HRC Scavenger Hunt

The first image, showing an elongated girl, is one of the original illustrations in Lewis Carroll’s novel Alice in Wonderland. The illustration can be found near the middle of the novel, where Alice experience several physical transformations on her body shape. Though the narrative is showing physical change, it is metaphorical in how Alice is confused about her identity.

The second image is that of a flower and even though a flower is a very generic familiar item found anywhere, it can be easily related to Carroll and his imagination. In the sequel novel, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, Alice meets a group of flowers that range from lilies to roses to daisies. The entire exchange was one of the highlights in the novel that every Alice in Wonderland film adapted it –again, the scene is from the sequel, not the original, and yet they choose to include it anyways. Now only does Carroll have a fascination to plants but mostly animals as well. In both of his novels, he explores the relationship between humans and animals by developing animal characters that contrast the human characters.

When it comes to digging a bit deeper into Carroll, human-animal chemistry is definitely one of the more popular topics, which brings me to my third picture. The picture shows a man riding his horse in a race-like event. We can tell that it’s a race based on how the man is dressed, with those pants and that familiar hat. This brings up the question of whether or not these horses are treated well, since they are used for entertainment. Granted, there may be some examples of horses who are trained by the same person who raised them, but there must be outliers. Remember the entire Entertainment section of the documentary Earthlings? They included circus elephants and racing horses. Surely this is a topic that Carroll hints at throughout his novels.

Climate and Capitalism

Most of Naomi Klein’s talk was about climate change, its effects on the world, and what can be done to combat it. Instead of hearing many familiar words, Klein rephrased some expressions that sounded more convincing or ethical. She described how climate change is “the key to global reparations,” how it is another way to “fight global injustice.” This is a very moral-driven way to convince people to take action, and that’s admirable on the speaker’s part. Unfortunately, many people need to be persuaded first that global warming and climate change is a real thing instead of a myth. The worst part is that we have passed 1 degree of Celsius warming and yet we still have taken very little action.

I have read articles on the web before that state how even if we combat global warming, we will lose, and that there is really nothing we can do that can prevent it. That may be true, but it is our duty as earthlings to keep the planet inhabitable for as long as possible. Klein informed us that “2011 was the hottest year,” leading to a “massive crop failure with 8 billion dollars lost.” We even had an Academy Award winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, released as early as 2006.

This all reminded me of one of my favorite episodes ever from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In the video, link provided below, Jon praises the march for global warming while asking the question of why a march is even necessary. He then points all his fingers at the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He uses phrases like “pushing a million tons of idiot up a mountain” to describe the whole affair. Jon even uses a glass of water with ice to make the problem as clear as possible, asking if we have to make a volcano with baking soda to convince people that global warming is real.

The Daily Show – Burn Noticed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI

Natural Science Museum

Outside the museum, I looked at the building with curiosity but distracted daze as a beagle. It appears welcoming as a building that is softly surrounded by trees and bushes. I skip inside and the first thing I see is a ginormous bone!

The bone is a fossil humerus of a bird, I mean, flying pterosaur. It’s called the Quetzalcoatlus, and it lived 65 million years ago. When my mind is in the present, I think about how that bone is looks intimidating since it is something I would normally want. But knowing that it is just a small piece of bone on a much larger flying creature, I feel terrified but glad that the creature no longer exists. For my views on the species homo sapiens, I would think that they are smart and skilled for their ability to find a bone that is so old.

Next I came across the tail armor of a glyptodont. At first impression, this looks like an awesome shelter and home for a beagle. But after careful analysis, I realized that it is a thick plate covering the entire back of the creature, like a turtle shell. I would credit the species homo sapiens once again for being able to find and hold onto a part of an animal that is older than their time. I like the idea of preserving items to remember a certain animal’s existence.

Then my thoughts go a little south when I came across dead birds and models of their homes. Even though I started thinking about how homo sapiens treat dead animals by putting them on display, I was too distracted by what the display was trying to educate me about. Unlike myself, who sleeps on the floor, on the Earth, those birds design their homes on ceilings, hanging down. I was impressed at how the homes were able to support the birds’ weight. There is no way I can build a home that can support mine, that’s for sure.

On the fourth floor, I saw something peculiar. It looked like strange mutated dog food at first, but after reading the signs and labels, I was told that the model is of a virus cell. So these things can be found inside our bodies, huh? Any species can have these? I guess that just shows how homo sapiens is just one out of millions of animal species on this single planet.

In the end, my impression of homo sapiens is that they are a much more sophisticated species than others, since they have created mass exhibits that help them learn more about other animals. Though the measures they take to create such exhibits can be questionable, they are undoubtedly a very curious species.

