I don't agree with Meursault that there has been a monotonous diet of children's literature. Three out of thirty puzzles this year have been based on children's literature, hardly an excessive number. In any case, what is surely important is not the source, but what the setter does with it. Occasionally the source itself is sufficiently interesting or unfamiliar to be worth researching, but that is a bonus.
In this case I didn't find the treatment of a very familiar and obvious quotation to be particularly interesting, especially as it was inexplicably edited. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing out of the ordinary either. The treatment of a Lear poem three weeks ago was a far more accomplished achievement, and, in my view, rather more engaging.