:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

[edit]

Support per my detailed comments here at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt. Comments and support greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 12:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

One point which I fogot to raise at PR: at the moment, Charlton Kings is pretty definitely in Cheltenham. Was that not (yet) so in Carroll's day? From looking at the article, I think that's probably so.

Yes, I think so. Both Batey and Cohen say "near Cheltenham" Tim riley talk 13:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, I'm certainly at Support, much in line with Wehwalt above, though will give it another look for any further nits I failed to pick. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. Tim riley talk 13:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still to come, but I came across this little article by Robert Macfarlane on Carroll and Douglas Adams -- particularly the homage to "Jabberwocky" in the Vogon poetry -- which might be fruitfully rolled into what we already have. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am a great fan of Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hiker's Guide I think we have enough about him and it. I have batted off the idea of an excursus on the number 42 already. Tim riley talk 16:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The White Knight contains elements of Carroll himself and of a college friend, Augustus Vernon Harcourt,: I'd be interested to know what these were, if anybody does.
  • In a 1933 essay Shane Leslie suggests that in Through the Looking Glass Carroll was satirising the controversial Oxford Movement in the Church of England, Tweedledum and Tweedledee representing high church and low church respectively: I think this whole thing needs a litle bit of context.
  • I'm reluctant to expand this bit. First, Leslie's theory is by no means universally accepted and I don't want to give it undue prominence; secondly, though Carroll himself was in sympathy with the Oxford Movement, he wasn't prominent in it and didn't make a feature of it; and thirdly, I think the blue links do the job pretty well for readers wanting to know more. (With a few more citations the OM article would be a pretty impressive piece, in my view.) Tim riley talk 07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have MOS:NOFORCELINK, so shouldn't rely totally on the blue links. I don't think it would be much of a loss to say something like "the controversial Oxford movement, which sought to align the Church of England more closely with the Catholic Church, with Tweedledum representing "high-church" reformers and Tweedledee representing "low-church" opponents of the movement". I think the idea about Leslie's theory being controversial is separate: if it's going to be in it, it should be explained fully; if it's not worth explaining fully, it probably shouldn't be there at all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, all right! Will do. Tim riley talk 15:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Think the Plot section has one too many images for the space available
  • File:Lewis_Carroll_1863.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Alice_knight.jpg: can an English translation be provided for the source and author?
Thank you, Nikkimaria. Some questions above if you'd be so kind. Tim riley talk 16:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

I can't possibly not review this. (... if he left off dreaming without you ...) —Kusma (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: There is a lot on the many famous plot elements and comparatively little on the real world. In particular, wouldn't John Tenniel merit a mention, given that he even had influence on the text?
  • Illustrations: when did the discussions with Tenniel and others happen? I am a bit confused about the timeline here because "only at his own pace" sounds like Tenniel might have slowed down the book, but "He thinks it possible (but not likely) that we might get it out by Christmas 1869" sounds like the discussions went reasonably quickly (assuming they started after January 1869) and that Tenniel was planning to be reasonably fast.
  • This has been a bugbear throughout my overhaul: the sources are often vague and sometimes mutually contradictory about the progress of the draft. As I said at PR, I don't think I can be more specific. Tim riley talk 17:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have in the "Publication" section that Tenniel did indeed not complete the illustrations until 1871, which would be important context for the discussion? —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wasp in a Wig: "introduced a wasp wearing a yellow wig and includes" tense?
  • Poems and songs: the "lullaby" link stands out as a bit of an easter egg and does not lead to Alice-related content. Better to say "lullaby based on Rock-a-bye Baby"?
  • Could you create File:Alice-chess-problem.png again just turning off spellcheck? The red underline under "ch." in Red 6. is a bit distracting.

