{"id":2327,"date":"2025-04-08T06:12:11","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T06:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/?p=2327"},"modified":"2025-04-08T06:12:11","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T06:12:11","slug":"a-jabberwockys-worth-a-thousand-toves-illustration-and-non-signification-in-the-alice-books","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/2025\/04\/08\/a-jabberwockys-worth-a-thousand-toves-illustration-and-non-signification-in-the-alice-books\/","title":{"rendered":"A Jabberwocky’s Worth a Thousand Toves: Illustration and Non-Signification in the “Alice” Books"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In <\/span>Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion<\/span><\/i>, critic Rosemary Jackson offers a generic analysis to help better understand fantasy. To Jackson, \u201c[t]he fantastic exists in the hinterland between \u2018real\u2019 and \u2018imaginary,\u2019 shifting the relations between them through its indeterminacy\u201d (35). As a genre of subversion, fantasy tests the bounds of reality. By \u201c[p]resenting that which cannot be, but is, fantasy exposes a culture\u2019s definitions of that which can be\u201d (23). Fantasy primarily accomplishes its subversive goals by using motifs of invisibility, transformation, and, notably, non-signification. Frequently, fantasy foregrounds \u201cthe impossibility of naming [an] unnameable presence, [a] \u2018thing\u2019 which can be registered in the text only as absence and shadow\u201d (39). This emphasis on non-signification easily applies to Lewis Carroll\u2019s <\/span>Alice\u2019s Adventures in Wonderland <\/span><\/i>(1865) and <\/span>Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There <\/span><\/i>(1871). According to Jackson, \u201cCarroll\u2019s <\/span>Alice<\/span><\/i> books\u2026reveal his reliance upon portmanteau words and nonsense utterances as a shift towards language as signifying nothing, and the fantastic itself as such a language\u201d (Jackson 40). Alice enters a world of \u201csemiotic chaos, and her acquired language systems cease to be of any help\u201d (141). In Wonderland and the Looking-Glass, \u201c[t]he signifier is not secured by the weight of the signified: it begins to float free\u201d (40). Though Jackson provides a thoughtful and thorough analysis of the novels, I would argue that she fails to account for a fundamental aspect of Carroll\u2019s texts: John Tenniel\u2019s illustrations.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0As Jackson points out, fantasy highlights \u201cproblems of vision\u201d (45). \u201cIn a culture which equates the \u2018real\u2019 with the \u2018visible\u2019 and gives the eye dominance over other sense organs,\u201d she writes, \u201cthe un-real is that which is in-visible\u201d (45). Yet in the <\/span>Alice <\/span><\/i>books, Carroll makes the unreal visible and the unspeakable seeable through John Tenniel\u2019s illustrations. Carroll and Tenniel worked in close collaboration when designing the <\/span>Alice <\/span><\/i>illustrations. In fact, Tenniel might have even based his drawings on original sketches created by Carroll himself (Hancher 39). Historian Michael Hancher rightly argues that Tenniel\u2019s illustrations \u201cmake up the other half of the text, and readers are wise to accept no substitutes\u201d (5). Without both halves, the <\/span>Alice <\/span><\/i>books do not work. The illustrations do not serve as mere adornments to the plot; they actively contextualize and shape it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0At multiple points in the text, Carroll does not even attempt to describe the fantastical creatures he creates. Instead, he defers to Tenniel\u2019s illustrations. When Alice encounters \u201ca Gryphon lying fast asleep in the sun,\u201d the narrator directly addresses the reader in a parenthetical aside: \u201cIf you don\u2019t know what a Gryphon is, look at the picture\u201d (80). Similarly, when Alice encounters the King of Hearts at a trial, she notices he wears \u201chis crown over [his] wig\u201d (94). Again, instead of describing this unusual attire, the narrator instructs the reader to \u201clook at the frontispiece if you want to see how he did it\u201d (94). The unspeakable\u2014or at least the hard to explain\u2014is made knowable through illustrations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0At other points in the text, Tenniel\u2019s illustrations ground Carroll\u2019s nonsense words by attaching them to concrete, visible objects. When Alice reads \u201cJabberwocky,\u201d for instance, she remarks that the poem is \u201c<\/span>rather<\/span><\/i> hard to understand\u201d (132). As readers, we know that this is because the poem is nothing but nonsense; Carroll explicitly tells the reader in the preface that the terms in \u201cJabberwocky\u201d are \u201cnew words\u201d of his invention (115). Still, Tenniel provides the nonsensical word \u201cJabberwocky\u201d a signified object to cling to. Before looking at Tenniel\u2019s illustration, the reader only knows that the evil Jabberwocky has \u201cjaws that bite,\u201d \u201cclaws <\/span>that catch,\u201d \u201ceyes of flame,\u201d and some sort of \u201chead\u201d (130). After looking at Tenniel\u2019s illustration, though, they can completely fill in the blanks left by Carroll\u2019s sparse description. Tenniel takes significant artistic liberties, creating a monstrous creature with wings, antennae, whiskers, scales, and a long, twisting tail (131). The miniature warrior at the creature\u2019s feet is undoubtedly the \u201cbeamish boy\u201d of the poem, poised to strike the creature\u2019s head off with his \u201cvorpal sword\u201d (130). Since the sword of Tenniel\u2019s illustration looks like a typical knight\u2019s weapon, the reader can assume that the nonsensical adjective \u201cvorpal\u201d means something along the lines of \u201csharp\u201d or \u201cdangerous\u201d rather than \u201ccurved\u201d or \u201ctiny\u201d (131). Similarly, the average trees in the background of the illustration indicate that a \u201cTumtum tree\u201d is not a particularly remarkable plant (130). As far as the viewer can see, the Tumtum trees in the forest do not grow candy or sprout upside-down. According to Tenniel’s illustration, a Tumtum forest looks just like any other. Jackson argues that Carroll\u2019s nonsense words \u201cfloat free\u201d without signified objects (40). However, she fails to recognize that Tenniel\u2019s illustrations pull them back to the ground, limiting their potential meanings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
