Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass are nonsense for nonsense’s sake

Whilst it is possible to see Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass as meditations on Victorian social practice (Geer 2), to do so denies their ongoing power and relevance. Carroll’s writing is entertaining, yet provocative. He was a mathematician and a logician (Green, xxix) able to make us laugh at a world that often defies logic. Nonsense provided the perfect platform. However, taking material from the world around him does not counter the fact that according to Charlton (346), Carroll himself admitted his writing was nonsense. Further, in a letter written to the children reading his books, he refers to his joy in being able to bring them happiness and innocent amusement (Carroll, “To all child-readers” 248). So even though adults may interpret the books in multitudinous ways, Carroll’s focus was on entertaining children. With this in mind, an interpretation of nonsense itself precedes arguments taken from academic works and the texts themselves to show why, in accordance with William Charlton’s (346-360) assertions, Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass are nonsense for nonsense’s sake.

Nonsense writing gives the impression of sense, and yet, when examined, certain aspects become irreconcilable (Charlton 346). For this ruse to work effectively, the illogical must operate within a certain logic. So, when Paul Jennings (16) writes that nonsense “involves seeing reality from the other side,” he adds that, like a chess game, “it is exact.” Wim Tigges explains it another way. He argues that Carroll’s ‘nonsensical reasoning’ is “reasoning which is nonsensical because it is logical” (Tigges 151).

Carroll uses many of the stylistic devices associated with nonsense writing to create confusion: agonistic dialogue (Lecercle 72; Flescher 137), illogical extrapolations (Pitcher 595, 599, 601), reversals (Flescher 129), puns (Flescher 128, 138), imaginary language (Lecercle 33; Flescher 141), and rhythm and rhyme (Flescher 129). He also distorts language (Haight 55) whilst still obeying the syntactical rules (Leclercle 58). In so doing he shows that language itself is not logical. It can be played with on many levels. Based on the work of Kant, Charlton (356) claims that the beauty of nonsense is that it “brings our faculties of understanding and imagination into free and harmonious interplay.” Not only does Carroll’s nonsense entertain, it also encourages us to think because we have to unravel passages to separate the illogical from the logical. Thus we are given the opportunity to play with both the words on the page and our own thought processes.

Further, his use of agonistic dialogue shows the power language commands. By way of example, at the Hatter’s tea party, pedantry was used to twist Alice’s words:

‘… you should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went on.

‘I do,’ Alice hastily replied; ‘at least – at least I mean what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.’

‘Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter. ‘You might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see”!’ (Carroll 83).

Or later, ““I like what I get” is the same thing as ““I get what I like”!’” … and “I breathe when I sleep” is the same thing as “I sleep when I breathe”!’” (Carroll 83). It can be argued there is a dark side to this agonistic dialogue; however, it also allows us to revel in not only the ‘what if’ aspects, but also Carroll’s ability to entertain through the subversion of grammar.  This is not associated purely with a time period. Nor is it a meditation on social values. It is nonsense.

Then, in Through the Looking-Glass Alice wants to join the adult world. She too wants to play the game (Carroll 193). This may be social commentary, but if we picture Alice when she finds herself suddenly off and running with the Red Queen without knowing how or why (Carroll 193-94), Carroll allows us to laugh at this image of her. We also have the opportunity to laugh at ourselves. Alice soon discovers that, even though she felt exhausted, she had to keep running. Eventually she got nowhere (Carroll 194-95). As nonsensical as this is, it is potentially relatable and provides an example of what Charlton (352) would suggest is logical nonsense because it contains ideas that are “logically objectionable” (Charlton 352). Alice may as well have been going on a journey with a ‘porpoise’ (Carroll 124).

Carroll’s use of puns shows how confusing language can be. In her study on how Carroll creates nonsensical meanings, Marcia Lemos (30) points out that he continuously plays with language. In the illogical worlds of Alice’s dreams, figurative language is often used and interpreted literally (Lemos 26) which creates much confusion for Alice. In Wonderland, when Alice and the other animals are wet from swimming in her tears, Mouse believes he can dry them by telling them a dry story (Carroll 33). On Dictionary.com there are thirty-four possible applications of the word ‘dry’. This suggests how difficult it can be to find the words necessary for adequate and accurate expression. Carroll uses this difficulty to his advantage.