More later! I will also have to look through The Annotated Alice and Alice in a World of Wonderlands: The Translations to see if anything important from these sources is missing. There is now also Alice in a World of Wonderlands: The English-Language Editions of the Four Alice Books Published Worldwide, which could contain relevant information on the later publication history, which perhaps could be added. —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been too busy with offwiki things, but before this gets promoted, there is an issue in the Translations section that needs to be looked at. In particular, the "German translation" of Jabberwocky given is not the Christian Enzensberger one from Alice hinter den Spiegeln (because I know that one by heart, and it is "Verdaustig war's, und glasse Wieben // Rotterten gorkicht im Gemank // Gar elump war der Pluckerwank // Und die gabben Schweisel frieben"), but a standalone 1872 joke translation by Robert Scott, who claimed to have produced the German "original" that Carroll had translated into English. While Martin Gardner calls Es brillig war a "magnificent" translation, I personally think it is lame because it just transports the sounds and does not come with a Humpty Dumpty explanation of the portmanteau words etc., unlike Enzensberger's text. There is some of the history of Scott's poem in The Annotated Alice, in the "Looking-Glass House" chapter where Jabberwocky is first mentioned. In my 2000 "definite edition", it is on p. 151. I will try to comment more on translations (one of my favourite Alice-related topics) as soon as possible, but it might not be before the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very happy with the Plot and Themes sections. What I am missing a little is sales and a comparison of the success to that of the first Alice book. We have that it was critically well received, but very little about the editorial history. (Wouldn't it be worth to mention the existence of The Annotated Alice?) For example, the Looking-Glass is much less translated than the original Alice. (This was certainly true when Warren Weaver wrote Alice in Many Tongues, but I think it is true today and the bibliography in Alice in a World of Wonderlands: The Translations would support that). —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial sales are covered, and I don't recall seeing any published comparison of the sales of the second Alice book and those of the first. A related article about the post-publication editions and glosses of the two Alice books would be interesting, but the Annotated Alice and Aspects of Alice etc wouldn't fit well in the present article because they are about Wonderland at least as much as about Looking-Glass. I'm sure you're right about the sales of the first -v- the second novel, but I have no WP:RS to substantiate the point. Tim riley talk 12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Joint editions of both books are common, so I don't really think discussion of these are off-topic (I can offer some related quotes from my sources about translations). If you are looking for further RS, in addition to those I mentioned above, there is this "publishing history" (one of many reviews) that looks recent and useful and could perhaps clean up the remaining Tenniel issues. —Kusma (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still be uneasy about referring here to works that treat Wonderland at least as – and usually more – prominently than Looking-Glass. To my mind this topic belongs in (and merits) its own article. Thank you for the offer about translations, but we already have what seems to my inexpert eye an excellent article on those for Looking-Glass (though to my regret it reflects the book's relative neglect (65 languages) compared with Wonderland (175 languages)) and I don't want to overload the present article. Tim riley talk 10:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that not considering works treating Wonderland more prominently than Looking-Glass basically means ignoring three quarters of the reception of Looking-Glass. I do not think that is appropriate. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are going to have to agree to differ about this. Where any writer clearly refers solely to Looking-Glass that would be fine for mention here, but from my reading I find that most treat Carroll's two Alice books together when discussing themes, style, humour and so forth. Tim riley talk 11:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]

Support. I commented at peer review and the only other point I would make on re-reading is that I would merge the two sections on chess, but that is a matter of opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, once more, Dudley! Tim riley talk 17:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't you just hate it when friends borrow your books but never return them? I can't find my copy of Annotated Alice, but I'm confident that Tim has not left anything important out. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham. I can't find my copy of The Annotated Alice either, but happily it's online in an edition later than the one missing from my shelves. I haven't actually read Dante's Inferno but there ought to be a section for people one lends books to and don't return them. Meanwhile your support is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 16:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]

Note that most of these comments are just superficial and more stylistic suggestions, so feel free to disregard those, especially if they might just be BrEng/AmEng discrepancies:

  • Should "pen-name" by hyphenated? And "nursery-rhyme"?
  • I guess I should have worded this as "Should "pen-name" not by hyphenated?" for clarity. They're both currently hyphenated in the article. ~ HAL333 18:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. I've lost the hyphen from pen name, but kept it in nursery-rhyme, where it is in effect a compound attributive adjective, as one would write "the twentieth century" but "a twentieth-century filmstar". Tim riley talk 10:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might recommend shortening "or else only just short of it" to the more concise "or else just short"
  • "Morton N. Cohen suggests" - as Cohen is deceased, should it be "suggested"?
  • We usually adopt the present tense for what writers, even long dead ones, have written. Thus, "Shakespeare writes in a combination of prose and verse..." and "Homer writes of love, loyalty, piety, honor, self-sacrifice, courage, justice..." Tim riley talk 16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might shorten "The brothers begin suiting up for their battle" to "The brothers begin arming for battle"
  • "the plot is nothing to do with the novel" --> "the plot is unrelated to the novel"
  • Note 9 ("This and all the other line drawings from the book in this article are by Tenniel") needs a full stop.

