Please post brief weekly responses to any of the questions below. Or respond to someone else's post on the work.
Why does the reading of Alice's adventure in wonderland "resist" interpretation?
What kind of universe is this, and why is the "absurdity" particularly modern?
What does Alice's world have in common with Kafka or Beckett, or even The Book of Job?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have not yet finished the novel, however, it seems to me that the absurdity of the situations Alice finds herself in can result in multiple interpretations. The more one attempts to find one logical explanation, the less feasible it becomes. For starters, there are so many nonsensical things going on that one finds it hard to pick what to focus on. Furthermore, we wonder what, if anything, is connected. Take for example Alice's change in size. While one can easily identify insecurity on her part, and perhaps even focus on the adolescent changes that may be troubling her young mind, we cannot turn a blind eye to the talking animals and the obsession with time. If we were to try interpretation, would we interpret the characters alone? the individual situations? some combination? How can one tell what is interrelated? How then do we tackle a)a "problem" that may have an infinite number of "solutions" and b)a problem that is far removed. In other words, we have little knowledge of Alice before the work begins. We are almost immediately taken into an unconscious dream state/world created by a character we don't know much about. Finally, and perhaps the most import questions becomes, whose to say what, if any, any interpretation is correct?
ReplyDelete-Ivette Pazmiño-Martinez
Perhaps the most poignant moments of Alice in Wonderland were those where she or the "queer" individuals she came in contact either completely misinterpret what is being said to them or purposely lean towards a pun, i.e. the mad hatter. Consequently interpretation becomes individual, and one cannot possibly force a particular interpretation while one is reading, since we are faced with varying interpretations of those who are speaking as well as those who are listening to what is being said throughout the piece.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that comes to mind is the fact that the literary piece is designed in dream-form. Therefore interpretation may seem challenging since you can't label any one comment in the piece as any specific thing since it's so absurd to begin with. Carroll captures the essence of dreaming and dreams, because his caricatures--we can't exactly call them characters because they are so hyperbolic--gives the reader heightened awareness of how ideas can become misrepresented, i.e. the Queen and her obsession with the necessity of orders being completed in "no time" or "half of no time", as well as her obsession with having people executed, and then we find out she's just saying it, everyone always gets pardoned.
One couldn't possibly interpret Alice in Wonderland as any one thing because she interacts with so many strange individuals, and even she can't come up with a cohesive explanation of what is happening because it is not a part of her reality, thereby making it impossible for the reader to make concrete interpretations of what is being read. There are many similar elements in all of her encounters so the reader would be able to analyze Alice, but not necessarily her adventures.
One thing that "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" have in common with Kafka's "The Metamorphoses" is that each of the main characters undergo a physical transformation (or many, in Alice's case) and try to make sense of the world around them. Alice tries to recite the multiplication table and a poem she had once memorized but they come out all wrong, much like how Gregor is unable to communicate with his family after he is transformed into an insect.
ReplyDeleteAlice tries to compare her lessons learned in school to the Mock Turtle, but the Mock Turtle deems Alice's knowledge as "uncommon nonsense" (p.101). She tries to make sense of Wonderland, but is unable to do so, just as Gregor is unable to support his family and recognize his surroundings, which were at once familiar to him. Each of their failures to comprehend their new worlds with the knowledge they have gained from their previous world exemplifies how everything cannot be deduced from common sense.
The fantastical worlds that Alice and Gregor enter has several possible interpretations that their new state may represent.
-Su Roy
In response to the aub - "my heart's adventures become my novel" - you's said, "one cannot possibly force a particular interpretation while one is reading." Is any particular interpretation of anything possible to be forced? Maybe Wonderland resists interpretation more so than others because it is so alienating. Often readers think they are pretty high-and-mighty and can get to the depth imbedded in the text because they are either familiar with the world in which the text lives or they become familiar through the quality of the writing. That familiarity leads them to believe they can somehow "understand" or "interpret" the text, which seems fairly absurd to me. However, in Wonderland the quality of the writing works against the reader's familiarity with any element of the narrative.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you say "Carroll captures the essence of dreaming and dreams..." - I wonder if that "essence" can ever be captured by literature. In many ways (though, not all), literature transforms experience into narrative, or some structure, for readers to then experience. Dream is sort of the anti-narrative or anti-structure in some ways. It hardly ever has a real beginning or end, thus making the middle uncertain. The end is often simply when one wakes up, therefore the end of a dream is completely outside of that dream. It seems literature may be able to incorporate elements that are "dream-like", but the essence of a dream is, in my opinion, likely untouchable for literature.
-Cameron Xavier McLinden the Thirtieth
your feedback is welcome however I would like you to take a look at pages 21-117 again. maybe in re-reading the crux of the text you will see that i say what i mean, which is indicative of my meaning what i say, and so on and so forth. while your educated opinion illustrates some impossibility of the representation of the essence of dreams, i think that it overshadows the reality of what Carroll in fact manages to create what some might call the perfect dream in writing Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. the only other piece that comes close that i can remember is scipio's dream, which macrobius commented on, i believe you were in my medieval class last semester which focused on the influence dreams have on writing and vice versa, that's neither here nor there, consequently further reading must be done in order to reach clear consensus of what Carroll attempts and what he becomes successful in doing. What i find really intriguing from our discussion in class today, is that some critics believed that his need to change Alice's size was some way for him to reconcile is possibly inappropriate love for Alice Liddell, what did you think of that? Perhaps we should take up this debate over a mocha at starbucks?
