Author: oscar wilde

In Alice in Wonderland, the primary message is one of everlasting childhood and embracing the whimsy of youth; the final idea the reader is left with is that of maintaining the “simple and loving heart of… childhood” (104). What requires a little more emphasis and depth in the reading of Alice is her representation as a colonial force, invading and changing the foreign environment she finds herself in. I see this definitely as a trippy commentary on British colonialism; Alice was published in 1865, and the 19th century was characterized by British imperialism particularly in the largely unknown regions of Africa and Asia.

The section in Alice that seems to represent most clearly the idea of colonial force is the tea party. Alice approaches a table, and, seeing that there are a large number of seats, sits right down without asking permission. I see this as the British furthering their interests, primarily in the example of South Africa, when they settled despite the interests both of the Africans and the Dutch Boers who had settled themselves (also being colonists). I thought it was particularly well stated when the March Hare offers Alice wine, and she states that “it wasn’t very civil… to offer it” and the Hare then responds, casually, “it wasn’t very civil of you to sit down without being invited” (53). So, Carroll, I inferred, finds imperialism and colonialism to be quite uncivil.

Alice in Wonderland is a story of a girl who lands in a new world, asserts herself as being infallible, makes derogatory comments about the new land (on page 48, “if you’re going to turn into a pig, I’ll have nothing more to do with you”, on page 56, “is that how you manage?”, and on page 102, “who cares for you… you’re nothing but a pack of cards!”) and changes many of the things she encounters. Alice herself is a tiny colonizing force, dropping into a place with the mentality that she owns it, and changing it to reflect her own knowledge and beliefs. She takes what she sees (the food and beverage which make her size change) and she even alters their political realm by literally destroying the Queen. She essentially overthrew a government; that’s a colonizing force if ever I saw one.

In doing a close reading of a passage, I’d like to look at a stanza in part two of The Lady of Shalott:

“There she weaves by night and day, a magic web with colours gay. She has heard a whisper say, a curse is on her if she stay to look down to Camelot. She knows not what the curse may be, and so she weaveth steadily, and little other care hath she, the Lady of Shalott.”

This section to me is a brilliant description of the ideal Victorian wife; she is focused on her duties (in this case weaving, in other cases childbearing) and she does not know much about her own circumstances. This is a romanticized example, showing a woman cursed, forced to stay inside, and eventually dying when she breaks the proscribed rules. The message, however, is quite clear: stick to the rules, whether you know them or not, and nobody gets hurt.

I think this can relate well back to The Woman in White looking at the role of Countess Fosco. She is often idly working away at rolling countless cigarettes for her husband, keeping her distracted with busy work, so she is doing something rather than focusing on the main plot.

The artwork depicting the Lady of Shalott seems to disagree with my theory that she is merely a demure, controlled Victorian woman; the piece by William Holman Hunt depicts the Lady as larger than life as does the piece by John William Waterhouse. These images, too, appear romanticizations, as were popular with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.

The basic idea I’m seeing here is that The Lady of Shalott relates perfectly to the idea of a weakened, docile Victorian woman with little to know knowledge of her own purpose outside of her immediate task, such as weaving, or bearing children.

As we have recently discussed in class, part of the fascination with The Woman in White is based in the triangular marriage between Laura, Marian, and Walter. Deven, in her short essay on how Collins plays with marriage plots in most of his work, discusses that the “marital love among three figures, rather than the conventional two” is a key plot used by Collins (page 113). The entirety of The Woman in White revolves around these marital irregularities, as Deven discusses, and through that lens it is possible to see how this book really was a “sensation” novel in the 1860s; it is sensational in that these marriages and situations were unlike the common theme. These plots are tremendously unrealistic, from our viewpoint in 2015, though it is possible that in 1860, maybe there were often plots to change status or marriages of equal minds in conflict with a marriage of property. I think the most important thing in reading  The Woman in White is to be able to interpret the story from our perspective in 2015 as well as from Collins’ perspective in the 1860s.

It was interesting to see that Collins has a preference for unusual marriage plots in more of his work than just The Woman in White, and to question just how prevalent the marriage plot was in Victorian literature; in what I’ve read previously, it seems like the only thing going on in Victorian life is marriage and the intrigues surrounding it. Is there anything but marriage in Victorian life, or is it just the most relatable part?

A passage in The Woman in White which I found to be indicative of the general ideas thus far was on page 232, under Marian’s narration, when she quotes the Countess. The passage reads, “‘I wait to be instructed,’ replied the Countess, in tones of freezing reproof, intended for Laura and me, ‘before I venture on giving my opinion in the presence of well-informed men.'” First, I think it interesting that in this section of the book, the Countess so easily submits to the will of her husband, intentionally setting an example for Laura and how she should interact with her new husband Sir Percival Glyde. It also demonstrates the ideal role for a woman at the time; the Countess is portrayed as the silent, submissive wife who only speaks when spoken to in contrast to Marian’s outburst, following the above passage, in questioning the Countess’ change of heart in advocating for the rights of women.

What struck me most about this passage is not that the Countess is passive to her husband’s wishes; that is to be expected of the time in which the book was published. Instead, I was shocked that the Countess sought to essentially shut Marian and Laura up and to discourage them from a further discussion with the Count and Sir Glyde. She, and, one can infer, Collins, believe that a woman should not speak until she is “instructed” to by her husband or the male guardian in her life. This yet again depicts a woman as inferior; Marian draws out the idea that the Countess once cared about the “freedom of female opinion”, yet no longer believes it since she has become the Count’s wife. It ties into the legal determinations that a woman is no longer a private entity when married, but that she becomes virtually a part of her husband and is subject to his demands as she technically no longer exists.

It is necessary, also, to look at this passage in context; the Countess’ comment takes place at the lake during a discussion of crimes which results in Count Fosco’s description that a crime is only considered a crime once it is discovered. It seems to me that this entire section is an incredibly overt instance of foreshadowing; one can infer that a crime, likely a murder, will take place or be attempted, and it may take place in this very location. I would even reach so far as to consider that the Countess may be complicit, or at least aware, though she would not see it to be her place to make anyone aware of what will or has occurred. This conclusion might be a stretch, but I think with all the foreshadowing in the lake section, it’s a reasonable conclusion to draw.