How Alice Has Grown (P2a Version)

Need help in: Word Choice, Conciseness, Documentation

Please let me know if there are some words that are overused or if there’s some other words that would just be better choices than the ones I have. For conciseness, please see if there’s anything repetitive, unnecessary, or too long. For documentation, instead of saying “incorrect,” please provide examples of what’s 100% correct, I guess?

The paper is designed to be a linear look at the Alice films, talking about how they’re different from the novel. Does it build up well with “Worth Diving Into”? “Why We Still Love Alice”? Maybe “Still Love Alice” can be longer? Let me know your thoughts. I would love to have this become a possible publication.

The Novel Itself Is a Rabbit Hole… Worth Diving Into

There are at least 45 film/TV adaptations of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. That means we get an Alice adaptation once every three years. Furthermore, Disney will release another film in 2016, titled Alice Through the Looking-Glass. Clearly, there is something about the original tale that made readers and viewers hold onto it for so long. For a novel that is 150 years old, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland has sought countless transformations over time, as different cultures and visionaries all over the world pour their own madness into Carroll’s original work. Has anything changed from the 1900s to the present? Over time, the world of fairy tales has been mixed and stirred with the evolution of culture and human society, becoming its own rabbit hole for the most curious people to fall into. The thought of looking through all the adaptations can drive one mad, which is why I will offer a summarized in-depth look at the legacy of the novel, how it has changed over time, and why we hold onto Alice like a dear friend. This is a rabbit hole worth diving into. Alice’s growth through the years definitely makes one interesting tea conversation, because it is not just about Alice growing – it is about Wonderland’s ability to grow, thanks to society’s eagerness to feed it.

From Silent Storytelling to Early Elaborate Visuals (1903 – 1949)

            The very first film adaptation of Carroll’s novel was made way back in the silent era. Alice in Wonderland was filmed in 1903 by director Cecil Hepworth, one of the original founders of the British film industry. With a runtime of only 8 minutes and 19 seconds, the short film’s narrative is only told through text like, “Alice dreams that she sees the White Rabbit and follows him down the Rabbit-hole, into the Hall of Many Doors.”

            As one can guess from the time period and the hectic filming process at the time, the White Rabbit was simply portrayed by an actor wearing a costume, and thus, the Rabbit and Alice were the same size (actually the Rabbit was taller). Since the early stages of filmmaking had difficulty in portraying a girl falling “endlessly,” the Rabbit-hole was portrayed as something closer to a tunnel. Here, Alice does not fall, but instead continues walking down the tunnel, following the Rabbit. After ending up in the Hall of Many Doors, Alice comes across the small door, along with the iconic “Drink Me” and “Eat Me” contents.

The film demonstrated the early magic that cinema could do, involving simple cuts. By physically cutting up the film strip and taping it together with the opening of another frame, the director incorporated the magical element of the “Drink Me” bottle suddenly appearing out of nowhere. This cutting technique would be further demonstrated in the later years of silent film by renowned French filmmaker George Méliès. Other scenes ranged from the Cheshire cat (just a regular cat without the iconic smile) to the Mad Tea Party to Alice meeting the Queen of Hearts and finally waking up. Interestingly, Alice wakes up not by overcoming her dream – like in the novel – but by being chased by the Queen’s henchmen. In a way, she was chased out of her dream in fear, in a similar fashion as waking up from a nightmare. In fact, the grainy black and white, the lack of sound and the imagery do give off a creepy lurid impression to the viewer, almost hinting at early German Expressionism, a trend in cinema at the time[1]. Who would have thought to see Carroll’s original story be mixed with a cinema trend decades later?

            The next adaptation jumps us ahead to 1931, when film finally had sound incorporated in. With an expanded running time of 58 minutes, the film starts immediately with Alice ending up in Wonderland, and it utilizes great imagery (probably cliché today) to convey the idea that she is dreaming; at the very beginning and the very end, the film duplicates Alice’s face, portraying two other Alice’s circling around the center one, as shown below:

Again, since it is the first film to have sound, the 1931 rendition of Alice in Wonderland finally had the chance to include famous lines that made the novel so charming and nonsensical[2]. Though the overall quality of the film still looked poor and dated, and the actor performances were criticized either because they are expressionless or have a lack of a British accent, it was praised by The New York Times for its scenes that looked as though Sir John Tenniel’s illustrations had staggered to life[3].