That's all I got. Very nice work. ~ HAL333 16:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions and your kind comment. Tim riley talk 16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you'll address the minor hyphenation issue, so I'm happy to go ahead and support this FAC. ~ HAL333 18:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dmass

[edit]

I commented at peer review and all my concerns have been dealt with. An excellent article. Dmass (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comments and for support. Much appreciated. Tim riley talk 10:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Why do so many sources have page numbers and others not?
  • I'm still puzzled at what you are looking for. Both the citations to Amor's book have the page numbers given. You surely can't be suggesting we give them in in the Sources listings as well as in the References listing? I've never attempted such a thing, which seems to me nonsensical. Tim riley talk 07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also why the FIDE rules and the Wig PDF are formatted differently from the sources section - never mind lacking page numbers.
  • Links to a pdf generate that symbol willy-nilly. For the chess rule, I think the actual rule number is more helpful to the reader than the page number and it would clearly be unhelpful to have both. The other pdf is now gone. Tim riley talk 10:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle I follow, and have followed for dozens of FAs, is to put refs to a short or single-page journal article in the citations and to put in the sources section multi-page articles of which I refer to various pages (treating them like books in effect) in the citations. This seems to me to give readers the quickest route into the sources.
  • The chess rule is somewhat different than stated - pawns that advance to the last row are promoted to any piece - except for king - of the player's choosing (but most people pick queen).
  • If you read footnote 11 more carefully you will see that that is what it says. (If the Red Queen, Carroll and Tenniel chose to make the queenship automatic I am afraid I cannot go back and rewrite the book, but we have correctly set out the actual rule here.) Tim riley talk 07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pawns that reach the last row are promoted to Queen (or other piece of the player's choice)" to me implies it's queen first and foremost. That's what the players do but not what the rules or source say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neos Kosmos has its own Wikipedia article. I see no reason to think it less reliable than the other newpapers to which the article refers, but have replaced with the same information from a book source. I inherited the contrariwise citation and as I think the website is distinctly tendentious I have gladly removed the relevant text.
  • The The Australian reference is broken.
  • The various books should probably be marked by ref=none so that they don't throw the harv warning.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: where are you seeing the Harvard errors? I've got Trappist's script installed and it isn't giving me any. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named " Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the script installed and cannot see any warnings. It may be best to say which specific sources you see these on so they can be dealt with. I normally add the extra parameter on Tim’s articles when they hit PR, but there was nothing to do this time. - SchroCat (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nosing in to say I'm also seeing the harv errors on all of the books. It seems to be because the short footnotes are generated with <ref> rather than {{sfn}}. When I experimentally swapped one of the existing ones to an sfn format, the harv error for that book disappeared on preview. Fwiw, I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed rather than Trappist's script; maybe that makes the difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks PMC. I’ve installed that and can see the messages. I’ll add the workaround now, even though it won’t affect readers, but only those with the script installed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some of the books like "Lewis Carroll, A Biography" I wonder what makes them reliable.
  • For clarification: I regard as a reliable source any book published by an established and reputable publisher, unless there is clear cause to believe otherwise. (Offhand, over nearly twenty years of editing Wikipedia I can only recall one published book from a well-established publisher that was so full of demonstrable inaccuracies and distortions as – in my view – to fail the WP:RS test, and that was on a subject unconnected with Carroll or Alice.) Tim riley talk 13:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. I do not for a moment believe that reputable, not to say distinguished, publishers such as Dent and Heinemann publish unreliable books. If you read my earlier reply more carefully you will see that I have already addressed your mention of Bakewell in any case. Tim riley talk 07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carroll, Lewis (2004)" is the year right and what is this publisher?
  • Well, Carroll died in 1898 - was this posthumous? Also "Paris: Ebooks libres et gratuits" sounds like it might be a vanity press or the like if we go by name, hence I was asking about clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a French translation. Carroll wrote in English. Who made this French translation and when the source does not say. If you wish me to substitute a citation to an academic journal – as I say above – I can do so. Tim riley talk 07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have Downey's works drawn academic attention?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, over to you. Tim riley talk 14:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any other thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rjjiii

[edit]

I love both of the Alice books. I plan to listen to the article, make notes, and comment here soon. Rjjiii (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already quite polished. I have made notes on several areas. The notes are a bit long, but the ways to resolve them are probably fairly straightforward and minor.

