Dreamchild

So, what did you think? What struck you? What questions were you left with?

The Mirror in Through The Looking Glass

As I was thinking about the theme of “mirrors” in general and in Through The Looking Glass, I came across an interesting thought. When Alice gets sucked in to the mirror, she carefully approaches it and as she does, she sees her self getting closer and closer to her own reflection, as any of us would when we are trying to look at ourselves in the mirror.
Well, my interpretation of the mirror is this: Alice is now older and she is of high stature. However, I believe that she is not so happy with her self and her life and she gets closer to her own reflection in the mirror, she sees the imperfections, which she would like to fix, more and more. It's the same process as when you look at yourself in the mirror from a distance, everything looks fine but as you get closer, you may notice, that the cloth is not such a great fit, just as you may start to see all the imperfections which you may have.
The mirror always reveals everything, as Alice looks at herself, she has to face what is not as it should be in her life. Therefore, she enters a world in which she can fix her underlying conflicts and is able to come back to her own time and start a new.

On Alice

Post your ideas here about Alice and Through the Looking Glass. Consider the ways in which each character, each tableau challenges our assumptions about life. Consider Carroll's use of "nonsense" to illuminate the world of "sense."

Jabberwocky Glossary to Clear the Confusion

Bandersnatch – A swift moving creature with snapping jaws, capable of extending its neck.[3]
Borogove – A thin shabby-looking bird with its featheres sticking out all round, "something like a live mop".[4] The initial syllable of borogove is pronounced as in borrow, rather than as in burrow.[5].
Brillig – Four o'clock in the afternoon: the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.[4][6]
Burbled – Possibly a mixture of "bleat", "murmur", and "warble".[7] Burble is also pre-existing word, circa 1303, meaning to form bubbles as in boiling water.
Chortled - Combination of chuckle and snort.[4]
Frabjous - Probably a blend of fair, fabulous, and joyous .[8]
Frumious – Combination of "fuming" and "furious."[5]
Galumphing - Perhaps a blend of "gallop" and "triumphant". Used to describe a way of "trotting" down hill, while keeping one foot further back than the other. This enables the Galumpher to stop quickly.[8]
Gimble – To make holes as does a gimlet.[4]
Gyre – To go round and round like a gyroscope.[4][9] However, Carroll also wrote in Mischmasch that it meant to scratch like a dog. The g is pronounced like the /g/ in gold, not like gem.[10].
Jubjub – A desperate bird that lives in perpetual passion.[3]
Manxome – Fearsome; the word is of unknown origin. [8]
Mimsy – Combination of "miserable" and "flimsy".[4]
Mome – Possibly short for "from home," meaning that the raths had lost their way.[4]
Outgrabe (past tense; present tense outgribe) – Something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle.[4][11]
Rath – A sort of green pig.[4] (See Origin and structure for further details.)
Slithy – Combination of "slimy" and "lithe."[4] The i is long, as in writhe.[5]
Tove – A combination of a badger, a lizard, and a corkscrew. They are very curious looking creatures which make their nests under sundials and eat only cheese.[4] Pronounced so as to rhyme with groves.[5] Note that "gyre and gimble," i.e. rotate and bore, is in reference to the toves being partly corkscrew by Humpty Dumpty's definitions.
Tulgey - Thick, dense, dark.
Uffish – A state of mind when the voice is gruffish, the manner roughish, and the temper huffish.[7]
Vorpal - See vorpal sword.
Wabe – The grass plot around a sundial. It is called a "wabe" because it goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it, and a long way beyond it on each side.[4]

Jack and the Giant's Wife

I think that one of the most nagging problems regarding the fairy tales we’ve read so far is the character of the giant’s wife in “Jack and the Beanstalk”. I simply wasn’t sure where she was coming from and what her role truly was. When Jack first meets her, we are immediately informed that she is “a great big tall woman”, and so is obviously a giantess. Now, this is important because fairy tales are generally black and white. You are good or evil, and often physical size is representative of one or the other of these traits. As we usually side with the underdog, the larger you are, the greater the odds that you are an evil character.