            Then came the first big production of Alice in Wonderland, in 1933, by Paramount Pictures. This adaptation featured an all-star cast, from Edna May Oliver as the Red Queen to even Cary Grant as the Mock Turtle. At only 90 minutes long, Alice in Wonderland sought a strange combination of both of Carroll’s novels. Even though its title comes from the first novel, its opening of Alice entering the magical world follows Looking-Glass. The same goes with how Alice awakens, not by confronting the pack of playing cards but by the chaotic crowd that goes mad after she is crowned Queen. Therefore, it is my theory that this film wanted to be called Alice in Wonderland simply because the first novel is undoubtedly more popular than the second. Soon after Paramount took a step into Carroll’s world, next came the humongous dominating studio of the decade: Walt Disney Studios.

Disney Steps In and Despite Differences, Aggressively Mainstreams Wonderland (1949 – 1951)

In the middle of Disney’s production, however, the French came about with their own adaptation, and the two films wound up being released at a time window so close that Disney actually sued and went through a legal dispute. The French version, titled Alice au pays des merveilles, showed a much older Alice (the actress was 20) but remained faithful to the first original novel. Surprisingly, the film incorporated a combination of live action and extremely creepy stop-motion animation. The Caterpillar scene exhibited this admirable contrast, where actress Carol Marsh had to play off of a hunk of wires and plastic.

In fact, almost every character in Wonderland, including the Red Queen, was a stop-motion puppet. This provided an interesting contrast between what is real and what is not real – this was the first time the audience was given a visual aid during the narrative. Why did Disney make an effort to go against this French release? To start, the French film also had songs. Next, the film was planned to have a US release just days before Disney releases theirs. It’s no wonder why the studio took action. Time Magazine covered the entire case, in which Disney sued and successfully prevented the release, making the 1949 French film one that most Americans failed to find. Ironically, both the French film and the Disney cartoon flopped in the box office[4]. The Disney cartoon opened at only $2.4 million in the box office, which, after being adjusted for inflation to today’s standards, is about $22 million, the same opening as this year’s Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. In fact, the famous Disney cartoon that we all praise today and grew up with was critically panned at the time of its release.

A promotional poster of Alice in Wonderland (1951) in a newspaper

Like a few of the adaptations that came before it, Disney’s Alice in Wonderland not only combined certain elements from both novels together but also had some curious details missing. Though it was titled Alice in Wonderland, it included the appearance of Looking-Glass’s Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and they also told the story of the Walrus and the Carpenter. Yet, the film made no mentions of the Mock Turtle, the Gryphon or the Lobster Quadrille; all are characters from the novel that the film is based on. However, despite changes, the film made some clever liberties: The filmmakers made an admirable choice of having the lyrics to the songs be taken straight out of Carroll’s poems in the novels, as shown in the Walrus and Carpenter scene[5]. This was a smart maneuver, given that it is almost a tradition for Disney films to have sing-a-long songs. That being said, the film missed a great opportunity to give characterization to Alice, due to the two endings being very thematically different. In the original novel, Alice woke up from her dream after she realized she has complete control of herself and her world. She woke up by standing up and overcoming such nonsense, given by her famous line of “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!” It was written to be a moment of triumph for Alice, especially since the novel had a consistent atmosphere of uncertainty in her character. In the Disney rendition, Alice does stand up for herself, only to shrink back down to her normal size. She then proceeded to be chased out of the castle and through a maze by not just the Queen’s henchmen but every citizen in Wonderland. Like the 1903 silent film, Alice here is once again chased out of her dream in a panic[6].

Underneath all the criticism a fan of Carroll can make, though, Disney took Alice in Wonderland in a whole new direction apart from what Carroll probably intended. After airing the movie on network television but holding a consistent detachment from the product, Disney finally re-released the film in 1974, and the response from the new cultural society in that decade proved that the film was indeed ahead of its time in the 50s, as positive word of mouth started to grow. Imagery of Alice finally began to appear alongside other iconic faces like Mickey Mouse, like in the invitation art shown, found in the Harry Ransom Center. It even included an appearance of the famous creature in the children’s book Where the Wild Things Are. This is the start of Wonderland slowly being fused with other pop culture elements.

