Nonsense Literature

 

Nonsense Literature

“To write about nonsense is like going to sea in a sieve…” – Wim Tiggs

 Introduction

Although the Alice books have long been called fine examples of “nonsense,” until recently the use of the term merely planted them more firmly in the genre of Children’s Literature, the “appropriate” place for nonsense.  It was not until the last third of the twentieth century that critics began to take the label seriously, recognizing literary nonsense as a genre of its own. Since then, many critics have begun to look more closely at Carroll’s brand of nonsense, exploring the craft and (a bit paradoxically) the “meaning” of the nonsense. 

 

What is Literary Nonsense?

Before exploring the Nonsensical in Alice, I’ll attempt to give a working definition of what “literary nonsense” is.  It is not merely gibberish, nor parody or satire, but a true and distinct art form, which, in the words of Jean-Jacque Lecercle, “both supports the myth of an informative and communicative language and deeply subverts it” by first whetting then frustrating the reader’s “deep-seated need for meaning” (3).  It was pioneered by British Victorians such as Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll himself and is usually employed for a humorous effect, rather like an elaborate literary practical joke.  And indeed, the juxtaposition of “Alice’s obstinate good sense and the brilliant nonsense of the creatures she meets” creates most of hilarity of theAlice books (Dunn 61). 

Sense, Nonsense, and LanguageTheme Analysis

Next

Quotes

While not as lighthearted as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Through the Looking-Glass nevertheless occupies the same silly, nonsensical world as its predecessor. Through wordplay, pointless battles, and the fantastical, dreamlike setting, Through the Looking-Glass makes nonsense the norm—while also suggesting that attempting to make sense out of nonsense is a normal, if often futile, endeavor.

From the moment Alice crawls through the looking-glass and into Looking-glass World, the novel asks that the reader—and, for that matter, Alice—suspend their disbelief. Looking-glass World is one in which flowers talk, nursery rhyme characters and chess pieces come to life, and sheep knit while inexplicably shouting rowing terms. It's a world in which it seems like anything is possible. This unpredictable chaos, however, doesn't stop Alice from trying to make sense of the nonsense happening around her. Importantly, Alice recognizes that she doesn't have the knowledge or the skills to understand the inner workings of Looking-glass World, so she makes sure to ask questions of everyone in an attempt to fit what she sees into a framework that makes sense. Despite these attempts—as when Alice tries to figure out whether the thing around Humpty Dumpty's middle is a cravat around his neck or a belt around his waist—Alice is overwhelmingly unsuccessful in interpreting what she sees, but in some ways, this is exactly the point. There's no good way to interpret the book’s fantastical happenings or verbal nonsense—the job of the reader, and of Alice, is to take what happens in stride and enjoy it.

In many cases, Carroll uses nonsense to let readers in on jokes and poke fun at stuffy traditions or schools of thought that, upon closer inspection, look just as silly as theWhite Knight constantly falling off his horse. Anything, Carroll suggests, can look silly and contrived if one is willing to see it as such. Alice's conversation with Tweedledeeand Tweedledum about the poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter," for example, pokes fun at circular philosophical arguments that have no one correct answer. Similarly, when the twins turn Alice's attention to the snoring Red King and suggest that Alice is just a dreamy figment of his imagination, Carroll gestures to some religious theories circulating in the Victorian era, most notably that all humans exist in God's dream. Situating this reference in a tale like Through the Looking-Glass, however, implies that while they may be fun to think about, such theories shouldn't be taken too seriously.

At several points, Carroll makes fun of formal education and academic ways of knowing. The Red Queen refers to the dictionary as "nonsense," while Humpty Dumpty suggests that since Alice read the nursery rhyme "Humpty Dumpty" in a book, it's equivalent to a history of England. Most tellingly, Humpty Dumpty decodes the poem "Jabberwocky" for Alice. "Jabberwocky" is a poem that, by many standards, is complete and utter nonsense; it never defines exactly what the fearsome and fictional jabberwock is, or tells the reader what a bandersnatch or a tum-tum tree are, and about half of the words in the poem aren't even real words. However, the poem also follows a familiar format, rhyme scheme, and meter that make it, at the very least, fun on an auditory level to read or recite. Through the poem (and through the nonsensical novel as a whole), Carroll makes the point that literature should be enjoyable, nonsense or not.

Humpty Dumpty's imperious and self-important interpretation of "Jabberwocky," however, reads as a still-relevant critique of seriousness, scholarliness, and holding up intelligence and formality over anything else. Decoding the poem allows Humpty Dumpty the opportunity to lord his knowledge over Alice, but much of the poem's meaning remains a mystery and it seems like Humpty Dumpty might even be making up his interpretation altogether. With this in mind, it's important to remember that Lewis Carroll and a few contemporaries invented the genre of nonsense literature. Prior to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, it was unthinkable that a talking sheep could exist outside of a simple morality tale—or, for that matter, that literature intended for children didn't need to have a “moral” to be meaningful or worth reading. With this, Carroll again makes the case that literature, whether it makes logical sense or not, should be fun—and that, if the reader so chooses, that can be one's final interpretation of a work.

 Alice as Nonsense

Although most people can agree that Carroll’s works are forms of literary nonsense, not many can agree on the nonsense’s intended (or even unintended) effect. Some argue that Carroll’s nonsense follows a “Socratic tradition that uses nonsense to help shape a moral personal identity” (Taliaferro 194) and others find Carroll’s nonsense of the kind “that results from the very natural confusions and errors that children might fall into” (Pitcher 401).  Humphrey Carpenter’s take on Carroll’s nonsense is of a slightly darker variety, calling it an art form in which “a simple idea [is] pursued with a ruthless comic literalness to its very end” which, of course, “if pursued logically to its conclusion, must end in Nothing“ (46). Who would have thought that Nonsense could mean so much?  Probably not Lewis Carroll. I believe he would argue that the point of nonsense is that it has no point at all.

But that really is the beauty of the genre; it dangles a carrot of meaning in front of us, then laughs as we jump to catch it. And Carroll’s genius for nonsense lies in the fact that we keep jumping for twelve chapters.  There is just enough “tolerable” and “intolerable” nonsense that it keeps us engaged, enthralled, and entertained (Dunn 67).