With regard to Alice's character, my defence is in my introduction where I said I was not attempting to imitate Carroll's work in the way a forger imitates an old master. I wrote it primarily for my own daughter and secondly for children in general – but today's children. In Carroll's time, being a girl child was rather different.

CLD lived in a chauvenist age and openly voiced sexist views. For example, he referred to having nothing to do as "the sorest scourge of feminine humanity". I don't think such attitudes, or making Alice the archtypical dumb blonde, would be appropriate for a modern children's book, which is what I intended to write, albeit in a homage to Carroll's style.

If the book also appeals to adult Alice aficionados that's a collateral benefit. Nevertheless, your points are well taken and I hope my "modernisation" of Alice's character didn't affect your enjoyment too much.

You're right about the "cluelessness" of Carroll's Alice; but as Carolyn Sigler has shown, other authors using Alice as a calendar or using Wonderland have very often reacted to (or against) Carroll's Alice.

Only 30 years after Wonderland was published, Anna Richards sent a different Alice into Wonderland, Alice Lee — who takes control of her experiences there.

I doubt that any of the "Alice imitators" has written an Alice who was exactly like Carroll's.

Interestingly (I suppose), eh occurs once in Alice (in eh, stupid?) and not at all in Looking-Glass (unless you count Be-e-ehh!); hey occurs in neither.

Alice isn't clever. Alice doesn't get it. Alice is a conventional stuffy snob of a little Victorian girl. The wordplay and other things (including the death jokes) are almost always over her head.

In this book, Alice becomes part of the Wonderland set: she says things like "Oh, I see". But the real Alice never does see. Still, I'm glad I read it, as many of the conceits are very clever indeed.

Gobeithio bod pethau'n iawn gyda chi.

ch ch ch ch ch

Your old Celtic Comrade,

"Ernie."

You should have asked! It's just saying, you can discuss anything in the wiki as long as it's in Lojban, and Klingon was no less legitimate a topic than you. It's the description of you in Lojban that you should be noting: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Michael+Everson

So I think that the comment should be:

ʞɔɐqpǝǝɟ uʍop ǝpᴉsdn
• +++++++ɐ ¡uoᴉʇɔɐsuɐɹʇ ʇɐǝɹᵷ
¡ʇuǝɯʎɐd ʇsɐɟ ǝɥʇ ɹoɟ noʎ ʞuɐɥʇ ‘ppɐ oʇ pǝʇuɐʍ osꞁɐ ᴉ

which displays OK with latest versions of both Everson Mono and Code2000 (except for the vertical alignment of the turned g).