Latest Comments

Somewhat scary- and strange-headed approximates how the Warwick Goble image appears.

That scariness, that strangeness perhaps associates less strongly in a sleeping Beast.

The Warwick Goble Beast becomes less scary, less strange with his human body even as it can be disconcerting, even upsetting to close in on an unexpected, unknown Frankenstein perhaps angry and vengeful over his not all beast, not all human look.

Was Warwick Goble alone in working his Beast into semi-beast, semi-human?

Certainly. But you need to focus on plant hunters, who were equipped for collecting, Rather than the early explorers.

In the dig for victory campaign government advice was offered to gardeners.

What is new I believe is the focus on forgiveness that characterises Jesus' mission.

Jersey royals have no celebration dishes linked to them. They just get snapped up by top chefs.

Indo not know of any such list. Maybe He wanted to deter people from seeking them.

Yes, scary achieves first place among artist analyses of Beast even as, apart William Mulready, Beast appears less scary perhaps than the second attribute, strange.

The facial angle perhaps augments the semi-repulsive strangeness of the Anne Anderson Beast.

Might the Edmund Dulac and Warwick Goble Beasts become perhaps scarier, perhaps stranger awake than asleep?

Seven minutes is more than enough for such a simple plot. The cartoon starts with the kids being already caught and is all about the bunny and the witch. I would say moe people liked it than not. There was some controversy about his quote 'they are all witches inside' and I think the witch later appeared in several episodes.

Red is a color of life and passion in this case, in my opinion. The Beast is a fighter and don't forget the presence of the rose in this tale.
I agree, Anne Anderson's picture is not pretty but we still find it interesting and even attractive. She oobviously made it with children in her mind.
Yes, she really looks slightly bored. The fairy tale explicitly tells that boredom was her major problem in the Beast's castle. There's also melancholy. She is missing her home, especially her father.

Beauty is less interesting as a character. She is a good girl and that's that. The Beast is completely different with layers of mystery around him and his castle. It's his story which drives everything.

The first Oz book was illustrated by Denslow, next 30+ by John Rea Neill who tok care of the project even after Baum's death.

Hi, DerdriuMarriner. Thanks for stopping by this a bit dusty article. Some of the links are dead. I'll try to update / replace them when I find some spare time in my busy schedule. In general you can check outdated links (e.g. pages don't exist anymore) by copying the link into wayback machine. If the address is archived a simple graphics with dates will show up and give you a chance to explore the page as it was even if it is out of service today. Wayback machine is far from being perfect but it's the best such thing as I am familiar with.

It can be that sitting across from Beast Eleanor Vere Boyle-styled with claws and tusks can be scary.

But do you find, like me, that Beauty looks comfortable, albeit somewhat bored?

Her left hand and her face side-profiled to Beast even might suggest dismissal of Beast as nothing scary!

Beastly scariness appears ameliorated by 9 of 10 illustrators.

Only the William Mulready image conveys scary scariness.

The Anne Anderson image defers to a somewhat repulsive, unsettling appearance. But do you find, like me, that the body language and the facial expression give apologetic impressions?

Thank you!

The locations and the names of such disquieting places intrigue me.

Might Brother Raoul have listed them in Deeper into God or elsewhere?