Jack is obviously a trickster character, as we established in class. But his first exchange with the giant’s wife seems pretty harmless, even pleasant. The story makes it a point to say that “the ogre’s wife was not half so bad after all” as she gives in to Jack’s pleas for breakfast. He even asks politely for some food, receives fair warning of her husband’s cannibalistic tendencies, and pushes the topic further. She consents, feeds the boy, and goes as far as to hide him when her husband returns home. Now, she’s obviously used to her husband’s choices in food, and as she cooks this food for him, is surely not squeamish when it comes to murder or cooking human flesh. Why then does she show this compassion when it comes to Jack? We could argue that he, being the trickster hero, has some charisma that makes it easy to garner sympathy or camaraderie with even the most unexpected characters, but I think this situation goes beyond even that.

On Jack’s return visit, she recognizes him from his first time at the house, insinuates that she knows he stole from her house, and yet feeds and protects him again under the pretense of waiting to hear his explanation. Now, while English society does stress hospitality, there’s certainly a limit, and Jack has certainly overstayed his welcome. Another strange aspect of his theft is that while he waits for the giant to fall asleep before making his move, there is no mention of his wife’s whereabouts, or any precautions taken to avoid her gaze. She could easily awaken her husband more effectively than even his harp, but more importantly, could surely beat Jack to death herself if she was so inclined.

I’m definitely making a lot of assumptions and generalizations regarding her behavior and thought process, but it’s only because her character is so confusing and ambiguous that you have to in order to attempt to understand her role in the story. If the giant is the “evil” adult that Jack, the good-hearted youngster must overcome, then who is the giant’s wife? She seems no less concerned for his well-being but quick to anger than his own mother, but we almost feel more for this giantess than for Jack’s own flesh and blood. That she has the power to save him twice, the grace to feed him, but the power to forgive (remember, she doesn’t rat him out on his second visit) establishes her as a pretty strong “good” character, but she is still somehow characterized as evil, making it acceptable to steal from her.

In a story with trickster characters, swindlers, angry mothers, and barbaric giants, this “great big tall woman” is more than simply “not half so bad”. She’s practically a saint. Why then do we disregard her? If fairy tales are supposed to be easy to read, easy to characterize, then the giant’s wife is one of the most interesting characters in the canon. She seems to be a genuinely good character, who, due to some questionable cooking practices, is viewed as a tyrant, and thus deemed unworthy of our sympathy when her husband is murdered in the finale of the story. I may be alone in thinking this, but she deserves better.

"Tom Thumb" versus "Thumbelina"

