A For Alice
I just finished Morton Cohen's biography of Lewis Carroll. I read it not long after re-reading a bio of Oscar Wilde. They were popular writers who lived around the same time, but their lives were opposites. (And life in Victorian England is in some ways so much like ours, yet so different.) Carroll was shy and his world cloistered, while Wilde was involved in scandal and loved nothing better than notoriety.
But another difference, and it comes out in the books, is both are best known for one work*, and Carroll's comes near the beginning of his bio, while Wilde's comes near the end. This leads to a bit of an anti-climax for Carroll and Cohen, since you get about 400 pages after the Alice books are out.
I remember first reading Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass (published together, as they usually are these days) as a young teen. I'd heard of them, and probably seen some popularization, such as Disney's, but had not read the books themselves. They quickly became favorites, and have remained so. The humor, wordplay, logic games and nonsense poetry (not to mention the John Tenniel drawings) were right up my alley. I later bought The Annotated Alice by Martin Gardner to help get the references (many of which were understood automatically, even by children, when the books were first published), but that's hardly necessary to enjoy these classics.
How Carroll created the Alice stories--first as an impromptu performance for ten-year-old Alice Liddell and her two sisters--is a well-known tale, attested to by the people there on that sunny day. It wasn't the first story he'd made up for the children, but apparently this one was so delightful that Alice pestered him to write it down for her. If she hadn't, there would be no bios of obscure 19th century mathematician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. Alice herself was celebrated for the rest of her long life as the inspiration for the books--even when she tired of the notoriety. (There's a well-done movie that explores her visit to New York as an old woman in the 1930s, Dreamchild.)
The Alice books are all the more remarkable in that the sequel is superior to the original. This is a rarity in literature. The only other example I can think of is Don Quixote. (And maybe Huck Finn if you call that a sequel.)
One of the reasons the books live, and so little children's literature does (especially from that era) is that Carroll doesn't condescend to Alice. He doesn't need to constantly teach her moral lessons. She's put through many trials, and is usually up to them--and doesn't need a prince to rescue her. In fact, she often gives as good as she gets, and, no matter how confusing or scary it gets, keeps going. Carroll would later publish a more conventional (for him) children's book, Sylvie And Bruno. It can be found in The Complete Works Of Lewis Carroll and I forced myself to read it once. It has a few moments, but the sparkle is gone. (On the other hand, The Hunting Of The Snark still holds up fine.)
It's been a while since I read the Alice books. Maybe it's time.
*Some would make claims for various works of Wilde, but I think 90% of his reputation rests, properly, on The Importance Of Being Earnest.
But another difference, and it comes out in the books, is both are best known for one work*, and Carroll's comes near the beginning of his bio, while Wilde's comes near the end. This leads to a bit of an anti-climax for Carroll and Cohen, since you get about 400 pages after the Alice books are out.
I remember first reading Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass (published together, as they usually are these days) as a young teen. I'd heard of them, and probably seen some popularization, such as Disney's, but had not read the books themselves. They quickly became favorites, and have remained so. The humor, wordplay, logic games and nonsense poetry (not to mention the John Tenniel drawings) were right up my alley. I later bought The Annotated Alice by Martin Gardner to help get the references (many of which were understood automatically, even by children, when the books were first published), but that's hardly necessary to enjoy these classics.
How Carroll created the Alice stories--first as an impromptu performance for ten-year-old Alice Liddell and her two sisters--is a well-known tale, attested to by the people there on that sunny day. It wasn't the first story he'd made up for the children, but apparently this one was so delightful that Alice pestered him to write it down for her. If she hadn't, there would be no bios of obscure 19th century mathematician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. Alice herself was celebrated for the rest of her long life as the inspiration for the books--even when she tired of the notoriety. (There's a well-done movie that explores her visit to New York as an old woman in the 1930s, Dreamchild.)
The Alice books are all the more remarkable in that the sequel is superior to the original. This is a rarity in literature. The only other example I can think of is Don Quixote. (And maybe Huck Finn if you call that a sequel.)
One of the reasons the books live, and so little children's literature does (especially from that era) is that Carroll doesn't condescend to Alice. He doesn't need to constantly teach her moral lessons. She's put through many trials, and is usually up to them--and doesn't need a prince to rescue her. In fact, she often gives as good as she gets, and, no matter how confusing or scary it gets, keeps going. Carroll would later publish a more conventional (for him) children's book, Sylvie And Bruno. It can be found in The Complete Works Of Lewis Carroll and I forced myself to read it once. It has a few moments, but the sparkle is gone. (On the other hand, The Hunting Of The Snark still holds up fine.)
It's been a while since I read the Alice books. Maybe it's time.
*Some would make claims for various works of Wilde, but I think 90% of his reputation rests, properly, on The Importance Of Being Earnest.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:04 AM
4 Comments:
I found it interesting that Martin Gardner defended Lewis Carroll against the charges of improper interest in the real-life Alice for a long time, until he was finally convinced by what he considered conclusive evidence. Oh well.
Gardner also wrote some excellent annotions for two of G.K. Chesterton's novels. Gardner is pretty much an Enlightenment Deist (God exists, but has never interfered in our world since the moment of creation) but is very fascinated with those who hold other beliefs, and Chesterton (agnostic/pagan turned Anglican turned Catholic) is one of the figures who interests him a lot.
There's been a tremendous amount written about Carroll's relationship with Alice (and other young girls). Most of it is conjecture, so I'm surprised Gardner thinks there's conclusive evidence one way or another.
As for his personal beliefs, as I undertand it, Gardner considers himself a "fideist." This seems to mean his attitude is religious beliefs can't be proved and don't really make sense, but as long as they can't be disproved you might as well believe in certain supernatural things since they make you feel better.
In the age of hyper-sensitivity to child sexuality, Lewis Carroll would be tagged as a paedophile and have to live in restricted areas of the town.
It's a good thing this happened in a pre-Freudian age or we wouldn't have the Alice books.
Post a Comment
<< Home