After scurrying through several rare magazines and documents in the Harry Ransom Center, I came across a review that David Rider wrote, concerning the Disney re-release. The words speak my argument: “[The film] has not dated at all and remains remarkably contemporary[7].” “Contemporary” is one of if not the most important word to describe Carroll’s novels, for it will explain why it has transformed into many other forms of fantasy. In 1981, Alice in Wonderland was re-released yet again, and the character of Alice became an icon for imagination, creativity and wonder. At Disneyland, all the characters from both novels became famous figures to take photos with tourists. The Mad Tea Party even became one of Disneyland’s most famous rides for children. One of the most iconic works in literature has now been mainstreamed; even if one has never read the original novel, he/she would know what Alice in Wonderland is. There is no doubt that the story and the concept of Wonderland has become a goliath staple in the fantasy genre; it is so goliath that there are countless references no matter where we go.

Wonderland Continues To Grow – A New Darker Alice (1988 – 2010)

After three decades of parodies and cultural references that I will eventually come back to, Alice in Wonderland finally returned to its original adaptation form, now with a refreshingly different atmosphere. In 1988, Czech filmmaker Jan Švankmajer provided a unique look at the story. In Alice, the titular character follows not a live but a stuffed rabbit, which magically comes to life. The first key difference in the film is that the world of Wonderland seems to co-exist with Alice’s bedroom. There is a strong lack of vibrant colors, since Wonderland this time around is mostly shaped by dilapidated household hallways and rooms. Most of the colors in the shots are brown. Last but not least, the film once again incorporated live action and stop-motion at the same time, only this time, it put the 1949 French version to shame in terms of creepiness[8]. Švankmajer remained faithful to the novel in terms of literal plot and narrative, yet took his own creative liberties to show us a film that is visually disturbing and haunting via twisted surreal images. The result is one of the scariest things I have ever seen. As the scene shows an Alice doll being ripped open from the inside, with the real Alice crawling out of it, there is no better way to react than having one’s jaw dropped.

Ironically, in the same year, pop culture in film took a quirky dark turn that fascinated audiences – director Tim Burton just released Beetlejuice. Not only was the film widely praised for its creativity, but it sparked a new trend in Hollywood; make twisted but compelling films. After providing further flicks like Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Corpse Bride and Sweeney Todd, Burton provided his own treatment on the Carroll tale. The result is one of the most famous Alice adaptations, but it arguably has the most departures.

The 2010 Alice in Wonderland acted more like a sequel to the original novel, even though it still contained some classic scenes and iconic characters. Alice is once again in her 20s in this version, and after falling down the Rabbit-hole into Wonderland, she is constantly questioned by the inhabitants as to whether or not she is the “right” Alice. Later on, the film confirms itself as a sequel by revealing that the current narrative is the second time Alice has fallen down the Rabbit-hole. The plot then takes flight on its own while also referring to Looking-Glass by providing a prophecy story, telling that Alice is destined to defeat the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen’s reign of terror. Through the course of the film, we follow Alice as she teams up with the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Cheshire Cat, and the White Queen as she fights a Narnia-like final battle, all while Burton provides gorgeously lurid imagery throughout. This time around, the Alice adaptation is more focused on drowning the audience in the world of Wonderland by filling the screen up with all different kinds of CGI visuals. Every shot in the film is densely packed with creatures and effects, with the latter focused heavily on 3D. In an interview, director Burton describes how the novel and the medium of 3D fit together because the story contains visual elements like size, shrinking and growing, all while highlighting how trippy the entire affair is[9].

The film seemed to set out with a different agenda from other adaptations. Instead of just re-telling the classic story, it “up’d” the game in terms of size and scope. No other Alice adaptation has been made in the same scale as a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings film. Yet, next to the grand scale of the film, Burton kept his signature style throughout the narrative by his choice of lighting, color, and imagery; scenes involved heads floating in a swamp and several moments of eyes being stabbed or plucked out (and the film was still rated PG). In the end, the large scope of the film and the amount of lore it explored in the Carroll novels won over the crowd, and the film went on to become a hit worldwide.

How Alice Influenced Everything That Came After (2012 – ???)