As Lemos (29) explains, another form of pun is created by utilising similar sounding words that have very different meanings.  For instance, when Alice is asking Mouse to share his history with her, he begins, “Mine is a long and a sad tale!” (Carroll 37). Alice focuses on the length of Mouse’s ‘tail’ which results in her picturing his ‘tale’ written in the shape of a ‘tail’ (Carroll 38). She becomes further confused when she mistakes ‘knot’ for ‘not’ (Carroll 39). Pitcher (611) believes this humour indicates Carroll understood how children’s minds work. According to Pitcher (611), Carroll’s nonsense is designed to “delight and fascinate” them. Hence, the notion that he was writing nonsense for nonsense’s sake is strengthened. 

Then, when Carroll demonstrates another way words can appear to make sense yet make no sense at all, it becomes stronger still. Nonsense is a fun, illogical yet logical game played with words. In the Jabberwocky poem which begins, “Twas brillig, and the slithy toves” (Carroll 180), Carroll followed the rules governing word formation to create new ones (Lecercle 33). The resultant words appear normal because they match our expectations of what words should look and sound like. M R Haight (248) suggests Jabberwocky works because both ‘jabber’ and ‘wock’ are onomatopoeic. In addition, the word itself aligns with typical English word construction (Haight 249). Carroll merely “exploits the possibilities offered by the … rules governing the possible combinations of phenomes” (Lecercle 41). By using created words that sound familiar, Carroll wrote a poem that appears to make sense. Then he had Alice and Humpty Dumpty attempt to unravel the first stanza. They are somewhat successful in turning nonsensical words into something sensible (Carroll 250). Yet, what they really did was find sense where none existed. Jacqueline Flescher (132) claims even Carroll’s attempts at providing an exact interpretation of Jabberwocky was not definitive. After all, he was writing nonsense.

Determining a definition of nonsense proves difficult. However, certain ideas are consistently upheld. Academics, including Marcia Lemos, Jean-Jacques Lecercle, and Jacqueline Flesher, have written on the language elements of nonsense. Others, such as George Pitcher focused on the logical aspect. William Charlton reflected on both when he sought to define what he refers to as ‘nonsense proper’ – nonsense written for nonsense’s sake. Lewis Carroll’s Alice books meet all the criteria. Through his manipulation and use of language, grammar and syntax he was able to make the illogical appear logical, the logical appear illogical, and the imaginary appear real. Whilst it is possible to interpret the texts in a plethora of ways, and to pick out themes such as identity and transitions, the nonsensical brilliance predominates.  Consequently, after being drawn into Carroll’s fantasy worlds for a while, it is possible to imagine other possibilities. Our sense of what is real, what is normal, and what is sensible becomes a little unstable, a little more fantasy like, and then maybe, reading and considering nonsense written for nonsense’s sake becomes the most logical thing to do.

Word count: 1348

This Tarot in Wonderland

Works Cited

Carroll, Lewis. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. Vintage, 2007.

—. “To All Child-Readers of ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, edited by Peter Hunt, Oxford UP, 2009, p. 248.

Charlton, William. “Nonsense.” British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 17, no. 4, 1977, pp. 346-360. Oxford Journals, https://doi-org.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/10.1093/bjaesthetics/17.4.346.

Flescher, Jacqueline. “The Language of Nonsense in Alice.” Yale French Studies, no. 43, 1969, pp. 128-144. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2929641.

Geer, Jennifer. ““All sorts of pitfalls and surprises”: Competing Views of Idealized Girlhood in Lewis Carroll’s Alice Books.” Children’s Literature, vol. 31, 2003, pp. 1-24. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/docview/195575285?accountid=10499.

Green, Roger Lancelyn. Introduction. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, edited by Green, Oxford UP, 1998, pp. ix-xxv.

Haight, M R. “Nonsense.” British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 11, no. 3, 1971, pp. 247-256. Oxford Journals, https://doi-org.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/10.1093/bjaesthetics/11.3.247.

Jennings, Paul. Introduction. The Book of Nonsense: An Anthology, edited by Jennings, Futura Publications, 1979, pp. 15-21.

Lecercle, Jean-Jacques. Philosophy of Nonsense: The Intuitions of Victorian Nonsense Literature. Routledge, 1994.

Lemos, Màrcia. “Language-Games in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland or: How Language Operates in Carroll’s Text to Produce Nonsensical Meanings in Common-Sense References.” E-F@bulations / E-F@bulações, vol. 5, 2009, pp. 23-34. www.ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/7246.pdf.

Pitcher, George. “Wittgenstein, Nonsense, and Lewis Carroll.” The Massachusetts Review, vol. 6, no. 3, 1965, pp. 591-611. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25087331.

Tigges, Wim. An Anatomy of Literary Nonsense. Rodopi, 1988.