Filed under: Animal Humanities
Click to play: El Condor Pasa by Simon and Garfunkel
The earth moved beneath my foot. A large rumble woke me. Everything was now quiet and still, but I couldn’t see the sunlight shine through my shell. Instinctively, I could tell I wasn’t where I had fallen asleep. I wanted to stay hidden. Whenever I felt scared, I’d bury my head within my shell because it gave me a false sense of protection, but hiding from the unknown was better than facing it. But I didn’t know where I was, so instead of hiding, I poked my eyes from my shell–one after the other cautiously crept out–then finally my head.
Straining to see was pointless. The thickness of the dark fell like a weight on my eyes. Before I could crawl forward, a sudden jolt stopped me. The rocking and the rumble that woke me started again. The world tilted once again, but this time fiercer than before. The mucous on my foot couldn’t keep me locked to the ground. I hit something hard and bounced off, rolling back to the other side. I hit what I guessed was another wall. The rocking wouldn’t stop flailing my body around. I couldn’t see anything. I started to panic-taking quick, short breaths. The air was thin and hard to breathe. I wasn’t getting any air. I was going to die. I moved my tentacles around quickly, trying to see a way out, but the dark engulfed me. My eyes were clouded by the empty void of darkness and the rolling rumble of my body slamming against walls. I gasped in pain and heard my shell crack.
Then stillness, and silence once again. But I still couldn’t breathe. All I could feel was the pain of my shell and the pain of my lungs. The darkness seemed to suck away all the air. My panicking had used up all of the air. I contracted all my muscles, moving my body in a rippling action, one short wave starting from the back moving slowly to the front. I strained my head forward, stretching until the pain was unbearable. Another rippling wave from the back of my body to the front. I could tell the weight of my shell slowed me down. Another ripple, another. Stretching my head even further while my eyes moved wildly around. I moved about a millimeter.
I would never get out of here alive. I was too weak to panic any more–I knew I would die here in the unknown dark. My eyes grew heavy, my lungs constricted. I put my head down and slept, not having the strength to recoil in my shell for protection.
***
A snail’s home is her shell. My shell is beautiful. It doesn’t swirl upwards into a cone like most shells, but it’s a perfectly round circle that curves within itself. It’s small and cozy, and when the sun is shining, the inside becomes warm and glows red. But the outside is a gorgeous blue with black stripes following the round spirals. Dots of white fleck the outside, which remind me of clouds scattered across the sky. A shell is a wonderfully warm and a protective place to live.
I always sleep under the same flower, in the same garden, in the same grass. I live mostly on my own, with the occasional visit from a bee, or a butterfly, or a bird. But I keep mostly to myself. Being slow, I tend to stay where I am. I love the garden I live in, with its big, beautiful daisies and the occasional blackberry vines in the summer. There’s a creek nearby, so the lone garden snake will drift by to cool down in the water. His slithering body always pushes back the grass, creating a path for my slow foot to follow. I love leaving my slimy trail in the large paths of others.
In the mornings, I’ll hear a bell chiming through the air. That’s my usual wakeup call. It lets me know that the puppy will soon be here, and it’s time for me to crawl back into the warmth of my shell. I’m not afraid of the puppy, but I’ll never forget the first time I met her. I heard the metal gate across the yard open, and the footsteps of a person walking towards the garden. He wore sandals, and all I could see were dirty toe nails and freckled feet. He carried a small black puppy in his arms with a piece of tape wrapped around her neck and a note stuck onto her back. Her long, black tail wagged and her pink tongue licked his arms. Then he placed her down and walked back to the gate, trying not to let her follow.
Then she came running–more like jumping–back to me. My eyes were waving at her, trying to see every angle of those large white paws and that great big, black face. Her pink tongue hung out and a drop of drool landed on me like a falling boulder. Then the nose came down and sniffed. The bursts of air were quick and strong, in out in out. She sniffed me. All I could see were the cavernous depths of her nostrils. If my mucous weren’t anchoring me to the ground, I was sure those wet caverns would swallow me. So every time I hear the bell ring, I curl into my shell so I won’t be faced with the empty, dark abyss of the puppy’s nose.
***
A scraping noise woke me up. It came from above. The air was still thin, and I was drowsy and dizzy from the jolting. All I wanted was for it all to be over.
The scraping became louder and louder. A spasm of excitement ran through me. I had no idea what was happening, but a tense thrill gripped my body. I could only focus on that scraping noise above me. My tentacles stretched as far as they could go, my eyes unblinkingly staring into the dark. Every fiber of my body relied on that scraping noise.
