Cat’s comment > Likes and Comments

Ah, but the looking glass sees things backwards? Sorry - that was a facetious comment and was meant to be funny. But there does seem to be some truth in it - I like to see the framework about the characters. For me it is the descriptive bits in between the conversations that make the book live, not the characters, whereas, if I understood, you think a book lives via its characters. I am probably in the minority over this, after all "what is the use of a book without pictures or conversations?"
Which is most vivid, the picture or the lives of the people in the picture? There is a good subject for discussion and debate!

I would guess that would all come down to an individuals imagination. I come from a generation where television was still fairly new, and programming was limited. Movies were a luxury and only viewed in the theater. So when I read, I had to create my own image of how the character look. The classics had some illustrations but those were limited too. so as a child I had a rather vivid imagination, hence the characters having their own life, even if it was a surreal opposite of what it actually was.

We can agree to differ. If I understand, you seem to prefer living a book through the eyes of its protagonists, I prefer being an observer and relating to the experiences of the protagonists.
Funnily enough, we both even come from the same generation, so I'm not sure it is modern culture that causes this but just a different way of seeing things. Both are equally valid ways of experiencing things, and there are probably other ways.
I recall a comment from the director of the film of Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose". He called the film a "Palimpsest" of the book, which could be interpreted like your "smiling" image.

Yes I think books are bestas they all ways take a bit of arttisick libates wen making films.

I grew up with the Disney film and loved it. Then when Tim Burton made a movie I excitedly watched it and then bought the DVD. Now just tonight I read the book and it added depth to the characters for me; I understand things a bit better now. I say Both!

You most definitely CAN compare texts to film. There are some valuable commentaries you can make about texts and films and how they highlight or diminish different themes. Also, especially in the case of Alice, most people learned about her through Disney's adaptation. That cannot be ignored simply because they are different mediums.

I enjoyed the book. It is classic literature and when I worked as a teacher I always included in the reading list. I am a huge Johnny Depp fan and enjoyed the film of course.

There is a reason why Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass happen to be two of the post popular children's books. They're brilliant, quirky, nonsensical and a little ambiguous. This is also the reason why there's been so many adaptations. What people need to remember is, that both the 1951 animation and the 2010 Tim Burton film are exactly that... adaptations. They're not copies, nor are the re-makes of the 'original' story. "Alice in Wonderland" has been adapted into films, TV movies, TV series, TV episodes, stage shows, musicals, games and other forms of literature hundreds of times over the past 152. Of course people will look at the story 'with fresh eyes'. Carroll presents a story and his idea, true. What filmmakers do os take that story and idea, and present it in different ways. That's why it's an art form :)