            Despite the mixed reviews on the Tim Burton adaptation by critics, one statistic stood out amongst filmgoers and studios: The film grossed over $1 billion worldwide (Only 23 films in history have achieved this)[10]. The overwhelming financial success of Burton’s Wonderland proved that there was a roaring enthusiastic crowd for this story but more importantly, this genre. Ever since its success, moviegoers received several fantasy reboots, including Snow White and the Huntsman, Oz the Great and Powerful, Maleficent, Into the Woods, and this year’s Cinderella. The best (or worst) part about this movement is that it is not going anywhere for a while. One of the most popular TV shows today is a fantasy show –Once Upon A Time. In 2013, the ABC show aired a spinoff titled Once Upon A Time in Wonderland, where it received positive reviews. Disney already has a reboot of The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast planned for 2016. Finally, as I brought up in the beginning, there is Alice Through the Looking Glass, with the cast of the previous film returning in their respective roles. However, as shown in the new trailer, the film is introducing a brand new character called Time. It seems like the filmmakers are once again pouring in some of their own ideas. All of these fantasy releases prove one single thing: Fairy tales still sell, and people still love to watch them.

Why We Still Love Alice (1930s – 2000s)

Now that I have filled your head with all different kinds of Alice in Wonderland adaptations, is it okay to have so many different versions of the same story? What good do they do? But the big question is: Why does Alice in Wonderland always come back to us after all these years? Tim Burton, in promotion of his 2010 film, made a comment regarding the countless adaptations of the novel. He claimed that the abundant number of versions actually helped because there was no definitive one[11]. He is absolutely right, and that is why I believe Alice in Wonderland is a story that we hold onto so tightly – it is broadly about everything and it sneakily finds its way to be relevant in everything. I mentioned in the very beginning that Wonderland grows because society wants to feed it. Why? Because Wonderland is not just about Alice’s imagination, but our imagination. Wonderland is merely an idea of what we can create and the nonsense that life is consisted of. Therefore, we associate ourselves with the story. Because life is ever-changing, so is Wonderland, and everyone’s perception of Wonderland is different and unique. My perception of fairy tales may be the polar opposite of my professor’s. Because of this attachment, it is no wonder why every type of culture or media found a way to bond with the novel. As early as 1934, we were beyond excited to see one of the most popular cartoon characters in the world, Betty Boop, walk through the glass into the animators’ own vision of Wonderland, titled Blunderland[12]. Even lovers of Playboy and adult content got a bit of what they wanted in Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Comedy. In its promotional ad on a magazine, the slogan for the film in the bottom left box read:

“The world’s favorite bed-time story is finally a bed-time story…”

Even the popular Care Bears on TV had an adaptation where the Care Bears fall into Wonderland. By not having a single character from the novels, The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland proved that any character can enter such a nonsensical world, further highlighting my point that Wonderland is about us. We have associated ourselves with the story so much that almost everyone in the world can recognize elements of the story anywhere. Political cartoons in the 70s incorporated Carroll’s story throughout the country, with the Cheshire Cat and Humpty Dumpty alluding to US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon being just two examples.

Carroll’s novel was not the only thing that evolved over time. It is not about Alice’s growth, but about Wonderland’s growth, fairy tales’ growth, and our growth. Society changes every day – one minute, something becomes a trend. On top of that, there are millions of societies and cultures across the globe, all changing spontaneously. Just like how I found Rider in the Harry Ransom Center, I came across Peter Heath, who wrote that one of the key reasons the novel remained as the greatest is that it has not dated. He went on to describe that we live “in a world dominated by Boolean algebra on the one hand and political lunatics on the other,” and as a result, the novel “steadily gained in relevance[13].” There is an endless spectrum of unique voices out there who can easily provide their visions into a staple like Alice in Wonderland, and you know what the best part about it is? The audience still cares. As I mentioned before, fairy tales still sell. No matter how many adaptations or pop culture references we get, we are always curious to see what new offerings can be made to Carroll’s original work. It is what makes Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass feel so timeless. By the time we crawled out of the Rabbit-hole, we will always have the urge to jump back in and explore another take on Alice’s story, because the best stories always evolve.

Word Count Total: 3825

Word Count w/o Quotes: 3540

---

[1] “Alice in Wonderland (1903).” YouTube video. Posted by “LuckyStrike502,” Posted on Aug 31, 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke25rh_8veM

[2] “Alice in Wonderland (1931) Higher Resolution.” YouTube video. Posted by “Phantomwise,” Posted on May 21, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAYC3yzarTY

[3] Mordaunt Hall, THE SCREEN; Alice of Wonderland Fame, With Several of Her Friends, Comes to Shadow Life. A Race Track Thriller. Movietone News. December 28, 1931. http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B02E5DB1430E03ABC4051DFB467838A629EDE

[4] Cinema: Battle of Wonderland, July 16, 1951. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,889135,00.html

[5] “Walrus and the Carpenter.” YouTube video. Posted by “Leandro Libarona,” Posted on Feb 1, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WCEbKM_SE

[6] “Alice in Wonderland.” YouTube video. Posted by “_...,” Posted on Jan 1, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIeW5LWGiAg

[7] David Rider, “Forum pieces,” Films and filming, March 1970.