The noise stopped. My body relaxed. BANG! A huge burst of light shone through. I could finally see! My eyes went wild with excitement, trying to take in my surroundings as quickly as they could. But there was nothing to see. Just four gray walls, a gray floor, and a gray ceiling. I was in some sort of box. Air flooded the room. I could finally breathe again. I tried to peer through the little hole, but light flooded my vision. A beautiful, white, clear light. BANG! Another hole! More light! The two holes shone down beams of light. I couldn’t help but laugh with relief. Bang! Bang! Bang! Hole after hole appeared after each loud crashing noise.
When enough light flooded the room, I could finally see what made those loud bangs, what created that beautiful light and air. A huge, metal, sharp spear crashed through the ceiling. I didn’t know whether to be afraid or happy. I stood still, but my eyes slowly crept back into my shell.
Then suddenly, the gray ceiling lifted, and two human faces peered down at me. They were two little girls, one with golden curly hair and two front teeth missing, the other with black hair in pigtails. They were smiling at me.
One of them clutched a fistful of leaves and twigs and placed them next to me. The other a tray of water. I quickly retracted into my shell as soon as I saw those large hands bearing down on me, but it was no use. One of them grabbed me, and I felt the warmth of their palm underneath my shell. Everything stood perfectly still. Slowly, I poked my eyes out. Their squeals of excitement filled the air. One of them shouted, “Mommy, look!” and ran into another room with me. All I could see were their bouncing curls and their excited smiles. I never knew my face could bring such joy. Despite the nauseating, rocky ride, I was glad that these girls found me so interesting.
But my arrival was a different story with the mother. She looked at me with a sneer and told the girls to put me down and wash their hands in the bathroom. They did so after placing me on the kitchen sink spout near where the mother was peeling an apple. I looked over the gleaming silver spout to see the drip-drop of water falling down to the depths of the basin. Spirals of red apple skins scattered the bottom. I crawled slowly forward, peering down below to the puddle of water that had collected.
A shadow covered me. I moved my eyes upward to see the mother glowering at me. She raised her hand, a blue carton with a cute picture of a girl in a yellow dress. She held a blue umbrella over her head to keep the rain off of her. The mother tilted the carton and shook. White powder snowed down on me, sticking to the mucous on my skin.
The pain! I was screaming, crying, and she kept shaking! My eyes rolled over, I couldn’t see any more! My body twitched involuntarily, curled up inside itself. It was worse than the fear in the dark. Worse than the dog sniffing at me. Worse than the pain when my shell cracked. I was losing my grip. I couldn’t hold onto the spout any more. I was falling, falling, falling… and crash!-into the puddle of water.
WC: 1599
Filed under: Animal Humanities
Click to play: Earth Intruders by Bjork

There was once a shogun from 1680-1710 named Tokugawa Tsunayoshi that was nicknamed the “Dog Shogun.” Born in the year of the dog, he felt obligated to protect dogs. Although believed to be influenced from his mental retardation (a result of generations of inbreeding), he released Edicts on Compassion for Living Things (Shoruiawareminorei), which protected stray and diseased dogs.
But towards the end of his reign, the 50,000 dogs in Edo overran the streets. People were executed for wounding dogs, dogs of higher ranks were dressed up and when walked down the streets, were given higher honor than most humans, and they were fed fish and rice, bought with the money from taxpayers. Ironically enough, when Tokugawa first came to reign, he ordered the suicide of many samurais only to demonstrate his power as shogun.
At a certain point, a line must be drawn. I see parading a dog through the streets, forcing people to part way for him and bow down at his presence, ridiculous. Equally as ridiculous is ordering people to kill themselves in order to demonstrate power. But why don’t I see these as ridiculous when the roles are reversed?
Bjork’s song “Earth Intruders” reminds me of Hopkin’s “God’s Grandeur”:
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod. (375)
Centuries later, humans are still not part of the “mysterious and ungovernable order of nature” (381). We are, as Bjork puts it, earth intruders. Being human, I personally feel this disconnection between nature-perhaps because I grew up learning Genesis’s belief that humans have “dominion over the beasts” (382). Through this, I’ve never felt as if I’m a part of nature.
