Is Carroll's novel an early example of existentialist writing? It resembles Beckett's Waiting for Godot, a play about two characters who cannot find a sense of meaning or purpose in life. Because of this failed search for meaning, the characters begin to feel more isolated than ever. Similarly, Alice discovers in Wonderland that there is no linguistic meaning. If language is used in order to simplify communication between two people, it certainly isolates her from the rest of the characters in the text for words take on meanings for them that mean things that are quite different to her.
"Do bats eat cats?" Do cats eat bats?" As she couldn't answer either question, it didn't much matter which way she put it.
This is an early example of how language proves to be nonsensical throughout the text, and this continues as a porpoise becomes a purpose and a letter that to Alice means nothing serves as the sole convicting piece of evidence in the King and Queen's court. Because the letter cannot be explained in a manner that is logical to Alice, she concludes that there isn't an "atom of meaning in it." Language without the rules or guidelines which supposedly make words universally understood is useless because it isolates rather than unifies.
Why would this be important to Victorian readers? Perhaps language, as it still does now, isolated children from adults. Perhaps Carroll was preoccupied with creating some form of unity? He certainly does prove that children contain more logical reasoning abilities than is assumed. Was this his attempt to open Victorian eyes to children's issues?
Hadie Ogaldez said... Carroll's book appears to be more that a story for children. A closer reading indicates that this may be one method of bridging the gaps in literacy between the various classes during the Victorian era. In chapter 2 of Alice, the heroine mentions that she was so puzzled that she quites forget how to speak good English. Soon after this she poses the question "Who in the world am I?" Comparing hereself to two other children-Ada with her ringlets representing the aristocracy and Mabel who knows very little (underclass). Alice is somewhere in between attempting to make some sense out of both worlds. There is much mention of good and bad manners throughout the story which seemingly is another way of instructing readers how to behave.
Throughout the book there is a play on words between Alice and the different animal characters she encounters (the uneducated masses.
The lessons in multiplication, Geography and especially the play on words such as tale/tail; axis/axes and cats that grin and so many other examples are probably all indicators of lessons in literacy not merely for children but also attempts to simplify the confusing realm of the higher social class in the Victorian era.
Chapter IX, The Mock Turtle's Story, was particularly interesting to me. Besides the intentional punning on education, which were brought up in class, I was intrigued by Alice's discussion with the Duchess. The Duchess is not only an ugly creature but she inflicts pain on Alice with her sharp chin. Equally, she goads Alice with nonsensical morals as a means to actions. The Duchess resembles this stalwart aristocracy that force feeds information to the younger generation. Alice doesn't quite know how to handle the nonsense she hears. Perhaps she should acquiesce and agree to what the Duchess is saying, and in doing so reinforce her ideals.
Instead, Alice pauses a few times and contemplates her answers. It is at these moments that the Duchess digs her sharp chin into Alice's shoulder. This coercion is in an effort to have Alice act and think in a certain way; only if Alice would agree, but she doesn't. Alice battles against the pressures of nonsense throughout the novel by relying on her own logic. Later in the chapter the Mock Turtle seems to rue his education and his transformation. After all, he only wants to be a turtle again and not the product of his education.
So, all very subversive here. Must we accept information? Does there have to be a reason for all our actions? And, ultimately, who is pulling the strings?
I think that it is clear that, in Alice in Wonderland, Carroll is creating a place that is truly freeing for the Victorian child. Manners are not a code to live and die by, but fodder for jokes and puns. Rather than fearing the consequences of a social blunder, one can expect a great laugh. And in the end, he proves that manners and rules, even the most ridiculous ones that are instated by the Queen of Hearts, have little foundation at all. They are "just a pack of cards!" While I am still unconvinced that Carroll's intentions were pure, I do think that he effectively entered the mind of a child and found a way, through nonsense, to fulfill the wishes and create comic relief for the anxieties that exist therein.
For argument's sake I take “nonsense” to be that which is unintelligible, and “non-sense” to be that which conveys an absence of sense, or rather, is somehow outside the bounds of traditional perceptions of reality.
