I love this idea.

The book itself could perhaps use a little, well, help. The idea here is to take famous characters from children's books, movies, etc., and assess what psychological condition each would have if actually diagnosed. Since many fictional characters are one-dimensional, and that one dimension is often psychologically distorted, it's a really cute notion.

The execution sometimes lacks a little. All the chapters follow the same format -- "Name," "Physical presentation," "Diet," "Family background," "Patient notes," description of the disorder, description of treatment, and a much-too-facile checklist for suggesting whether someone has the disorder. This frankly gets to be a little wearing after a while. Some of the articles are brilliant (that Tigger from Winnie-the-Pooh had Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder is obvious, and because it's so straightforward, the article flows quite well). But some plod; you'll feel you've read almost the same text again and again.

And some of the diagnoses simply aren't right. For example, author James suggests that the Tin Woodman in The Wizard of Oz has schizoid personality disorder. (A diagnosis will almost certainly vanish in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as will the Histrionic Personality Disorder that James incorrectly assigns to Cruella de Vil.) The Tin Woodman, by her case notes, used to feel love strongly, then gave it up because he thought he would be rejected. That's not schizoid personality disorder, that's avoidant personality disorder -- a diagnosis which exists and will continue to exist. Similarly, psychopathy is not a disorder -- it's a proposed subtype of Antisocial Personality Disorder that has not been approved. James admits this but still uses the diagnosis for Bluebeard.

Similarly, we read that Mad Hatter and March Hare have "shared psychotic disorder." But that diagnosis was so rare that it has simply been dropped from the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Nor, I would suggest, do the Hatter and Hare share their disorder; they're just both very odd ducks. (Or lagomorphs, as may be.)

And since we're on Alice in Wonderland: Alice's address is not "Rural England." It's the Dean's Residence, Christ Church College, Oxford, England. Oy. And Alice was extremely intelligent -- the brightest child in a family known for its very high intelligence; she didn't merely have "age appropriate" intelligence. Growf.

Also, James picks on the residents of the Hundred Acre Wood for all living alone, claiming this is disordered. But they're all animals, mostly mammals. Other than humans, almost no mammals form pair bonds. This is normal.

Finally, has James ever read any versions of the folktales (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, etc.) other than those by Charles Perrault? (Or maybe by Walt Disney?) Those versions of the tales don't give a good match for the young women of, say, the Grimm version Cinderella. It's perfectly legitimate to analyze Disney's Cinderella (at least in the context of analyzing the Wizard of Oz or Willy Wonka or Peter Rabbit), but it needs to be clear that it's Ms. Cinderella Disney, not Ms. Cinderella Grimm.

And this book was written in 2007. How about a section on Harry Potter and his Intermittent Explosive Disorder and possible Conduct Disorder? That could turn out very badly indeed....

I don't want to criticize too much. This is a clever idea, and I commend Laura James. But readers will probably want to take this book in small doses (not more than one or two cases a day), and they need to be aware that this isn't even close to an adequate diagnostic manual.

At least for human beings. If you ever have to analyze a Tigger, it probably provides all the information you'll ever need. ( )