I don’t get it. I
just don’t get it . . .
Oh, sorry. Much like
the protagonist of the story I’m going to talk about, I was thinking out loud.
Seeing as this is the year 2015 and the 150th
anniversary of Alice’s Adventures in
Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, I thought it would be wrong not to talk about
the book at some point this year. As you
may recall, I’ve already talked about Through the Looking Glass because I thought that story needed some individual
attention. Now it’s Wonderland’s turn.
We all know the famous tale of how Wonderland was
created. Lewis Carroll and his friends
the Liddell family were on a picnic near the river Isis when bored Alice
Liddell asked for a story. Seemingly off
the top of his head, Carroll concocted a story in which young Alice goes
headfirst down a rabbit hole into an underground world full of bizarre
characters. This literary legend may or
may not be completely true. However, the
legacy of that day has led to one of the most enduring children’s fantasy
stories in all of English literature.
Personally, I’m a big fan of Carroll’s work. The plot of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland may be more than a little
thin. It basically consists of Alice
trying to find the “beautiful garden” that she saw through a tiny door after
she fell down the rabbit hole. The
simple nature of the plot seems to reinforce the almost dreamlike un-logic that
seems to abound in Wonderland, though.
It also provides just enough of a framework for all of Alice’s
encounters with the other characters, as well as Alice’s many transformations
and Carroll’s wordplay. The wordplay is
probably my favorite. The book is
actually littered with puns, clever turns of phrase and parodies of popular
songs and poems from the time. For
example, the Mock Turtle’s song “The Lobster Quadrille” is a parody of the poem“The Spider and the Fly” by Mary Howitt.
Okay, so we’ve established that Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is a classic of children’s
literature. However, I’d like to focus
on how the story gets reinterpreted for a while. Because when it comes to reinterpretations,
it seems like no story is a patch on Alice.
Specifically, it brings me to the thing I was thinking out
loud about when I started this. I just
don’t get why so many people see darkness in Alice in Wonderland (note: I
may be shortening the title more from here forward).
It’s one of the recurring things that seems to get a lot of
play when Alice is
reinterpreted. The dark, disturbing side
of the story. However, when reading the
actual story, it seems like the furthest thing from the truth.
I suppose the concept starts with the notion that, according
to the Cheshire Cat, everyone in Wonderland is mad. Of course, the Cheshire Cat then follows it
up with some flawed logic as to why he himself is mad. It basically amounts to the fact that he
growls (purrs) when he’s happy and wags his tail when he’s mad unlike dogs who
are not mad who do the opposite.
Though, even if everyone in Wonderland is mad, there are different ways
to depict madness. Heck, I even know of
one group of characters besides the Wonderland crew where every character is
accepted to be crazy, but it’s all played for laughs.
Oh, that scwewy White Wabbit! |
No one seems to be clamoring for a dark reinterpretation of the Looney Tunes, though. Come to think of it, Elmer Fudd was probably more likely to use a weapon
on someone than the Queen of Hearts was.
Yeah, that’s right. It’s the
other thing that seems to make people want to claim how dark Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is. The Queen of Hearts constantly shouting “Off
with their heads!” However, there’s
never any proof that she carries out her threats. In fact, as Alice leaves the croquet party,
she hears the King of Hearts pardoning everyone the Queen sentenced to
death. Later on the Gryphon calls the
Queen “fun” and says that they never actually execute anyone. So, they’re not really dark so much as just wacky. Sure, all the characters can be a bit cranky
with Alice, but that’s because everything they’re doing and saying seems
logical to them, but strange to Alice who doesn’t understand.
The issue is subtext.
For those who’ve forgotten English 101, subtext is an undertone that can
be interpreted from a book but is not explicitly stated. The dark side of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is pure subtext. However, when subtext gets too popular people
start treating it like it’s actual text.
The one subtext in Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland that I don’t mind and picked up on a bit myself is
that of Alice growing up. It’s not so
much a straight coming-of-age story and it’s not some sort of sexual awakening (which
is something that gets read into a great number of fairy tales and classic
children’s stories). It’s more the
confusion of trying to figure out the adult world that children are bound to
get thrust into at some point as well as making sense of all the various
changes a person goes through as they move toward adulthood. It really comes out in the scene where she
meets the caterpillar. He asks who she
is and she says she doesn’t know because of all the changes she’s been through
lately. The caterpillar scoffs but Alice
tells him that he’ll likely understand after he’s been turned into a
chrysalis. Is there any more apt
metaphor for growing up than a caterpillar turning into a butterfly?
Anyway, Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland is a true classic and one that doesn’t show any
signs of losing popularity even at 150 years old. Are we likely to see any versions of
Wonderland in the future that do not look like Tim Burton’s dream come
true? Well, there are some
possibilities. A ballet version was made
a few years ago that I still haven’t had the chance to see. Also, the girls from Ever After High took a
trip there this year. They usually keep
things pretty light. There was a comic
book adaptation a few years ago by Dynamite Entertainment that essentially
plays the whole thing straight.
Also, dark isn’t necessarily bad. I’ve heard good things about Splintered by A.G. Howard and Alys by Kiri Callaghan (who has a very informative and entertaining YouTube show called
Kiriosity, by the way). It’s just that
dark takes shouldn’t be all there is.
And of course, there’s always the option of returning to Lewis Carroll’s
original book, which I have no doubts will continue to be published for at
least another 150 years.
I completely agree with you! I LOVED Alice as a child, I always found the books funny in their randomness. I think that maybe the "dark side of Alice" that people are playing around with is a result of the myth that the books were the result of Carroll's delusions while on drugs. He may have taken opium at times like many Victorians, but as you say, his clever jokes, riddles, and puzzles throughout the books indicate that he was clearly not high when he wrote the stories.
ReplyDeleteThere are also dark rumors that Carroll had an unhealthy relationship with the little girls in his life, especially Alice Liddell. From what I've read, he may have had a creepy interest in little girls, but nowhere did any of them come forward and accuse him of sexual abuse-they all seemed to remember him and their time together fondly. I wrote more about it a while ago, here: http://talesoffaerie.blogspot.com/2011/04/annotated-alice.html
Those rumours about pedophilia are grounded in cherry-picking. There is lots of evidence to support that Dodgson was heterosexual, such as romantic letters to adult women. While it is true that Alice's mother later tried to keep him from the house, this was due to her concerns that he had relations with the *governess*.
DeleteAs for Annotated Alice, I find their arguments to be quite unconvincing. Gardner seem to be just as obsessed with creating an image of a completely pure, asexual intellectual as Carrol-adversaries were with painting him as a vile pervert, but looking at Dodgsons private writing his vision of him is just as off.
Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/?sessionGUID=228cb773-910e-6601-5a89-4006c77c53a9&no-ist=&page=1 (Interesting stuff starts on page 3)
It seems such a shame that perception of the work itself gets impacted like this by rumors about the author.
Delete