by Sunil Sharma
…but Alice had got so
much into the way of expecting nothing but out-of-the-way things to happen, that it seemed quite dull
and stupid for life to go on in the common way.
So she set to work, and very soon finished off the cake.
`Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: `we’re all
mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.’
`How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
`You must be,’ said the Cat, `or you wouldn’t
have come here.’
“Who are YOU?’ said the Caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a
conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, `I–I hardly
know, sir, just at present– at least I know who I
WAS when I got up this morning, but I think I must
have been changed several times since then.’
`What do you mean by that?’ said the Caterpillar
So, who is Lewis Carroll?
This question cannot be easily answered by me or anybody else. But Grace wanted a quick answer. She just finished the Alice in the Wonderland and wanted to know about its wonderful creator who went by this name.
Did he ever exist? She asked me, eyes wide open—the way nine-year-olds can have at the wide-wide world. I said I will find out soon for her.
It is not a real name, Grace said.
What is the real name? I asked.
Oh! I forgot!
No problem, honey.
But why do folks use other names? If I use a name not my official one, will it not be understood as something wrong? She asked. Being a lawyer, I had told her of cases where people using false names got caught—and punished by the law.
It is literature, I said.
But rules are rules—for everyone, in every field. Grace persisted. You are trying to conceal your true identity.
In literature, rules are different. I said tamely. It is a different territory.
- Who is Carroll?
We were back to square one.
Give me some time, I said.
That set me off on a strange journey. A literary odyssey that required the navigation of the choppy area between the imagined and real; the persona and the individual; social mores and the transmuted artistic expression; sense and non-sense; fantasy and fact; historical and transcendental; physical and the parallel universes; meaning and its production, creation and destruction… and lot more. Kind of investigation that a literary detective has to undertake.
“We find signs of its age in a serious literary work,” says Homocus (Not his real name, says he with a wink).
Can we?
Alice in the Wonderland was published in the year 1865. “In a sense it mocks all the expected norms of novel reading and writing; it demolishes them and renews them for others. Very few works could overturn those norms set by Carroll—even he, himself could not through his other iconic work,” says Homocus Mirabilis over coffee in his well-appointed drawing room in Rome. “Although written in the Victorian age, echoes of our age are also traceable in a great book.”
How?
First thing first. The age when the book got written leaves its mark in that literary book, claimed Homocus, considered to be a foremost authority on Alice and Carroll, two famous fictional characters for me, real for others like Homes of Baker Street was to another generation.
He explains patiently to me his interesting hypothesis, “Let us talk about the book.”
OK.
“It is an escape from the prim and propa Victorian world into a world of freedom. Freedom from the restrictions, stifling norms and stilted conventions of an imperialist society and its totalizing binary imagination.”
Now, that is too much!
“Alice the book is full of riddles and signs that you have to interpret for you and the book speaks through the prism of time.”
How?
“You find the echoes of your time in that book. Only thing—be alert!”
Now, a pompous—for me— Homocus Mirabilis can be jarring on the nerves!
“Now, let us talk Alice, the Victorian girl.”
Go ahead, I say.
Alice is almost seven-and –a- half-year-old girl who, bored on the morning of May 4, finds herself falling through a rabbit hole and into a strange world. And the journey starts that still continues to delight adults and children alike across the world.
“During the dreamed adventure, little Alice—curious, questioning, courteous and believing—encounters the normal world in a new and fresh way. It is a world inverted, made strange, for the rationalists.”
Here is how, says Homocus:
“The talking rabbit with a pocket watch and a hall with locked doors of all sizes are all symbols—like much of the book Alice and much of literature. The fully-clothed rabbit leads the child on to a big adventure of sights and sounds. It destabilizes all our expectations of looking at the normal world and experiencing it through language—itself a system of conventions. In a way, the scenes after changing scenes baffle our commonsensical view of things seen and repeatedly emphasize the arbitrary nature of symbol, sign and convention.”
Please explain.