I take some issue with calling Carroll's writings in Alice non-sense. I realize that Carroll may have (yes? no?) used this adjective himself, but regardless, I don't think it's exactly an appropriate description. I feel that Alice makes perfect sense - it is a clever send up of Victorian codes of conduct wrapped in the life of a child meant to remind us to question that which is otherwise arbitrary in life. Would that it were “nonsense”, it would not make as profound a statement about the ridiculousness of Victorian manners. Moreover, it would not be funny. The novel is funny because it works within a typical form, using typical content (the story of a lost child) and mocks it. And in this way, it is a sort of non-sense because it does go outside typical perceptions of story, form and even reality. In the novel, Carroll plays on recognizable linquistic tropes. He writes with reason and for reason, and both his form and content are entirely recognizable (even to the Victorian mind, for whom it might seem a more poignant parody but nonetheless familiar in its style). I don’t think it’s enough to call it non-sense because it is non-traditional, but at times his wordplay does approach this “otherly sensical” line. I think that Carroll asserting his own morality within Alice in response to the hyper-regulatory Victorian morality that is proved arbitrary but cruelty and injustice that so apparent in England at this time - child labor, prostitution, disease, unfair working conditions, etc. In Carroll's world meaning is created not just by a word's meaning, but its sound. For example, on page 63, during A Mad Tea-Party, we find the following dialogue: “I’ve had nothing yet,” Alice replied in an offended tone, “so I can’t take more.” “You mean you can’t take less,” Said the Hatter: “it’s very easy to take more than nothing.” Alice’s nothing and the Hatter’s nothing are two different concepts, but they sound the same – for all syntactical purposes, they are the same. However, in Carroll’s world just because two things appear to be similar in one realm of sensory perception, they might not be the same in another at all. The pluralism he asserts is not all in keeping with the typical Victorian mindset (at least not to the best of my knowledge). This is a different moral sense altogether. It is one where man creates and manipulates and questions meaning – no one where he attempts to live out some unquestionable moral code created by an unknowable god. Nevertheless, in the end Alice goes back to the “real” world. Had Carroll kept her in Wonderland, he might have made a more profound Anti-Victorian statement. But instead he returns her to regularly scheduled life, and tells us that she will only remember Wonderland as a fiction, a memory at best, to share with her children. And in this way, he submits to the Victorian world. And I certainly don’t see any reason for him not to. Again, the novel wouldn’t work nearly as well as it does were it not for this binary, especially with Wonderland as the kind of impossible underdog.
In reading this over, I’m not entirely satisfied with what I have written, but it was on my mind so I thought I’d put it out there.
When discussing the use of "nonsense" in Carroll's novel, it strikes me that it is Alice's use of this word that it is particularly interesting. It has already been noted, and rightly so, that there is nothing nonsensical in a great deal of the linguistic wordplay present in the dialogue. The example of the Hatter's comment,“You mean you can’t take less,” Said the Hatter: “it’s very easy to take more than nothing”, is an apt one in demonstration of this. Not only is this perfectly sensical, but it is also a very witty rejoinder that denotes the illogicalness (apparently that is the correct noun form!) of some of our idiomatic expressions.
There is, however, something intriguing about the instances in which Alice actually uses the word "nonsense". An example of this is Alice's first encounter with the Queen of Hearts: The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, began screaming "Off with her head! Off with -" "Nonsense!" said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent. Here we see Alice's rejection of the seemingly arbitrary rules and procedures that she encounters in her normal life, and that children are subservient to. The Queen is the manifestation of the establishment within this dream world of hers, by confronting and overpowering her Alice is rejecting the society in which children are so dominated by protocol.
Alice's adventure in wonderland includes other instances of such rejection. The derision, by means of yet more amusing worldplay, of the educational system is another such example. For Carroll, a man so infatuated with children, it seems that the adult Victorian world contained far too much of these elements that served to restrain our natural inclination for unadulterated enjoyment; all of which are superfluous to our needs. With Alice's Adventures in Wonderland he may well have been saying, "Nonsense!", to the whole thing.