The Wasp in a Wig
[edit]
  • Is this the only major decision that John Tenniel had affecting the plot? If so, the article should probably state that.
  • As far as I know, yes, but I have read no unequivocal statement to that effect, and I'd better not speculate in the article. Tim riley talk
  • Looking at recent scholarship, it seems the consensus is that the 1974 galley proofs are most likely legitimate, but there are unresolved questions, particularly regarding the handwritten notes. Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass: A Publishing History (2016) by Zoe Jaques and Eugene Giddens says that Selwyn H. Goodacre "goes further to doubt the authenticity of the autograph corrections: 'I conclude that the weight of the evidence is that the proofs are genuine, but that the corrections show signs of another hand.' [...] it provenance before 1974 had not been publicly verified." In some places the Wikipedia article seems to overstate the certainty. For example, "revisions in Carroll's handwriting" could be phrased something like "handwritten revisions" or even "handwritten revisions, likely by Carroll himself".
Plot
[edit]
  • The plot section is long and detailed. I think this is fine, and Talk:Through the Looking-Glass#Plot sections explains, "Each of the chapters of the book, except for the brief chapters 11 and 12, is a self-contained episode, similar to a short story." That explanation makes sense, and I think the plot section would benefit from containing some version of that information either at the beginning or at the point where Alice goes through the looking glass.
Themes
[edit]

The themes section handles chess well. Other aspects of the book could be covered in this section. The three that stick out to me are:

  • How do scholars say that this book compares thematically to the first? What themes carry over, and what stays the same?
  • Rules and logic are a major focus of the book. What do scholars say about this?
  • In "Logic And Language in Through the Looking Glass", a journal article I downloaded early in my research for this article, I found, "Carroll succeeds in suggesting that the apparent chaos of the dream world is less disorderly than the lack of discipline in the real world, that the problem of appearance and reality has to do with value as well as perception. ... Only in the shallowest sense, however, does the trip through the Looking Glass reveal disorder and nonsense. Carroll's world of fantasy is most profoundly, in its semantic aspects at least, the sort of world for which such a logician as Charles Dodgson might yearn". But this doesn't seem to me to get us very far. And nor does, "But the ultimate point of Humpty Dumpty's method with language is the same as the point of the gnat's exposition of Looking Glass insect life. In both cases, the central revelation is the same: that language, the symbolic representation of experience, has power of its own". Tim riley talk 09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense is also a major focus of the book. What do scholars say about this? Also, do scholars comment on the seeming contradiction between the rules and nonsense?
  • I haven't run across much on this. There is one comment from Hahn to the effect that "the nonsense in the book is even more ruthless than in the first Alice story" but I have referred to that paragraph already in the last paragraph of Reception. Tim riley talk 09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later: I've found a learned article "Wittgenstein, Nonsense, and Lewis Carroll" from 1965, which is interesting:
Since the White Queen thought that Alice's inability to remember things before they happen was due to the poor quality of the girl's memory, she too confused empirical with logical necessity. The White Queen fell into this confusion because in her world (if it is, in fact, a conceivable world), time ran backwards, and in that kind of world it would presumably make sense to speak of remembering "things that happened the week after next" But she forgot that her own memory, too, worked in only one direction (albeit in the opposite direction from that in which Alice's memory worked), and had she remembered it, she would have been blissfully unaware that this, too, was a matter of logical necessity. ... How could the White Queen, for whom time ran backwards, converse with Alice, for whom time ran forwards? Ignoring some minor qualifications, we can say that in Alice's world it is logically necessary that one can remember only things in the past, while in the White Queen's world, it is logically necessary that one can remember only things in the future. Here we may begin to see, if only dimly, the (very important) connections between (i) the distinction between logical and empirical necessity and (ii) certain very general facts of nature being what they are.
I must admit this article opened my eyes to things I'd been missing all these years, such as the above, but it seems to me too specialised for inclusion in a general-readership encyclopaedia article. Tim riley talk 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the wait. I gradually skimmed through articles and books that might cover themes in Through the Looking Glass. I'm going to offer an idea of what an introductory paragraph for the "Themes" section could look like. I don't mean this to be prescriptive. Feel free to take anything you like, but I'm offering this as an example. The example paragraph touches on the various themes in the books and introduces chess before the chess section. Multiple sources mention the recurring themes of royalty and consumption, but I didn't find much to say about either. Royalty is, to an extent, already covered if the article discusses the chess aspect.