“The rabbit stands for swiftness, speed and velocity. Metaphorically. Carroll, in order to render the experienced prim world of the Victorian era upside down, makes the rabbit as a creature speak and thus create a new symbol. The unexpected does the work of the expected; the impossible becomes possible; the illogical is nothing but logical in a strange world. It is purely arbitrary decision by Carroll to assign a new shocking value to rabbit operating as an old symbol in an underground realm where the young trusting viewer Alice expects only out-of-the-way things to happen because those happenings make the conventional life exciting and no longer dull and stupid in its common way for her. A gregarious female child experiences the restricted world in a newer way, a world where everyday realities are not prevalent but mad things rule. The book turns down everything topsy-turvy, on its head.”
Sorry!
“It is how every new literary artistic product behaves. You can see the Alice book anticipating the Cubists and continuing the tradition of Don Quixote.”
Hmm!
“By adding speech and clothes and waist-pocket watch, the rabbit becomes a new symbol rather than a tired cliché and infuses more energy into the funny narrative. But how a rabbit can talk, you ask. Why not? Carroll seems to say. Literature is a particular way of looking at the things and the world. Your realism might not be my realism. For a child, a fable or fairy-tale is more real, plausible than a work by Dickens. And how real is the real in these realistic novels? Is it not a mere illusion?”
Well, OK, Go on…
“So, once we expect the legitimacy of a parallel world created only by the extra-ordinary creative mind of a great artist, then we expect things occurring in that world as perfectly sane, logical and normal. In a fairy-land, every winged creature is normal; only a wingless human is abnormal.”
Good!
“So a talking rabbit is a novelty that ceases to be such after an initial encounter. “
What about the hall?
“Simple. It signifies the restricted environment for a female child then and now. It has got locked rooms of different sizes. Rooms that can lead to different realms but are locked in a big hall that closes down upon the looker. You need initiatives big or small to open that restricted space. Hence, she shrinks and grows bigger.”
Stretching it a bit?
“Not at all. We produce our own meanings out of a sacred text in every age. Criticism is like that only. A sacred text speaks in multiple tones to multiple folks.”
For a lawyer, it is all Greek!
“It is in our hands to manufacture a wonderland out of the rational and mundane. Alice the book proves that. Take the scene of Caucus- Race where everybody is going in circles and nobody is a winner. Middle-class existence in a post-modern society resembles that Caucus-Race only: Moving around in circles.”
Sounds intriguing!
“The Cheshire cat!”
What about it?
“It shows that symbols are arbitrarily assigned their symbolism; meanings to objects. Red rose for love? Why not for hatred? You have no answers. A grin without a cat in fact suggests the gap between object and its assigned meaning by us; it suggests that it is all fixed up by community of users in an arbitrary way only. The entire language, symbols, signs— they all function like that.”
How?
“The meanings, symbolism get finally separated in an evolved sophisticated complex sign-system—linguistic and literary. A grin, the signified—separate from cat, its signifier—hints at the function of any given code—mathematical, musical, scientific, folk—evolved to communicate ideas.”
What else is there in this marvelous book?
“A lot. The Caterpillar- and the Cheshire- Cat dialogues are all pointers in this direction. The Mad Tea Party is another intriguing scene. The take on the word mad is revealing. Don also examines this state also.”
What is the message?
“Frightening change! We all change in the process of our experience—for good or for worse. But change we all on this earth, a brief adventure, for some mad; for some, sane. Boundaries are never fixed; they change rapidly for us. Words lose meanings and gain much. Innovative ideas once insane get sane in the long run. Mad become sane; sane become insane. Arts help this quick metamorphosis very fast. Alice the book is more effective than any other solid earthly experience for some like Alice the little question curious girl who has got two sides to her.”
Hmm.
“Literature can bring transformations deep via their imagery and emotion, visual appeals.”
What is the message for you, of this book of fiction?