Miyazaki’s film, Princess Mononoke (1997), explores the intrusion of humans into the natural world-dominated by gods in the forms of animals. Like Hopkin’s connection of God and nature, “God, lover of souls, swaying considerate scales,/ Complete thy creature dear O where it fails,/ Being mighty a master, being a father and fond,” Miyazaki gives nature a other-worldly aspect (376). In the film, iron industrialization creates a “nameless god of rage and hate” that takes over the animal gods, forcing them to run through villages and destroy them. A boy defending his village is touched by the demon, which curses his arm. The curse gives him strength, but as a result has the ability to easily kill (and the curse is affected by life-it is activated by seeing the beauty of nature and has an impulse to destroy it). His journey is to stop the curse from spreading, preventing hate to cloud his eyes.

The story explores the idea that humans can live peacefully with nature and animals, but unlike reality, they are given means to defend themselves. However, it is ultimately a human that saves nature from mankind, giving a mixed moral at the end of the story. We have the ability to preserve or destroy nature.
However, ignorance is viewed almost as an excuse in many occasions, “…these bloodied animals were probably not victims of cruelty. Cruelty implies a desire to inflict pain and thus presupposes an empathetic appreciation of the suffering of the object of cruelty” (382). In my P1, I discuss Lewis Carroll’s belief that it is intent rather than act that is inhumane. I agree with this, but there must be a point where ignorance cannot be enough to say “Oh, its ok.”
Filed under: Animal Humanities
Click to play: I’m Scared by John Lennon
“Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Like Roosevelt’s inaugural address, the texts we have read for today have a common theme–we fear the unknown. We fear being alone.
William Blake conflicted me with his Songs of Innocence. They remind me so much of Sunday school–we are lost lambs, and God is our shepherd. We must not be led astray, or else we’ll find ourselves in the fiery pits of hell. But following the herd, staying in the crowd, is something I have learned to resist:
From About a Boy
Like the mother tells her son, be you. Make sure to stay true to yourself, although that is a scary thing to do. It takes courage to stay true to yourself when you are surrounded by those that disapprove.
Blake’s story about the lost Lyca caught my attention. Here, we have a girl who is lost–wandering into the unknown desert, “Sweet sleep, come to me,/ Underneath this tree;/ Do father, mother, weep?/ Where can Lyca sleep?” (355). She is so frighten, so alone, that she does not want to sleep. Understandably, she is afraid of what might happen to her in the desert as she vulnerably sleeps. When finally, she does close her eyes, lions, tigers, and leopards appear. Rather than attacking, they take her safely away to their cave.
In “The Little Girl Found,” we see the parent’s fears, “Seven nights they sleep/ Among shadows deep,/ And dream they see their child/ Starved in desert wild” (356). This fear, I have witnessed for myself. When my sister Elizabeth and I were little–my sister four and I was six–my family went to Waterworld for vacation. The park was crowded because of a Beach Boys concert, and my parents did not notice when Elizabeth slipped away and into a water slide by herself. My parents went absolutely nuts.
They were screaming and yelling, telling every person that they could find that a blonde girl in a watermelon swimsuit was missing. Soon, we had everyone in the vicinity trying to find her. When people would bring back the wrong child, my mom’s vocabulary turned to one that I did not recognize at my tender young age. She was absolutely livid and distraught. We were all crying, fearing the worst had happened.
Within the half hour, she was found. Giggling and completely oblivious to the entire situation. There was such a great sigh of relief when she was finally found.
In Blake’s poem, what humans naturally and normally fear–lions, wolves, tigers–were Lyca’s saviors. It forces us to reconsider what it means to be scared, why we are scared, and should we be scared.
This point is also covered in Harrigan’s stories. Is it natural to fear animals?

“It had to do with the realization of a fear built deep into our genetic code: the fear that a beast could appear out of nowhere–through a window!–and snatch us away” (362). I have this fear of windows. A fear of windows ever since I was very little. I’m always afraid something–or someone–is watching me. My mom, also, has this fear of windows, and she calls me every night to make sure I’ve closed my curtains. A fear of being watched, especially unknowingly, is something horror movies tend to play on.
This also, I think, has a connection with eyes, “When the great head pivoted in my direction and Miguel’s eyes met mine I looked away reflexively, afraid of their hypnotic gravity” (366). As Derrida explains, “…in silence by the by the gaze of an animal, for example the eyes of a cat, I have trouble, yes, a bad time overcoming my embarrassment [or shame]…” (217). And I also quoted the passage in an earlier blog (Sound of Silence) about Mowgli’s ability to stare at animals, but they are unable to hold his gaze. Like Harrigan, are the Jungle Book animals afraid to look at their potential death in the eyes?