[8] “Alice 1988 Neco Z Alenky trailer.” YouTube video. Posted by “Catala cine,” Posted on May 20, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBMLRb_mIl8

[9] “TIM BURTON on ALICE IN WONDERLAND VISUAL EFFECTS.” YouTube video. Posted by “ReelzChannel,” Posted on Mar 5, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4QSC36sin4

[10] “Worldwide Grosses,” Box Office Mojo. Accessed October 12, 2015. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

[11] “TIM BURTON on ALICE IN WONDERLAND VISUAL EFFECTS.” YouTube video. Posted by “ReelzChannel,” Posted on Mar 5, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4QSC36sin4

[12] “Betty Boop in Blunderland,” YouTube video. Posted by “Cartoons4All,” Posted on Oct 14, 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAU2CMGz48

[13] Peter Heath, “The Carroll Connection.” Review Volume 3, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1981

11-15 for 11-19

1.       

“Contemporary cultures also have totem animals, such as those for clubs or societies like the Lions Club… or for sports teams such as the Chicago Bears… Even Christianity has the totems of the lamb and the fish.” (page 328)

So the first half of this quote got me thinking and questioning about the definition of totem animal. Totem means a spirit being or a sacred object, so I assume that a totem animal is basically like a spirit animal that guides people through life. But I don’t understand how this can apply to sports teams, because that’s normally what we call a “mascot.” Would UT Austin call the Longhorn its totem animal? This also reminds me of a South Park episode where PETA attacks South Park Elementary for having their mascot be the Cows, claiming that they are “responsible for the enslavement and genocide of millions.” Is there a line to be drawn for this?

For the second half of the quote, I did some research on the Christianity part. I learned that the sheep, or lamb, is associated with the resurrected Christ, and represents the idea of how love heals all wounds through purification. The fish, on the other hand, represents life since the animal moves freely through water and water makes a good visual metaphor of how life is constantly flowing.

2.       

“Trickster figures like Raven are particularly adept at changeovers and in addition to becoming living incarnations, they can manifest as wooden dishes, dirt, pine needles, or totem poles.” (page 328)

Wow! I remember when I was in elementary school and our teacher read to us a picture book called “Raven,” and this was exactly the story that the book told! Raven transformed into a pine needle that fell into a soup that a woman drank. I forgot the details but the overall narrative was Raven trying to search for light, in a world coated in darkness. The concept of transformation is definitely a fascinating one, and there have been many modern fantasy stories that incorporate these beliefs and myths. Harry Potter is the first one that comes to mind; the character Sirius Black had the magical ability to change into a dog whenever he wanted to, and the term for such a wizard was an animagus. Speaking of Harry Potter, I just noticed that the idea of the Patronus charm sounds similar to what spirit animals are. Harry’s was a stag and his mother’s was a doe, etc.

3.       

“If you were to move to a foreign country, you would have to learn the language of that country to survive and be productive. The more you understood the intricacies of that language, its dialects and uses, the more effective you would become within your life. The easier it becomes for you to survive and grow.” (page 332)

It was very interesting to see the author take the idea of a foreign country to justify the need to understand the natural world, because we’re all a part of it. I probably agree with these statements, that yes, we have a responsibility to know about the environment that we’re living in, because we will be able to progress our lives further if we understand our surroundings better.

4.       

“Some animals never get cancerous conditions. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to learn their secrets?” (page 332)

Yes, but some secrets are impossible to learn, haha. That is simply because there are animals out there whose biological constructs are radically different from humans. We will never survive in the Arctic cold because we have no fur or blubber in our bodies. This is a topic that I bring up all the time with my friends, because honestly, I’m jealous that a lot of animals have really cool traits that humans just don’t have; often times, I feel like the human race is a very boring species. But in the end, I agree with the author that “this attribution helps us to appreciate the natural world more fully.”