6 comments:
Is Carroll's novel an early example of existentialist writing? It resembles Beckett's Waiting for Godot, a play about two characters who cannot find a sense of meaning or purpose in life. Because of this failed search for meaning, the characters begin to feel more isolated than ever. Similarly, Alice discovers in Wonderland that there is no linguistic meaning. If language is used in order to simplify communication between two people, it certainly isolates her from the rest of the characters in the text for words take on meanings for them that mean things that are quite different to her.
"Do bats eat cats?" Do cats eat bats?" As she couldn't answer either question, it didn't much matter which way she put it.
This is an early example of how language proves to be nonsensical throughout the text, and this continues as a porpoise becomes a purpose and a letter that to Alice means nothing serves as the sole convicting piece of evidence in the King and Queen's court. Because the letter cannot be explained in a manner that is logical to Alice, she concludes that there isn't an "atom of meaning in it." Language without the rules or guidelines which supposedly make words universally understood is useless because it isolates rather than unifies.
Why would this be important to Victorian readers? Perhaps language, as it still does now, isolated children from adults. Perhaps Carroll was preoccupied with creating some form of unity? He certainly does prove that children contain more logical reasoning abilities than is assumed. Was this his attempt to open Victorian eyes to children's issues?
Hadie Ogaldez said...
Carroll's book appears to be more that a story for children. A closer reading indicates that this may be one method of bridging the gaps in literacy between the various classes during the Victorian era. In chapter 2 of Alice, the heroine mentions that she was so puzzled that she quites forget how to speak good English. Soon after this she poses the question "Who in the world am I?" Comparing hereself to two other children-Ada with her ringlets representing the aristocracy and Mabel who knows very little (underclass). Alice is somewhere in between attempting to make some sense out of both worlds. There is much mention of good and bad manners throughout the story which seemingly is another way of instructing readers how to behave.
Throughout the book there is a play on words between Alice and the different animal characters she encounters (the uneducated masses.
The lessons in multiplication, Geography and especially the play on words such as tale/tail; axis/axes and cats that grin and so many other examples are probably all indicators of lessons in literacy not merely for children but also attempts to simplify the confusing realm of the higher social class in the Victorian era.
Chapter IX, The Mock Turtle's Story, was particularly interesting to me. Besides the intentional punning on education, which were brought up in class, I was intrigued by Alice's discussion with the Duchess. The Duchess is not only an ugly creature but she inflicts pain on Alice with her sharp chin. Equally, she goads Alice with nonsensical morals as a means to actions. The Duchess resembles this stalwart aristocracy that force feeds information to the younger generation. Alice doesn't quite know how to handle the nonsense she hears. Perhaps she should acquiesce and agree to what the Duchess is saying, and in doing so reinforce her ideals.
Instead, Alice pauses a few times and contemplates her answers. It is at these moments that the Duchess digs her sharp chin into Alice's shoulder. This coercion is in an effort to have Alice act and think in a certain way; only if Alice would agree, but she doesn't. Alice battles against the pressures of nonsense throughout the novel by relying on her own logic. Later in the chapter the Mock Turtle seems to rue his education and his transformation. After all, he only wants to be a turtle again and not the product of his education.
So, all very subversive here. Must we accept information? Does there have to be a reason for all our actions? And, ultimately, who is pulling the strings?
I think that it is clear that, in Alice in Wonderland, Carroll is creating a place that is truly freeing for the Victorian child. Manners are not a code to live and die by, but fodder for jokes and puns. Rather than fearing the consequences of a social blunder, one can expect a great laugh. And in the end, he proves that manners and rules, even the most ridiculous ones that are instated by the Queen of Hearts, have little foundation at all. They are "just a pack of cards!" While I am still unconvinced that Carroll's intentions were pure, I do think that he effectively entered the mind of a child and found a way, through nonsense, to fulfill the wishes and create comic relief for the anxieties that exist therein.
For argument's sake I take “nonsense” to be that which is unintelligible, and “non-sense” to be that which conveys an absence of sense, or rather, is somehow outside the bounds of traditional perceptions of reality.