John Tenniel’s “Jabberwocky”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Tenniel\u2019s illustrations also modify Carroll\u2019s overall plot. When Alice meets the White King in <\/span>Through the Looking-Glass<\/span><\/i>, she encounters his two messengers, Haigha and Hatta. Nothing in the text indicates that either of these characters is familiar to Alice; she speaks to both of them as if she has never met them before. Tenniel\u2019s illustrations might raise some alarms, however. Haigha is depicted as a rabbit, though nowhere in the text is he described as having any leporine features (196). Meanwhile, Hatta is depicted wearing an oversized hat with a price tag fastened to the side (198). For readers of <\/span>Alice\u2019s Adventures in Wonderland<\/span><\/i>, the illustrations would be immediately recognizable as the Hatter and the March Hare. Hatta looks identical to the Hatter, while Haigha shares obvious physical similarities to the March Hare\u2014namely two large ears. There are<\/em> some slight differences between Haigha and the March Hare. In the first novel, the March Hare seems to have a darker fur color and darker eyes than Haigha (59). Still, a rabbit near the Hatter unmistakably calls to mind the March Hare. Without Tenniel\u2019s illustrations, it would never be clear that residents of Wonderland can pass into the Looking-Glass alongside Alice. Of course, Carroll\u2019s text implies this crossover. The name \u201cHatta\u201d clearly echoes the name \u201cHatter,\u201d while the name \u201cHaigha,\u201d according to the White King, is meant to rhyme with \u201cmayor,\u201d meaning it would be pronounced \u201chare\u201d (195). Still, Carroll never draws any connections explicitly. Tenniel\u2019s illustrations, on the other hand, leave little room for doubt: the Hatter is certainly one of the White King\u2019s messengers, while the March Hare is likely his other. Once again, Tenniel reduces the ambiguity of Carroll\u2019s text with visual cues for the reader.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0At the beginning of the first novel, Alice asks herself a salient question: \u201c[W]hat is the use of a book\u2026without pictures or conversations?\u201d (7) Carroll\u2019s fanciful tales and Tenniel\u2019s beautiful illustrations seem to answer Alice directly, asserting that a book is <\/span>nothing<\/span><\/i> without its pictures. The marriage between Carroll\u2019s words and Tenniel\u2019s drawings simultaneously complements and complicates Jackson\u2019s definition of fantasy. On the one hand, their partnership emphasizes \u201cthat which cannot be said, that which evades articulation [and] that which is represented as \u2018untrue\u2019 and \u2018unreal\u2019\u201d (Jackson 40). When words fail, Carroll is forced to defer to Tenniel to fill in the blanks with images. As in Lovecraftian horror, some creatures and settings simply defy language. On the other hand, Carroll and Tenniel\u2019s collaboration challenges the notion that fantasy must create a complete \u201cdisjunction between word and object\u201d (38). Tenniel provides the reader some ground to stand on, even as it shifts and shakes beneath their feet. New words and new creatures are given life through seeing them. Tenniel clarifies that smoking caterpillars have hands (38), Mock Turtles have bovine heads (83), and talking flowers have tiny faces (134). Carroll\u2019s nonsense is made less nonsensical through Tenniel\u2019s refashioning of his text. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0One could hypothetically read the <\/span>Alice <\/span><\/i>books without Tenniel\u2019s illustrations, but they would miss a fundamental aspect of the text: vision. Throughout her journeys, \u201cAlice learns by looking, as does the reader, the other eye-witness of both her books\u201d (Hancher 246). Carroll\u2019s text suggests that a mere gaze can refigure, refine, and redefine language as we know it. To put it more plainly, to see is to mean, and to mean is to see.<\/span><\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/span><\/p>\n

Carroll, Lewis. <\/span>Alice\u2019s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. <\/span><\/i>Penguin Classics, 2015.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hancher, Michael. <\/span>The Tenniel Illustrations to the \u201cAlice\u201d Books, 2nd Edition<\/span><\/i>. Ohio State University Press, 2019. <\/span>JSTOR<\/span><\/i>, doi.org\/10.2307\/j.ctv30m1f0f. Accessed 7 Apr. 2025.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jackson, Rosemary. <\/span>Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion. <\/span><\/i>Routledge, 2003. <\/span>EBSCOhost<\/span><\/i>, research.ebsco.com\/linkprocessor\/plink?id=3d1a59e5-395f-3130-b732-52a5d20930b1. Accessed 3 Apr. 2025.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion, critic Rosemary Jackson offers a generic analysis to help better understand fantasy. To Jackson, \u201c[t]he fantastic exists in the hinterland between \u2018real\u2019 and \u2018imaginary,\u2019 shifting the relations between them through its indeterminacy\u201d (35). As a genre of subversion, fantasy tests the bounds of reality. By \u201c[p]resenting that … Continue reading A Jabberwocky’s Worth a Thousand Toves: Illustration and Non-Signification in the “Alice” Books<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5596,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[135984],"tags":[135957,111412,136014,136018,136021,136016,111413,136020,136019,136015,136017,136022],"class_list":["post-2327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-2025-posts","tag-alice","tag-alice-in-wonderland","tag-alices-adventures-in-wonderland","tag-fantasy","tag-illustration","tag-john-tenniel","tag-lewis-carroll","tag-michael-hancher","tag-rosemary-jackson","tag-through-the-looking-glass","tag-vision","tag-visual-culture"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5596"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/victorianlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}