11-15 for 11-17

1.       

“The word ‘outlaw,’ however legitimized by common usage, is a betrayal. The cattle I am thinking of made their reputations in fierce, hardy, persistent, resourceful, daring efforts to maintain freedom.” (page 388)

This is the opening sentence of the passage describing how cattle should not be described as outlaws because there is a negative connotation. The passage goes on to praise these animals, talking about how they simply want freedom and refuse to be treated like animals that are predestined to be slaughtered. Of course, it is understandable for a person to not want to use the word “outlaw,” but I for one think that this is a case where being called an outlaw is awesome! This is similar to how popular culture has made the word “bad” to mean “cool” (thank you, Michael Jackson). That being said, I agree with the author that there has to be another word out there that fits the description better. “Runaway” is not a good word, nor can we use “fugitive” or “escapee animal.” Maybe “freedom riders”? Oh wait, that’s taken.

2.       

“In this brush the Longhorns ran wilder for a longer time than in any other region. The outlaws that came out of it and that died of old age in it, uncaptured, were magnificent preservers of their freedom.” (page 394)

This quote makes me proud and happy for the animals that successfully find their freedom. It all reminds me of a fantastic 2013 documentary I watched called Blackfish. In summary, the documentary talked about orca whales living in captivity, specifically SeaWorld, and it further addressed all the events in the past where orca whales rebelled and attacked whale trainers. When I watched it, I was shocked to learn that SeaWorld claimed that orcas live longer in captivity, when if you were to look at hard facts, an orca whale can live almost 6x longer in the wild than in captivity. I’d recommend Blackfish to anybody who is interested in this subject of animals in the wild vs. captivity. It has a great inspiring agenda of telling the audience that these beautiful creatures deserve to be together as a family, free in the wild.

3.       

“The relationship between herders and the herded was a close one in the early days, when herds were small and individual animals were still important. One’s animals were far more than just food; they were part of the tapestry of daily life, of one’s status in society. For subsistence farmers, working animals were social instruments as well as companions, friends about whom one had no illusions.” (page 415)

This is the kind of man-animal relationship that I adore – the closest to this kind of relationship today is probably pets or horses that are well fed and well used for transportation. I am reminded of Thomas Hardy’s famous novel Far From the Madding Crowd, where one of the main characters Gabriel Oak was socially respected because he own a sheep farm. But most of all, I am reminded of one of my favorite books to read when I was a child: Dinotopia. The book’s setting was a fictional utopia inhabited by peaceful dinosaurs and shipwrecked humans. Not only did it portray two species being able to peacefully coexist, but it even included a societal code which is close to other belief systems we have read about in class. Some of these codes include “Survival of all or none,” “Give more, take less,” and the most famous one, “One raindrop raises the sea.”

4.       

“[…] as oxen and buffalo (bovines) are useful in farming and are respected.” (page 426)

Being of Chinese and Taiwanese origin myself, I can 100% believe this statement as the reason why the Chinese people would refuse to eat beef simply because they were economically useful to the citizens. We have studied that the Indian people refuse to eat beef for either religious reasons or for moral reasons. It is quite stereotypically humorous to see the Chinese refuse to eat for a pure technical reason.

5.       

“This official prohibition was in place until 1872, when it was officially proclaimed that Emperor Meiji consumed beef and mutton, which transformed the country’s dietary considerations as a means of modernizing the country, particularly with regard to consumption of beef.” (page 427)

Okay, this is also believable, but I think it can apply to any country because people are mostly foolish when it comes to listening to authority figures. The passage above basically means the Japanese people did not eat beef until the Emperor did. Then *everyone* jumped on the bandwagon and did it too. What if the new Queen of England chose a vegan diet? Did the Japanese people change their diet simply because the Emperor had much greater power of his people at the time? Maybe if one refused to eat beef, he/she would be considered as a rebel of the Emperor. This is a topic worth diving deeper into at some other time.

11-8 for 11-12

1.       

“My husband’s rifle was kept loaded (I learnt to load and fire it), as we were determined not to die without a struggle…” (page 906)

I admire any character who is like this; even movie characters are admired for their courage and their bravery. How many times have we heard the classic line that sounds something like “I ain’t going down without a fight.” Now, that being said, this behavior can be a blinding behavior, and some foreigners (like my relatives) can say that this kind of attitude is a weakness in Americans.