Harrigan is a much braver man than myself. If a tiger had just previously killed a person, I would not have gone near his cage. Especially when Miguel pounces against the cage and shows his, “demonstration of the power he possessed” (366). I doubt I could ever be near a tiger again without some uncontrollable panic rising in my throat. Like Lennon’s song, once I’m scared, I’m scarred.
Author’s note: First and foremost, I would like to address my readers. I believe the readers play an intricate role to the text. How they interpret the text tells far much more about themselves and their culture than any writing could ever do. So in accordance to that remark, I will be writing in the first person. Yes, first person in an analytical response. For shame, but I believe it is a vital tool in unearthing the animal cruelty in Lewis Carroll’s writing. Furthermore, I will not conclude by summarizing my thoughts. Instead, I will provoke the reader (and myself) to think. Some may call this food for thought, but I digress that the questions are ones that Time would not allow me to answer.
I am the Walrus: Animal Suffering and Lewis Carroll
Click to play: I am the Walrus by The Beatles[1]
The premise of the 1967 The Beatles song, “I am the Walrus,” is attributed to Lewis Carroll’s poem, “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” from the book Through the Looking Glass (1871). The Beatles nonsensical and psychedelic lyrics hold true to Carroll’s imagined world, although they did not fully understand that the Walrus was essentially the villain of Carroll’s story because they have identified us—us being all of humanity—with the Walrus. Indeed, the lyric “I am he/ as you are he/ as you are me/ and we are all together…”[3] demonstrates the identification with the Walrus, who hardheartedly eats a family of oysters and leaves none for his human cohort the Carpenter. He is greedy, apathetic, and altogether unkind. Yet The Beatles decided to write a lyrical contribution to the character, albeit with the influence of acid. This brings me to my earlier note—how you interpret the text reveals much more about yourself than the writing.
Reductio ad Absurdum: Lewis Carroll and Vivisection
Before delving into the depths of animal depravity in “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” I would like to set a basic foundation for Carroll’s opinion on the treatment of animals. In his 1875 essay, “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection,” he makes a clear distinction between animal suffering and animal death. The essay, by and large, introduces the two polarized opinions of animal “rights”. One being, “That the infliction of pain on animals is a right of man, needing no justification,” and the other, “That it is in no case justifiable.”[4] Here, Carroll wants to bring the reader to a happy medium by expressing that death is sometimes necessary, but prolonged pain is needless and cruel.
Yet, in Carroll’s eyes, pain is in no way justifiable. The seemingly never-ending torture of a creature is the true crime, where as a quick and painless death is seen as humane. He stresses the argument that death and pain are not homogenous by taking a statement from pro-vivisectionist Mr. Freeman and retaliating with a logical contradiction:
The only question worth consideration is whether the killing of an animal is a real infringement of right…[it] is illogical to assign rights to animals in proportion to their size. Never may we destroy, for our convenience, some of a litter of puppies—or open a score of oysters when nineteen would have sufficed—or light a candle in a summer evening for mere pleasure, lest some hapless moth should rush to an untimely end! Nay, we must not even take a walk, with the certainty of crushing many an insect in our path…[5]
With this, Carroll forces himself and the reader to draw a line—we must determine when anti-cruelty becomes an absurdity to follow. As with the Tiny Toon Adventures episode that I uploaded, the writer suggests, “Where does the line end?” by showing the pain of vegetables.
If plants endure the same pain and suffering as an animal (or human), then would it not be considered cruel to rip an ear of corn off its stalk and boil it in water to then eat? If the stalk bled red once the ear was torn off, or if the corn shrieked as the water scalded, the same logic of animal cruelty must be applied. The problem is that vegetables cannot voice their pain, therefore we do not listen. The same goes for the cries of the moth and the pleas of the insect—we cannot hear them. A practical solution must be made, which is Carroll’s message, for not all of us can turn to Jainism where a minimum amount of harm is equally given to both animals and plants. The solution, then, is separating and treating death and cruelty as separate entities.