ReplyDeletelol, i told you that if you responded i wouldnt respond back. instead i'll just give you a short one.
ReplyDeletethose texts are dream-like..ish. they dont capture any essence, they just mimic parts of the experience of the essence of dreaming.
you can buy me an english breakfast tea. ask them to give me a lil cold water, too, because that hot water burns my tongue for about 20 mins.
also a kind bar. thanks. that would be dreamy.
It's interesting to take a look at Carroll's work in light of John Lennon's "I Am the Walrus". This song's title was taken directly from the Walrus and the Carpenter's story in "Through the Looking Glass". Lennon confesses that the song's lyrics are absolute nonsense, having no hidden meaning whatsoever, and cannot lend itself to interpretation. The simple reason being that he was angry over the fact that his songs were starting to be analyzed and interpreted. Perhaps this "interpretation" of Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" works as well. We can all agree that the manifest content of the story is complete and utter nonsense. As students, scholars, and readers we tend to make meaning out of what we read in the text. It's like we need there to be meaning or something more to the story for our intellect to be satisfied. Therefore, the story must have latent content as well, or else we would have read in vain. "Carroll's work is a critique of the Victorian Era, capitalism, social status, coming of age, etc." We need to say this so we can make sense of the nonsense and in the process inadvertently fall victim to a mindset Carroll himself was rebelling against. Lennon knew this. But then again, isn't this just another interpretation? Am I doing the same exact thing by interpreting the work as having no interpretation?
ReplyDeleteAdam Lasky
Alice's world has many things that are comparable to the characters in Kafka's and Beckett's books. Alice is in a world where her surroundings are both new and absurd. She finds herself to be alone, and very different from everyone else, almost helpless in a way. This is comparable to "The Metamorphosis" when the main character turns into a bug out of no where. He is then in a world of his own, with no one to sympathize with. "Waiting for Godot" is part of the theater of the absurd where strange and unusal events are happening to two men. But are they really?..or is it simply a figment of the characters' imaginations? Each of the characters in these three books have this commonality.
ReplyDeleteThe different the Absurd and the Accepted: After Reading Alice Twice I found it interesting that the story was called absurd (bare with me). Yes It was definitely out there and different but why absurd? Sure there are talking animals and animate- inanimate objects, but why the title of absurd. Then I realized, similarly, that before I knew that there bodies of water where one could simply "walk on them," I thought the idea was absurd as well (ice not included). Then I traveled to the dead sea and behold I pretty much walked on, through, waist deep in water.
ReplyDeleteI feel this is why Alice Lends itself so well to modernism. At its creation and till now it is Different and Difficult to understand, so we call it absurd. Same with the Modern movement, at its creation it was so different and illogical that all it could be called is Absurd. but once we move past our natural fears and stubbornness and accept possibilities it becomes normal and accepted.
Alice's talking animals and strange rules are definitely absurd, that is till Alice herself takes them for the change they are, brining the absurd side to realities possibilities, at least the idea behind them. In short just like Wonderland Universe the Modern movement and its creations are all absurd till we look at them and accept that they are simply different.
The most integral element of Alice in Wonderful, for me, is the idea that the book can be interpreted as a breach from Victorian norms and values. Learning of Lewis Carrol's morally questionable background, namely, his fascination with young girls, proves to elicit a different interpretation of the book. Alice is a character who unwillingly escapes her upper-class civilized world into an often dark "wonderland" where societal rules and conventions are obsolete. Despite being immersed in a magical and playful world, she can not break free of the socialized habits she has been conditioned to employ. If Alice's "escape" from Victorian England is a well-needed one, it is ultimately fruitless as she is consistently unable to fully assimilate into the culture of the "wonderland". Given this approach, perhaps Carroll could have found a healthy outlet to unleash his imagination and keen observation (and perhaps disdain?) of Victorian values and norms through the writing of "Alice in Wonderland". However, given his history of being unable to formulate healthy adult relationships, he was, like Alice, trapped in a limbo of deeply ingrained upper-class civility and a desire to abandon this for a world where social rules have been made illogical, where one must start from scratch.
ReplyDeleteAs many of you have noted, Alice resists any ONE interpretation, and is open to many, depending on the reader, the actors, the moviemakers, and the times. This is why I think it is so appealing: it is an OPEN text, witness the emergence of several productions of Alice and Burton's movie coming out in March.
ReplyDeleteIn the Irondale production that some of us attended last night,we were physically(and psychologically) led through the historic Irondale space (see history below) to explore Alice as an active agent in her adventures. Feeling that Alice has traditionally been presented as too passive (terrifying changes in size without control), this production emphasized her own choices and direction in her adventures (i.e. choosing "drink me," "eat me") until a Guatanamo-like court scene over the tarts emerges at the end.
