Alice's Adventures Under Ground: With original illustrations

I absolutely adore the fact that this book is done in Carroll's handwriting - it completely sets the scene of some of the paragraphs, and his drawings are fantastic.

After we went to see Tim Burton's quite delightful version of Alice in Wonderland , I was drawn back to the original. This is a facsimile edition of the handwritten copy with 37 of his own illustrations that Lewis Carroll gave to Alice Liddell for Christmas in 1864. This is the gentlest version of

Show More

Alice's adventures -- thoroughly suitable for young children. And it is interesting to see it written in Carroll's handwriting with his rather rough pictures.

Show Less

I love holding this book. Because it is a facsimile of the original manuscript, it almost feels as though you are holding the original. The illustrations set into the text are odd and fascinating, and the language of the text is brilliant.

What a wonderful little book for any Alice fan. I received this book for my birthday in 2004 and I can't help but grab it every once in a while when I want to get back to the roots of Alice. Must have book for any serious Alice fan.

This was the original version of the published Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, presented to the little girl Alice Liddell to whom he had originally narrated his story on a boat trip. It is half the length of the published story and lacks the Cheshire cat and the Mad Hatter's tea party. Carroll's

Show More

own illustrations are simpler yet in a way more haunting than the more famous Tenniel illustrations. Still very entertaining. 5/5

Show Less

I am so glad that I found this before reading the expanded story.

This is what is typically known as an ur-text, namely a rough draft that has been extensively rewritten to produce the final work (though when I think of an ur-text, I usually think of the ancient world). Needless to say it is nowhere near as good as the original text, though for some reason people

Show More

wanted Lewis Carol (or whatever his name is, and I can't be bothered looking it up at the moment) to publish the original story that he told Alice Liddel that day they were rowing down that river in Oxford (I know the river because I have been to Oxford, but I cannot remember the name of it – I think it is the Thames, but I could be completely and utterly wrong – and probably am).
I am not a big fan of ur-texts, unless of course a friend hands me one to read because they want to publish it (and so far I have only one friend who has actually published something, though he got me to critique the first book, but not the rest). The only ur-texts that I am actually interested in are the ancient ones, such as the ones that you find in ancient Babylon. For instance there are lots of different versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh, though there is one that is generally accepted as the authentic version. Then there are also theories of the ur-text to the Bible, but the thing is that we don't actually have them so any possible texts that arose is mere speculation.
However, when it comes to books like the Bible, the ur-text might actually be substantially bigger than the final proof that we have, and the reason for that is that the editors (Moses when it comes to the first five books) has only brought out the important points that they want to get across. However, I am now thinking that the original texts are not necessarily ur-texts but rather source documents.
As for modern literature, ur-texts can be useful for those who are extensively studying the particular text because it helps us understand how the polished version has come together. However, it can also be useful to aspiring writers in that they can see the rough draft that came before the final product. However some writers don't actually use ur-texts, such as Isaac Asimov, who didn't actually like to plan or rewrite any of his stories. In fact, the one story that he said he put a lot of effort into developing turned out to be really bad. In the end, as I say, each to their own.

Show Less

facsimile of the original manuscript, including his sketches, plus some historical notes.

Cute, mildly interesting - more for its history than for the story. It's not quite all of Alice in Wonderland (which is apparently almost twice as long), but all the events are in that story, though not necessarily in the same order. It's missing some major bits - the Cheshire Cat and the whole Mad

Show More

Tea Party, for one. The drawings are nice - he may not have thought of himself as good at sketching, but his people look like people both in profile and in full-face, which is more than I can say for a lot of people sketching today (including me). They look like just ink drawings, though I suspect he either pasted them in after he got a good version or copied them from a good version. Other than the sketches, and I suppose the handwriting, there's not much that stands out about the book. The foreword and intro, by Alice's granddaughter and...an editor of the facsimile edition? Russell Ash, not sure - are interesting too, two takes on the history of this manuscript. Glad I read it, I see no need to read it again.

Show Less

An early book that was afterwards developed into "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Much of the familiar story of Alice in Wonderland. There are slight differences.