I'm not sure that I'm wild about the illustrations in this book. They don't seem at all inspired by photography other than that Alice is clearly modeled after Alice Liddel. The watercolour quality of the pictures is nice, but I almost would have liked them even a little less clear. Fewer clear lines and more blurriness. I'm not describing what I mean very well, but I hope you get the idea. Anyway, they don't feel terribly "wonderlandish" to me. They are too conventional in their way. I liked the picture of Alice leaning against the flower fanning herself, but so far that is the only picture that has stood out for me at all. I guess we'll see how the rest of the book goes!

Already this book has me hooked. The authors manage to discuss some pretty serious topics (sex, dating, church law, etc.) with a sense of humour and a very realistic outlook. They really understand the make up of their readership but they seem pretty focused on sticking to their intended audience.

I look forward to hearing what this book has to say!

I like that Mr. Foreman illustrated each pair of verses from "You Are Old, Father William". I always wonder, though, why that is commonly done with "Father William" and very rarely done with either "The Walrus and the Carpenter" or "Jabberwocky".

The tea party was interesting. I didn't feel like the rendition of the Dormouse worked and I very much disliked that the chairs all matched. I did like the pile of hats on the Mad Hatter's head as well as the face on the teapot.

The cards bugged me. The gardeners are supposed to be spades, but the picture clearly shows hearts! I think that is one of the cleverest details in the whole book and the illustrator messed it up!

I liked the Gryphon very much, but some of the others I wondered about. Why is the Cheshire Cat always striped? The text never mentions stripes. And why does the Mock Turtle always have goat/calf legs and a long tail? Again, the text never mentions such things! I just find it all odd.

Overall I don't think that I like these illustrations very much.

So far this book is very interesting. It is very clear on the church's views on sex and contraception. What I found most interesting was the discussion of the Papal Birth Control Commission. I had never heard of it before or even suspected its existence. Even more surprising was that it recommended (with a vote 58-2) that the church drop (or at least soften) its ban on artificial contraception. Of course, every pope since has ignored it. There was also some interesting information on Catholics who have fought to change some of the church's positions on things like contraception.

This book has been very informative and interesting so far. It is also consistently funny (I loved the definition of "agnostic" as well as the Catholic-guilt quiz). So far this is a very good book!

I can't say that I'm wild about the illustrations in this book. The convention of having Alice in a sepia toned world at the beginning and end and in a full colour world while in Wonderland is very overused. I'm slightly confused at Mr. Foreman's insistence that he is mimicking photographs (particularly with the sepia toned pages) because the watercolours are so far from being even a little bit photographic. It's cute that he used Alice Liddel as his model, but she seemed rather conventional as well. I don't know. This book just lacked the magic that so many other editions have captured! It felt like he was doing it because at some point every illustrator should do Alice (as he says in the afterward). To me, that isn't a reason.

Ok, so one thing has always confused me. Why is getting married often seen as a way of having sex without the retribution of hell? Think about it. Every time someone says "don't sleep with a guy or he'll never marry you" they are primarily saying that the reason people (maybe just men, I'm not sure) get married is to have sex. Where did that perception come from? I mean, the church spends a lot of time (an inordinate amount of time, if you ask me - aren't there bigger issues to worry about?) saying that sex is only for married couples and even then only for baby-making. However, it also says that marriage has many reasons for existing (primarily baby-making, but also companionship and because faith is stronger when shared). So, of all those reasons (none of which is sex, unless you are reading the letters from Paul in the Bible) why is sex the one people cling to? It just seems weird to me.

And it's nice to know that boys' beliefs about sex and related issues in childhood are often just as messed up as girls'.