2.       

“Soon afterwards the guns fired –instantly the alarm bugle rang out its shrill on the still night … I felt that our death knell had sounded …” (page 906)

This entire passage felt like an intense historical thriller to me. I could imagine the location, the dead silence, and the torturous suspense of that scene when the husband goes out and none of us are sure if he lives.

3.       

“[…] I am obliged to infer that something deeper and more powerful than the use of greased cartridges has been resorted to…” (page 919)

This is exactly what I brought up in the previous blog post regarding the greased cartridges. I mentioned that it has to be more than just the cartridges that made the people so upset. To quote my own words, “I can imagine a civilization of Indian people spending years of putting up with the British Empire, and this animal-gun thing to them is sort of like a ‘That’s the last straw’ kind of deal.” After doing some research about the Indian Rebellion, I found out that civilian practices and systems were interfered by the British Empire. Land was lost because of a different culture and privileges to Indian citizens were not given either. Now this sounds like a real social issue and cause to form rebellion. Honestly, the greased cartridge issue sounds really small in terms of problem-scope.

"Rebellion" by Linkin Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCy5461BtTg

4.       

“They challenged the superiority of the rulers to whom, for a century, they and their fathers had submitted…” (page 925)

For some reason, this just moved me tremendously. It sounds very inspirational, like something historic and revolutionary is occurring, which it was. I can just picture those rebellious historical drama movies in my head about this, and for dramatic effect, they will include the fathers so they can argue with the sons and daughters who do the challenging.

11-8 for 11-10

1.       

“The first group contains economic arguments and often turns around the question of whether or not imperialism pays.” (page 883)

From a pure economic standpoint, there are indeed reasons why imperialism works well. The underdeveloped country indirectly receives benefits and improvements, labor grows and is managed, and new markets appear as well.

2.       

“A second group of arguments relates imperialism to the nature of human beings and human groups, such as the state.” (page 883)

This part is probably the most ridiculous one of them all. The quote goes on to refer to Hitler and Mussolini, talking about how imperialism is part of survival. Imperialism is an interesting subject to explore when it comes to fast expansion and growth for a country, but it has nothing to do with ruling others or taking control of others. There are relationships between countries that can form and economic or social deals as well, but no country should ever feel like a puppet.

3.       

“The third group of arguments has to do with strategy and security.” (page 884)

Now this is where most people would talk about the pros of imperialism in the old times. Back then, imperialism helps influence the country to lean towards expansionism. There are clear moral agendas for the country to grow and everybody had nearly the same mind setting. That was what helped exploration and was what made countries turn into empires, and that’s when problems start to occur, but that’s a different topic.

4.       

“The fourth group of arguments is based on moral grounds, sometimes with strong missionary implications.” (page 884)

The passage describes that imperialism can liberate people from tyrannical rule and bring them the blessings of a superior way of life. Okay, there is a very thin line between this being okay and this being wrong. I can imagine a big imperialist country economically helping another country grow. Resources can be used and more roads or buildings can be built. But if your goal doesn’t work, then you should know when to stop. A perfect example is America’s constant nagging at wanting Iraq to be a democracy. Details and history has shown that it is not working!

5.       

“Relations between the native soldiers and their white counterparts or officers also worsened as the empire grew in strength.” (page 890)

This is not surprising as history has shown that whichever empire it is, as long as it’s growing, it will negatively affect whatever country that it is interested in. This passage is mainly about the British Empire harming the Indian people, but the same thing can be said for how the British Empire treated the Chinese people. This entire piece of 1857 Reader reminded me of a novel I read last semester, The Moonstone –it talked about interesting social and political conflicts between the British and the Indian people, even though it was portrayed under a more thematic light.

6.       

“Because the soldier had to bite the cartridge to release the gunpowder he necessarily tasted the grease, which was originally animal fat, often “tallow” derived from cows.” (page 977)

Huh… that’s interesting. Now the first thing that comes up in my head is: Why is animal fat necessary to make that grease? But then my next question would be: “Is there anything else they could have used?” No I do not know the answer to that question but it is understandable to see the Indian people shocked and repulsed by this because it is against their religious beliefs. I may not agree with them and share the same views on animals but I at least would respect what they believe in. I can imagine a civilization of Indian people spending years of putting up with the British Empire, and this animal-gun thing to them is sort of like a “That’s the last straw” kind of deal.