“Well, simple. The real education is done through experiencing the world. There are and can be bizarre and eccentric characters, low and high, articulate and dull, rational and irrational in a rich tapestry and they all can teach a child and us a thing or two about life and the world. We keep on changing fast—sometimes shrinking; sometimes expanding; sometimes small, sometimes big—it is all a big rollercoaster and you enjoy the eccentricities and delights of this short journey between dreaming and waking up before you leave your earthly coil for good!”
Impressive, dear Homocus Mirabilis, my dear literary friend, a devotee of Cervantes, Borges, Marquez, Spielberg, Tolkien and Rowling—creators of the so-called marvellous for every generation. One Thousand and One Nights is his favourite. So is Panchtantra.
And what is marvellous?
“Well, well. It is the other side of realism. The upside down of reality, of human perceptions. As the nightly jungle looks strange—taking on different forms; the trees and shrubs and hills looking bizarre, outlandish or as giants in the inky darkness—for the traveler trapped there but reverts to its original shape for the eyes next morning and less threatening than the nightly one, it is the same with the marvellous. It is the exaggerated real and designed to defy logic and a sense of rational for the pure delight of telling a story, a fable. There are no giants we all know but we tend to believe in such stories, yarns or fables. The idea is to delight in the unknown and the mysterious and to creatively explore the free-flowing, unstructured side of human imagination. In other words, creating an alternative reality for the reading/viewing mind and an escape route from the regimented grimness of a rational, calculating world into the delightful realms of art.”
Marvellous!
Last question.
Yes.
Who is Lewis Carroll?
“The guy who overturned a tradition and created a new one of story-telling. The great innovator! He insisted that a medley of riddles, pun, poems, neologism and queer creatures in a fun narrative can also be quite interesting method of communicating certain truths. He saw things largely unseen by his society and he made them vivid through a new style and presentation. Truths are truths, whatever be their forms of expression. If factual can be valid, why not the fantastic for the artist and the wider reading public? In fact, he interrogates the conventions of evolving mode of realism and produces his version of realism— portmanteau realism.”
Illustration?
“He created a sur-realistic world much before Dali…Like, to give an example not from the book but to make a lawyer like you to understand, combining different things in one figure to make it bizarre: Adding cat/dog- whiskers to a mirror.”
Or, a Caterpillar smoking a hookah? I like those classic lines:
`I can’t explain MYSELF, I’m afraid, sir’ said Alice, `because I’m not myself, you see.’
`I don’t see,’ said the Caterpillar.
This exchange is profound. So is the startling image of a smoking Caterpillar. It is unusual, is it not?
“Yes, It is. You are right, my lawyer friend from India”
Who was he in life? Our dear Carroll-guy?
“He never existed.”
What?
“Yes. He is not historical. A mere invention, a linguistic category only.”
Then who wrote the book?
“Lewis Carroll only.”
Now you sound like the Cheshire Cat or the Caterpillar.
“Not at all.”
Please explain.
“Carroll was/is an extension of the historic Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, a mathematician, logician, dean, author and photographer of the Victorian age. He wrote under the pen name of Lewis Carroll. Former was a rationalist; Carroll, a romanticist. The first, a complex logical thinker thinking in abstract terms, solving problems of math. The second, a romancer playing with the imagination, words, logic, situations, norms most playfully, like our playful post-modernists. Two opposing sides! An interesting dualism not uncommon in artistic field.”
Hamm! Not very clear yet…
“He was two persons in one man—like most of the artistes. What Carroll could see the staid Dodgson could not; what the math teacher could see, the writer could not. Both were separated, yet unified in a single breast—like the meaning is in the word, the word is in the object; the object is in the mind, the mind in the matter…”
STOP!
About the Author:
Sunil Sharma, a senior academic and author-critic-poet–freelance journalist, is from suburban Mumbai, India. He has published 22 books so far, some solo and some joint, on prose, poetry and criticism.
He edits the monthly, bilingual Setu:
http://www.setumag.com/p/setu-home.html
For more details of publications, please visit the link below:
http://www.drsunilsharma.blogspot.in/