Blanton-Franks exhibit

The painting I chose was clearly related to the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood. Near the center of the painting is the back of a figure dressed completely in red, an interesting approach since she normally has a big cloak. Facing her is a demonizing wolf in bed, wearing a pink skirt of some sort.

Being from an Asian culture myself, I couldn’t help but feel like the wolf’s design in this painting is very Asian. You can see whiskers on the side of its mouth, like those of a Chinese dragon. The teeth are oddly sharp and long too, along with the pointy ears and the hair around its neck, resembling that of a lion’s mane. These are all qualities in classic paintings of Chinese dragons, like the one shown below:

Another clear feature is the big painting on the wall right behind the wolf, showing a woman looking in dissatisfaction or disappointment. Perhaps that woman is Grandma? Mother? What if she’s actually Little Red looking at herself, signifying a sense of impending doom for our protagonist?

Other minor details – the statue on the left resembles a demon gargoyle of some kind, yet has the appearance of an ox. The model tree behind that looks like a fancy-looking bonsai, which is also a Chinese plant, like the one below.

It is great to see a different take on a familiar story. Natalie Frank, the artist, described how “it is [these stories’ mysteries] that make us return to them over and over again, inviting us in, drawing us closer.” These tales allow other artists like Frank to expand on the world we love to read about –in line with how I have written about how Alice in Wonderland evolved over time.

Grimm-Franks Talk

After hearing Kate Berheimer talk about fairy tales, how similar and lurid they are, and the future of fairy tales, the one thing that stayed with me was when she asked us to think about how fairy tales are done today and how they’re different.

My immediate reaction went to Tim Burton and Guillermo Del Toro. I think both filmmakers’ imaginations fuel the fairy tale genre today, keeping the “language of fairy tales” alive. When it comes to movie genres, fantasy is one of the big names, but “fairy tale” is arguably a genre of its own. This is because fairy tales over time have received a large faithful cult audience. Almost every film by Burton and Del Toro can be called a fantasy cult film. Films like Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands come to mind for the former while titles like Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy come to mind for the latter. This year, Del Toro directed another film that I would count as a lurid fairy tale, Crimson Peak.

I wrote in my P1 and P2 about the evolution of Alice in Wonderland and the evolution of the fantasy genre; one of my conclusions was “fairy tales still sell.” Even when Kate brings up how Disney “sanitized” the original novels by making the colors brighter and more appealing for children, history has shown that filmmakers would still go back to the fascinating dark places of the genre. Just look at Tim Burton’s rendition of Alice in Wonderland. Or the upcoming Alice Through The Looking Glass.

Fairy tales are not going away, because there is always an audience for it.

Earthlings

• “It all comes down to pain and suffering. Not intelligence, not strength, not social class or civil right. Pain and suffering are in themselves bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers.”

This was near the very end of the documentary, and this was where I learned that the documentary and the event hosting it have two different messages. Earthlings focused on how we are all creatures of this planet and yet we show no sympathy towards the killing of inferior species. Also, like humans, animals express degrees of emotions ranging from loneliness to pain and suffering. It promotes a humane peaceful way of thinking from the audience, asking us to open our eyes and be more aware of what the system is doing.

• “[…] it’s no wonder that Mad Cow Disease … Foot and Mouth Disease … Pfiesteria… and a host of other animal related abnormalities have been unleashed on the human public. Nature is not responsible for these actions. We are.”

Earthlings brings up another interesting subject in the quote I provided. Even though the documentary’s main focus is about emotion, the health and environmental impact can be further studied in the documentary Cowspiracy. The idea suggests that our process of killing animals is the cause of several harmful treatments to the environment, and therefore, new diseases are created. This is absolutely possible from a scientific standpoint. However, a scientific problem must require a scientific solution, not an emotional solution. If we wish to prevent these diseases from forming, we must go straight into the horrible industry practices that are being done, instead of looking towards the food-eaters and asking them to not eat. The consumers make little influence in this big picture. You wouldn’t try to combat global warming by asking people to not drive that much. No, you would instead cut carbon emissions.

One of the most conflicting things I had with Earthlings was that it doesn’t really have a stance or an argument. It keeps bringing up terrible things for us to watch without really suggesting a call to action at the end (The call to action CANNOT be “Therefore you should not eat meat and be vegan instead”). Over time, as I kept thinking about it, though, I concluded that it’s alright that Earthlings doesn’t have a call to action. This is because its *only* agenda is to inform. There is a common saying: “The first step to solving any problem is recognizing there is one.” I’m happy that Earthlings serves well as the first step.

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.