My post is not so much questions that I still had unanswered, more like interest in how one version of a story can change just by switching it from a boy to a girl. Not only does the story change, but in some ways the meaning of the story can change as well. I couldn't figure out whether "Tom Thumb" or "Thumbelina" came first, but I know what I found most interesting was how dramatically the two versions are even though they center around the same kind of scenario.
Both tales start out with parents who are unable to conceive a child of their own, and in their desperation claim that they would accept a child even if it was no bigger than their thumbs. Like we discussed in class, these tales start out with a real problem--parents not being able to produce children. Where these two tales begin to differ is that in "Tom Thumb" they were able one day to "magically" have this boy no bigger than their thumb. whereas, in "Thumbelina" (Hans Christian Andersen's version) the mother resorts to magic to have her child. She confides her problems to a witch, who gives her a seed (reminds me of "Jack and the Beanstalk") to plant in a pot, which when potted grew into a big and beautiful flower bud. Then when the mother kissed the flower bud a child emerged out of the bud, who happens to be no bigger than her thumb. I think the question is that why when the parents wanted a child even if it was no bigger than a thumb, that they had children no bigger than a thumb? I think like we discussed in class, there is something to be said about the height that plays well into the message of the story. I forgot who said it, but someone made a good point that their height gives them the need to prove themselves, and it gives children the belief that no matter how small they are they could believe that they count too, and that they can some control and have some power over their lives.
What is most strikingly different is the manner in which these tales play out. In "Tom Thumb" it is when he ventures deep into the forest with his father that they come across some men who look at Tom as a form of commodity--something that they could make money off of. At the beginning the father refuses to sell his "prized" son, but after Tom exclaims "Father, let me go; I will soon come back again" (105), his father agrees and sells him for a "fine piece of gold" (105). I just found it funny that one minute he refused all the money in the world to sell him, and then he sells him for just one piece of gold. But despite his size he is clever, cunning, manipulative and able to take care of himself. Even though he meets several sticky ends like: falling into a mouse-hole, finding himself down a cows throat, and then inside the stomach of a wolf. Yet, no matter the situation he is able to discover some way to be rescued. Then in the end he lives happily ever after with his parents. What I get was that Tom wanted to be on his own to realize that he could be independent even though his height might make him seem dependent on others. When he states that he had "other experiences to go through first" (107) before he had been swallowed by the cow and was thinking of going home, signifies that these various journeys was in a way a journey of self-discovery; be able to have control over his own life. But, like all children (or us for that matter) need to know that whatever happens they have their parents or at least some home to return to when things go to badly.
However, in Anderson's "Thumbelina", Thumbelina faces more realistic dangers than Tom and it is others who have to rescue her, rather than her using tricks and schemes to rescue herself. I think there is a lot to be said there also. Why is it that Tom could save himself , and Thumbelina has others protect her? Thumbelina does not choose her "call to adventure" rather the journey is thrust upon her. Thumbelina was kidnapped in the middle of the night (scary situation for a child) by an old toad who wants her to marry his son. Here, Thumbelina's wishes aren't even taken into consideration, she is seen as an object with which the toad could take advantage of. I believe Thumbelina faces more opposition in her life than Tom. Not only is she small, but she is small and a girl. I believe the reason as to why she is so defenseless and passive is the fact that she is supposed to signify the proper woman--one is passive, meek, and compassionate even though she is facing all these dilemmas. She then befriends a mouse who soon threatens to bite her, and then she meets a mole whom she is forced into marrying (in order to ensure her safety and security because she feared that she would never be able to make it home). Whenever she gets out of one situation she quickly falls into another, only until a fairy prince comes along and rescues her. Who she then marries, and she herself is turned into a fairy and then lives happily ever after among the fairies. Throughout all of this Thumbelina remains a true and gentle woman, and I believe after all of Tom's adventures he too becomes a more humble person.
I think that each story targets the opposite sex child. "Tom Thumb" proves to possibly young boys that they could take on "manly" roles, or possibly showing them that adulthood is not something to be taken with lightly. But I believe that "Thumbelina" speaks to young girls like a fairy tale. That goodness wins out, that even in turmoil to remain a compassionate person, that your dreams can come true. I just found it peculiar how each story differed, and how the female character had a lot more real and threatening situations to face. I am wondering what that says about the belief of the dangers lurking out there for boys versus girls? Or what one could handle over the other?

Fairy Tales: Responses

Reminders: for Tuesday 2/10

Hi All:
1) Please post re: what still remains for you in the tales we read and discussed in class under the post titled "Fairy Tales." Will, Tony, Rachel W, and Sabina volunteered. The rest, respond in comments to their responses or add one of your own.

2) Write the story you needed to hear, tell, read or one that someone needed to tell or read to you, repeatedly, when you were young. Summarize the story and/or the details that stood out for you. Most importantly, write about what you were needing/doing/obsessed with/curious about in that story. Remember, it can be a childhood story, a family story, a favorite book, etc. Reflection is what is needed most here.
Have a lovely weekend. Best, Roni Natov