They project Alice on two levels: gentle, terrified Alice and another sinister Darwinian Alice who is a threat to the creatures she meets. This ensemble's interpretation focuses on Alice's dream as not far removed from nightmare (and so touches on the comments by Su and Angela): "a children's Kafka." We were led to large halls where we saw Alice panicked over being unable to open doors--always being the wrong size--we saw her grow to the height of the balcony above as they theatrically threw down a long drape for her dress, head on balcony, and feet peeping out in the hall below. Good theater. Then we tramped upstairs to the musty attic overhung with pipes to view the Dutchess with the baby/pig, and a film of Alice projected on the wall. Here she was being interviewed by a psychologist, "Who are you?" "I don't know," said Alice, upset, she said, by her changes in size. She knew who she was yesterday, but not today. Surely, this introduces us to modernism's preoccupation with multiple selves (no unitary self after the introduction of Freud and the unconscious) and identity: "who am I?"
Perhaps Ivette has some other interpretations?
Remember what Barthes said about reading: "There is no one reading. Only re-reading."(MVP and Heart's Adventures note this). But there is a text in the room, and you must base your interpretations on that thought this one opens up...
You may see Alice one way as a child; another as a grad student; another way as a parent; as a scientist thinking of the effects of Darwin in Victorian times; or according to Victorian norms (P.Y.Marquez); or as someone who is threatened by what seems "queer" or different, and thus, race, class, sex, gender; appropriated by popular culture (Adam); the absurd as in Beckett or Kafka (Eddie V); or part of a tradition of representation of dreams in lit (Heart's Adventures); or as part of a dating game (Springbored?). Or perhaps all of the creatures are aspects of Alice: Each may represent a part of Alice that she has not tamed or integrated into her personality And a student in China may find a meaning we have not even dreamed of.
History of Irondale Center: Alice performances continue till 2/27. Rush tickets certain nights, $15.
(7000 sq ft on several levels) of the Lafayette Avenue Church (Sunday school space).
The church in Fort Green, 85 So Oxford St, was established in 1857 and was known as a "temple of abolition" and speakers included Frederick Douglas and Charles Dickens. Very interesting space, and the ensemble productions started a year ago offer interpretations of classic works, community theater productions, improv for teens. Check it out.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is particularly modern in its focus on consciousness and the role that dreams play within it, as well as its treatment of female gender roles. The omniscient narrator introduces Alice in her transition into the dream world. This transition fuses illusion with reality, and is particularly modern in the sense that the reader is left to figure out what is happening to the character. We are not certain where we are in place and time. Carroll does not inform us at what point the departure into sleep takes place. The reader is left to assess what seems to be the most probable point. Is it after she sees the rabbit run past her, or back when she is considering whether or not making a daisy chain is too much effort, or does she fall asleep reading her sister’s boring book?
ReplyDeleteAlice’s dream can also be perused with a Psychoanalytic lens. The vast majority of the book’s action takes place in Alice’s mind, where her subconscious “Id” grapples with her super-ego, as Freud would point out as the function of dreaming, in order to reconcile her selfish desires with societal expectations. The dream society’s absurd rules and orders represent the rules and restrictions of Alice’s physical Victorian world that don’t make sense her. Wonderland also offers choices that confuse, require reflection and force her to recall certain things she’s learned, such as the song she used to know and attempts to recite for the Gryphon and Mock Turtle.
Throughout the story, Alice mentions not feeling like the same person, which is representative of mental, subconscious growth that she is slowly becoming conscious of and acknowledging. This grappling is symbolized in the physical fluctuation in her size, which juxtaposes feelings of helplessness a kin to being a child, a younger sibling, a girl in Victorian Society, with the empowered feeling of growing up. Alice’s behavior can also be looked at from a feminist angle in the way that her conduct rebels against restrictive Victorian gender roles and reveals a self that is well meaning but outspoken, navigational and boundary testing. Alice doesn’t conduct herself according to the guidelines of proper Victorian etiquette that postulate that little girls aught to be seen and not heard.
This journey through Alice’s mental wonderland culminates in a surge of empowerment in which she almost becomes lucid and realizes it is she who’s running the show as she tells the Queen off: “‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice (she had grown to her full size by this time. ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’” (116).
Upon waking from this dream, Alice is immediately confronted with her place in society and family structure, and we are once again in Victorian England. She wakes up in her older sister’s lap and is told to “run in to her tea” because it is getting late, which she obeys immediately (117). The omniscient narrator’s glance then shifts to Alice’s sister’s thoughts, who herself begins to drift in and out of reality and Alice’s fantasy. The reader, however, is not informed how the sister is privy to this fantasy, and is required to make her/his own assumption as to the origin of this Alice’s sister’s knowledge. Perhaps Alice was talking in her sleep? We are again unsure where we are in place and time as we drift into the sister’s sleepy reflections which, loving as they are, engender the Victorian society’s restricted concept of female identity as domestic in its representation of Alice’s future role as a mother gathering children around her.