Through the Looking-Glass builds on the first book's themes of language, linguistic puzzles, and wordplay.[1] Poet W. H. Auden observed that words in the Alice books "have a life and a will of their own".[2] Carroll’s linguistic games satirize the incoherence of real-world institutions and social structures.[3] Both books have legalistic elements that explore how systems of order can appear structured but remain completely arbitrary.[4] Unlike the first book's meandering plot, the second uses the rules and symbols of chess to provide a more clear progression. Like a symmetrical chess set, many aspects of the story are mirrored or inverted.[5] Cause and effect are often reversed. For example, Alice can only reach the Red Queen by walking in reverse. Looking Glass juxtaposes sense with nonsense and sanity with insanity.[6] The more consistent rules of Looking Glass cast Alice more clearly as a child intruding into an adult world, and capable of seeing through the arbitrary nature of the social structures.[7] The book pays more attention to the passage of time and has moments of playful rebellion against the adult world along with melancholy for the coming end of Alice's childhood.[8] The beginning and end both show themes of winter and death, tied to the end of childhood.[6]

References

  1. ^ Bolch, Judith (November 2010). "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Masterplots. Vol. 1 (Fourth ed.). Salem Press. "Critical Evaluation", pp. 126–129. ISBN 0-89356-085-5.
  2. ^ Elwyn Jones and Gladstone, pp. 16–17
  3. ^ Spacks, Patricia Meyer (April 1961). "Logic and Language in 'Through the Looking Glass'". Etc: A Review of General Semantics. 18 (1): 91–100. JSTOR 42573885.
  4. ^ Liston, Mary (Spring 2009). "The Rule of Law Through the Looking Glass". Law and Literature. 21 (1): 42–77. doi:10.1525/lal.2009.21.1.42.
  5. ^ Bolch, Judith (November 2010). "Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There". Masterplots (Fourth ed.). Salem Press. "Critical Evaluation", pp. 5762–5766. ISBN 978-1-58765-568-5.
  6. ^ a b Gardner, Martin; Burstein, Mark, eds. (2015). The Annotated Alice (150th Anniversary ed.). ISBN 978-0-393-24543-1.
  7. ^ Morton, Richard (1960). ""Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking-Glass"". Elementary English. 37 (8): 509–513. ISSN 0013-5968.
  8. ^ Morton, Lionel (December 1978). "Memory in the Alice Books". Nineteenth-Century Fiction. 33 (3): 285–308. doi:10.2307/2933016.

Hope that helps clarify! And, if not: feel free to disregard it, Rjjiii (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll enjoy having a look over the weekend. Tim riley talk 12:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added most of the suggested material as a prefatory paragraph to the section. Tim riley talk 13:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations
[edit]

And that's it from me, Rjjiii (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Glad of your thoughts on the addition covering your Plot point. Tim riley talk 09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome. For this article, I will stay at comments rather than support or oppose. I think with all the other supports it will likely pass. I find the article to be just on the edge for criteria 1b. The Wikipedia article treats the two Alice books as more separate than the cited sources. I can see the rationale for that, and I don't think it is quite enough to oppose. For example, scholarly sources on the adaptations don't make that kind of hard distinction. They treat the adaptations as having varying degrees of fidelity to the novel. I think the footnote in the adaptations section goes a long way to clarify and will suffice for most readers. Rjjiii (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Made some minor suggestions at Peer review, but it was already a quality article, and the overall input at PR has only improved it further. Pleased to support. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KJ, for comments at PR and support here. I struggle to recall another PR from which I derived as much benefit as I did for this article and I am most grateful to you and fellow reviewers. Tim riley talk 16:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

[edit]

On prose and completeness this tells the story very well and meets the standards. I made a couple of trifling adjustments to the wording yesterday and today. Gardner's Annotated Alice will likely have a reference to the origin of the nursery rhyme that someone mentioned if you wanted to include it. John (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks for tweaks (decidedly improvements) and support. Tim riley talk 17:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment from Jim

[edit]

As I read, I was going to suggest that you said something about the songs and verses often being parodies, only to discover that you had a whole section on that. That leaves me with the incredibly trivial suggestion that "Together with a Fawn" might be better as either Together with a fawn" or "Together with the Fawn". Fell free to ignore. Great stuff, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I'll lower case the fawn, I think. Tim riley talk 16:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Through_the_Looking-Glass/archive1&oldid=1299712507"