An important aspect of “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection” is to remember that Carroll wrote it in 1875, one year before the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. For this reason, the distinction between contemporary and past vivisection must be made. Do not read it as if Carroll is writing in 2009, but take into consideration the differences and improvements made in the past century, for Carroll writes about the immoral complications scientists face with the act of vivisection. One blogger that responded to Carroll’s essay had this to say:
If Carroll knew that more than a century later scientists have to go through rigorously monitored procedures to get permission to do anything involving animals, that there are alternatives involving cell cultures, fake animals, or computer modelling to reduce the need for animals in research or teaching to the absolute minumum, that any animals used are better cared for than many pets, and not purposely hurt, would he approve? I think he would. I think all of his concerns are dealt with, and what’s more: nobody would even dare kill part of litter of puppies for convenience![7]
However, I strongly believe that the core moral implications that Carroll suggested still exist today, “The lust for scientific knowledge is our real guiding principle. The lessening of human suffering is a mere dummy set up to amuse sentimental dreamers.”[8] The weight of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 held during the Victorian era is questionable. Even now, such anti-vivisection or anti-cruelty laws are not strictly followed. The scientific world still seems to function on efficiency and cost. The quicker, the cheaper, the better.
my experience, scientists are not minimizing the need for animal research. Robert Titus demonstrated to the class that thousands of birds were beheaded in the animal research labs for no particular reason. No scientific good was coming from it, no new discoveries were surfacing, yet bird after bird was killed.
In January, I attended a lecture by Tyrone Hayes about the chemical effects of atrazine in our water. The study was conducted on various types of frogs in order to ban the chemical from use. The results were that the frogs were born as hermaphrodites. In the testes, males were capable of successfully producing eggs.

“Atrazine induces gonadal malformations in males. The testes in this Northern leopard frog have been feminized. Not only have eggs developed, but they have accumulated yolk and are bursting through the surface of the testes.”[9]
The research is effective, but it is continuous. The research shows, basically, that atrazine in the water is not good. The results practically yell this conclusion, but the Environmental Protective Agency refuses to listen. Therefore, Hayes continues his research by expanding it to other amphibians, fish, and rodents in order to persuade the EPA. Here, I am extremely conflicted. I am upset that Hayes continues needless research, but I turn to anger when I realize that the research only continues to satisfy the EPA. This continuation of uncalled for torture in order to appease bureaucracy completely goes against Carroll’s protests against animal cruelty.
Playing with your Food: Lewis Carroll’s “The Walrus and the Carpenter”
Before I begin my interpretation, I must acknowledge the fact that Martin Gardener says, “As a check against the tendency to find too much symbolism in the Alice books it is well to remember that, when Carroll gave the manuscript of his poem to Tenniel for illustrating, he offered the artist a choice of drawing a carpenter, butterfly, or baronet.”[10] I will not discuss the importance that the Walrus is a walrus and the Carpenter is a human, and that the human is subservient to an animal. I will also not discuss that the food of choice is oysters, whose shells are drawn like the bonnets of babies. If the animal is not important, then the characters could be any type of animal. Perhaps switch the animals around and see if that influences the story at all. Make the Walrus an oyster, make the Carpenter a walrus, and make the Oysters humans. Instead of focusing on symbolism, I will focus only on the actions that take place—regardless of species—and the reactions of Alice and generations of readers.
For the original text, click here: “The Walrus and the Carpenter”
Now I would like to take a few steps back to “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection” where Carroll compares the needless abuse of animals to, “open[ing] a score of oysters when nineteen would have sufficed”[12] This is a reference to “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” where a bed of oysters are gluttonously eaten. Our hero Alice is unable to empathize with the eaten Oysters, but is able to ask whether to feel sorry for the Walrus or the Carpenter:
’I like the Walrus best,’ said Alice: ‘because he was a little sorry for the poor oyster.’
‘He ate more than the Carpenter, though,’ said Tweedledee.
‘That was mean!’ Alice said indignantly. ‘Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn’t eat so many as the Walrus.’
‘But he ate as many as he could get,’ said Tweedledum.[13]
Again I would like to emphasize Carroll’s belief that death is not cruel, but it is the prolonged and superfluous torturing, which Alice ignores is unable to recognize in the poem. She focuses on the Walrus and the Carpenter’s feelings—not the Oyster’s.
To put simply, “The Walrus and the Carpenter” is the idea of playing with your food. Something, of course, that Alice does not empathize with. The reason I say “of course” Alice does not empathize is a result of her relationship with her pet cat, Dinah. Like many of us—and I say this with the confidence of reading other’s blogs—we are able to recognize our pets as family members, but little more than that. (In advance, I’m sorry Justin. I’m using your P1 as an example). In Justin Locascio’s P1, he demonstrates the bond between his dog and his father through a hatred of squirrels. This is a happy thought for the dog, but what about the squirrel that is being chased, caught, and killed? Like Alice, Locascio was only able to talk about an animal that he had a prior relationship with, not with an animal that his pet chased and killed. When Alice first enters Wonderland, she encounters a mouse. The only thing she can think of talking about—to a mouse, no less—was cats. She is completely unaware of the Mouse’s feelings at that point because she disregards the Mouse’s inherent fear of cats.[14] In relation to “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” this prior conversation with the Mouse needs to be understood because it sets the basis for Alice’s thought process. Like a cat with a mouse, the Walrus plays with his food before he eats them.
