Carroll Class Summary

The Whimsical Wonderland of Lewis Carroll: Class Summary; 2/24/2011 As it was our final class period before spring break, it seemed only appropriate to have a little fun. Our assigned readings for the day were from Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, including the poem The Hunting of the Snark. Carroll’s whimsical style is naturally easy to read, and even more entertaining to read aloud. In the spirit of Carroll our class discussion was allowed to run free and take whichever direction we chose. We began the day with a reward quiz on the homework readings, as usual. The answers to this quiz were a little goofier than normal- referencing rabbits in waistcoats and talking pigs. After handing in our quizzes we began a brief discussion of Carroll’s life, beginning by noting his pen name, Charles Dodgson. The conversation naturally turned to Carroll’s motivation for writing fanciful children’s stories. The class seemed to generally agree that some of Carroll’s behavior (photographing children nude) may seem strange in today’s culture but was probably glanced over in 19th century England. As we began our small group discussion Dr. Foss advised us to enjoy the nonsense of Carroll and allow our discussion to wander and even become nonsensical. It can be said that Carroll’s work is not supposed to make any sense; it is simply supposed to be enjoyable, as was our discussion. Our small group began with a whimsical suggestion when Joe noted that we should all “Take time off and hunt the Bandersnatch,” to which Mary responded, “What about the Jabberwocky?” And we digress. Much of the genius of Carroll is his invention- of words, of worlds, of witticisms. My small group discussed the Mad Hatter’s eternal question, “Is a raven like a writing desk?” According to Mary, some of Carroll’s later letters suggest that he never had an answer for this riddle, but received much fan mail with various options. We agreed that we like the open ended nature of the riddle, as it further plays on the fancy of the Hatter’s character. To discuss Carroll’s invention of words, we noted chortle and Frabjous Day, both of which are now accepted in the English dictionary. My small group had a great fondness for Carroll, especially the Through the Looking Glass and Alice’s Adventures stories. We noted that Carroll’s works were probably a fanciful escape from the poised world of Victorian England. Wonderland would be especially appealing to children, just as Barrie’s Neverland is. Using this comparison we continued our discussion by noting the differences in Disney adaptations versus the original novels. We decided that Disney often does not portray characters in the correct light- molding them to fit an adapted plot or ideal. We instead mentioned other adaptations such as the new HBO miniseries based on Carroll. The class reconvened to discuss as a whole. Foss posed the questions, “Is there a deeper meaning? Does it matter?” We began to draw a connection between Carroll and aestheticism, claiming that his work can be simply art for art’s sake, not to be deeply analyzed, but to be enjoyed and marveled at. I believe that it was around this time when Dr. Foss fell into a series of puns, beginning with, “Humpty Dumpty’s explanations aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.” After a lengthy discussion of whether or not the Carroll’s walrus could shuck oysters, or if it mattered, we decided that part of the fancy of the poem is the irrelevance. It’s possible that Carroll simply wanted the reader to discuss such questions, and not come to a conclusion. Similarly, our discussion of which topical focus point to relate Carroll to was rather inconclusive. In an effort to connect Hunting of the Snark, we cited the Bellman’s speech as an example of Travel and Empire. While several other connections could have been made, much of our discussion was inconclusive. We reverted back to making connections between Carroll’s fascination with children to other male authors at the time, such as Barrie and Woodhouse. After a particularly lengthy comment, Helen noted, “It wasn’t terribly relevant, but as it is it isn’t a terribly relevant day.” I think her statement really pulls together the whole discussion, playing into the nonsensicality that is Lewis Carroll. While his work is incredibly relevant to the literary history of British Literature, it’s not always easily applicable. It is my impression that the class enjoyed this sort of nonsense day as a way to relax and get back to the heart of why we read in the first place- often to explore other worlds outside our own understanding. But, after all, this is a college course, so as Dr. Foss noted at the end of the period, “Can you have your nonsense cake and eat it too?”