I take some issue with calling Carroll's writings in Alice non-sense. I realize that Carroll may have (yes? no?) used this adjective himself, but regardless, I don't think it's exactly an appropriate description. I feel that Alice makes perfect sense - it is a clever send up of Victorian codes of conduct wrapped in the life of a child meant to remind us to question that which is otherwise arbitrary in life. Would that it were “nonsense”, it would not make as profound a statement about the ridiculousness of Victorian manners. Moreover, it would not be funny. The novel is funny because it works within a typical form, using typical content (the story of a lost child) and mocks it. And in this way, it is a sort of non-sense because it does go outside typical perceptions of story, form and even reality. In the novel, Carroll plays on recognizable linquistic tropes. He writes with reason and for reason, and both his form and content are entirely recognizable (even to the Victorian mind, for whom it might seem a more poignant parody but nonetheless familiar in its style). I don’t think it’s enough to call it non-sense because it is non-traditional, but at times his wordplay does approach this “otherly sensical” line. I think that Carroll asserting his own morality within Alice in response to the hyper-regulatory Victorian morality that is proved arbitrary but cruelty and injustice that so apparent in England at this time - child labor, prostitution, disease, unfair working conditions, etc. In Carroll's world meaning is created not just by a word's meaning, but its sound. For example, on page 63, during A Mad Tea-Party, we find the following dialogue:
“I’ve had nothing yet,” Alice replied in an offended tone, “so I can’t take more.”
“You mean you can’t take less,” Said the Hatter: “it’s very easy to take more than nothing.”
Alice’s nothing and the Hatter’s nothing are two different concepts, but they sound the same – for all syntactical purposes, they are the same. However, in Carroll’s world just because two things appear to be similar in one realm of sensory perception, they might not be the same in another at all. The pluralism he asserts is not all in keeping with the typical Victorian mindset (at least not to the best of my knowledge). This is a different moral sense altogether. It is one where man creates and manipulates and questions meaning – no one where he attempts to live out some unquestionable moral code created by an unknowable god. Nevertheless, in the end Alice goes back to the “real” world. Had Carroll kept her in Wonderland, he might have made a more profound Anti-Victorian statement. But instead he returns her to regularly scheduled life, and tells us that she will only remember Wonderland as a fiction, a memory at best, to share with her children. And in this way, he submits to the Victorian world. And I certainly don’t see any reason for him not to. Again, the novel wouldn’t work nearly as well as it does were it not for this binary, especially with Wonderland as the kind of impossible underdog.
In reading this over, I’m not entirely satisfied with what I have written, but it was on my mind so I thought I’d put it out there.
When discussing the use of "nonsense" in Carroll's novel, it strikes me that it is Alice's use of this word that it is particularly interesting. It has already been noted, and rightly so, that there is nothing nonsensical in a great deal of the linguistic wordplay present in the dialogue. The example of the Hatter's comment,“You mean you can’t take less,” Said the Hatter: “it’s very easy to take more than nothing”, is an apt one in demonstration of this. Not only is this perfectly sensical, but it is also a very witty rejoinder that denotes the illogicalness (apparently that is the correct noun form!) of some of our idiomatic expressions.
There is, however, something intriguing about the instances in which Alice actually uses the word "nonsense". An example of this is Alice's first encounter with the Queen of Hearts:
The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, began screaming "Off with her head! Off with -"
"Nonsense!" said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent.
Here we see Alice's rejection of the seemingly arbitrary rules and procedures that she encounters in her normal life, and that children are subservient to. The Queen is the manifestation of the establishment within this dream world of hers, by confronting and overpowering her Alice is rejecting the society in which children are so dominated by protocol.
Alice's adventure in wonderland includes other instances of such rejection. The derision, by means of yet more amusing worldplay, of the educational system is another such example. For Carroll, a man so infatuated with children, it seems that the adult Victorian world contained far too much of these elements that served to restrain our natural inclination for unadulterated enjoyment; all of which are superfluous to our needs. With Alice's Adventures in Wonderland he may well have been saying, "Nonsense!", to the whole thing.
Post a Comment