As the Walrus and the Carpenter sit on the rock with all of the Oysters standing in a row before them, the Walrus cries aloud for a loaf of bread, pepper, and vinegar, for they—the Walrus and the Carpenter—are about to feed. The Oysters then understand that they are about to be eaten, and cry out in fear, “’But not on us!…After such kindness, that would be/ A dismal thing to do!’”[15] The Walrus ignores their cries and strikes up a casual conversation with the Carpenter as they begin to eat.
Carroll does not explicitly describe the pain and the fear of the Oysters as he does in “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection”:
And when that day shall come…what potent spell have you in store to win exemption from the common doom? Will you represent to that grim spectre, as he gloats over you, scalpel in hand, the inalienable rights of man? He will tell you that this is merely a question of relative expediency, —that, with so feeble a physique as yours, you have only to be thankful that natural selection has spared you so long. Will you reproach him with the needless torture he proposes to inflict upon you? He will smilingly assure you that the hyperæsthesia, which he hopes to induce, is in itself a most interesting phenomenon, deserving much patient study. Will you then, gathering up all your strength for one last desperate appeal, plead with him as with a fellow-man, and with an agonized cry for ‘Mercy!’[16]
Perhaps Carroll does not tell the terror of the Oysters simply because Through the Looking Glass is a children’s book, and the Oyster’s story would frighten the young readers. But still, audiences have always identified with the Walrus and the Carpenter rather than the Oysters. I cannot simply state that the poem is written in such a way for the readers to identify with those characters. There must be a reason we cannot imagine the Oyster’s fear and pain.
However, Alice’s reaction to the poem supports Carroll’s beliefs about cruelty by asking “the traditional ethical dilemma of having to choose between judging a person in terms of acts or in terms of intentions.”[17] This echoes his vivisection essay where he talks about killing animals as a sport. Although he is thoroughly against hunting, he admits that, “I am tolerably sure that all sportsmen will agree with me…whenever the creature is killed at once, it is probably as painless a form of death as could be devised; while the sufferings of one that escapes wounded ought to be laid to the charge of unskillful sport, not of sport in the abstract.”[18] Here, Carroll again makes the distinction between death to an animal and cruelty to an animal, but also the distinction between act and intent. They are not, as many of us believe, hand in hand. And so, although the poem does not unequivocally describe the suffering of the Oysters, Carroll hints at the pains they have gone through. They were taken from their beds with ill intentions, were befriended under false pretenses, and heartlessly eaten by someone they trusted. This cruelty displayed by the Walrus and the Carpenter has been ignored for generations, and instead of finding their actions appalling, we have identified with them.
The popularity of “The Walrus and the Carpenter” is obvious through the many adaptations. They each have their separate morals, like Dogma’s interpretation that the poem is an indictment of modern religion, and the more popularly known Disney adaptation, which is more of a recreation of Robert Browning’s “The Pied Piper” than Carroll’s story. However, the question I would like to leave the readers with is this: What do these interpretations say about us? About you? The issue of cruelty is never an issue within these texts, which we can logically assume means that cruelty is not an important issue within our culture.
WC Total: 2,700
WC extra: 866
WC: 1834
[1] The Beatles. I am the Walrus. Magical Mystery Tour. Parlophone, Captiol, 1967.
[3] I am the Walrus.
[4] Lewis Carroll, “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection,” Fortnightly Review [Londong: 1865-1934] 23 (1875 Jun): 847-854 [Online at Animal Rights History, 2003].
[5] “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection”.
[6] Slaughterhouse Jive. Dir. Rich Arons. 1990. DVD. Warner Brothers.
[7] http://network.nature.com/people/eva/blog/2007/09/19/alices-adventures-in-animal-experimentation. The typos are theirs, not my own.
[8] “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection”.
[10] Carroll, Lewis. The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2000. 183.
[12] “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection”.
[13] The Annotated Alice. 188.
[14] 25-28.
[15] 186.
[16] “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection”.
[17] The Annotated Alice. 183.
[18] “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection”.
