Sunday, July 17, 2011

How Deep Does the Rabbit-Hole Go?

How deep are these so called “fairy tales” embedded into our culture? They are far more than the Disney movies we remember from our youth. Alice in Wonderland, for example, has made it’s was through the Disney stage into Batman, the Matrix, and now a modern take has even emerged with Alice clad in armor.

Let me back up for a moment, though, and explain this seemingly irrelevant and nonsensical rant. As it has been stated in previous posts, we have a lot of time to read here. And I quickly made my way through the books I brought (I was dreadfully unprepared for the intellectual stimulation I would soon endure). So I turned to the bookshelf here at the mission, which is filled with extremely old, dusty, often decaying books. I found a few of interest, however. One set being Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass.

I have always heard how different the actual tales are from the cartoon movies that we have grown up with, so I figured now is as good a time as any to find out for myself. And let me tell you, these two stories are without a doubt the weirdest, trippiest stories I’ve ever read.

Now, you’re probably wondering what my point is in publicizing this to however large a world is currently reading this. Well, when I finished I discovered an interesting greeting that Lewis Carroll gives to those who love “Alice” (Yes, a greeting at the conclusion is exactly the type of contradiction you’ll find in these stories). But it was an Easter greeting no less! Allow me to share a portion:

Are these strange words from a writer of such tales as “Alice”? And is this a strange letter to find in a book of nonsense? It may be so. Some perhaps may blame me for thus mixing together things grave and gay: others may smile and think it odd that any one should speak of solemn things at all, except in church and on Sunday: but I think—nay, I am sure—that some children will read this gently and lovingly, and in the spirit in which I have written it… For I do not believe God means us thus to divide life into two halves—to wear a grave face on Sunday, and to think it out-of-place to even so much as mention Him on a week-day…

So Carroll may not have been as out there as I anticipated. Now, I don’t know anything about his personal history, so if he really was mad then so be it (and at the moment I don’t care to find out because it may render this post utterly useless). But from this end greeting I would have to say that he may have been saner than a great number of us. If I may share one more slice:

Surely your gladness need not be the less for thought that you will one day see a brighter dawn than this—when lovelier sights will meet your eyes than any waving trees or rippling waters—when angel-hands shall undraw your curtains, and sweeter tones than ever loving Mother breathed shall wake you to a new and glorious day—and when all the sadness, and the sin, that darkened life on this little earth, shall be forgotten like the dream of a night that is past!

As I was reading these two stories, I was trying, rather awkwardly, to find a way to tie them into…well anything, in order to give me something to write about. But I believe that I finally found it here. Carroll says that he is just trying to add to the, “innocent and healthy amusement that are laid up in books for the children I love so well.” And I think that he has done just that. His stories about Alice are about a truly innocent young girl who dreamily visiting a Wonderland where she is able to break away from the darkness and monotony of her own little world to find her gladness.

And is this not what we are to do in prayer? Are we not also communing with a “heavenly Wonderland” in which we find our gladness and joy? Ok, maybe this is a stretch (I’ll have to develop this proposal a bit more), but Carroll’s words do give us something to think about. God does not mean us to divide our lives into two halves, but to unite God to our very being. To our work, our play, and everything in between. And we too, in our own way, need to add to the innocence, purity, and faith of the children of this world—from America to Africa (going across the Pacific Ocean of course so you’ll hit everything in between).

For Jesus tells us that whosoever receives a child in his name receives him. And unless we humble ourselves and become childlike in our faith before the Lord we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 18:1-5). So may this be our prayer today. To open wide our arms before the Father and journey deeper down the rabbit-hole of our faith.

-Dan
written 07/16/11

P.S. – The Mad Hatter’s riddle in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is: Why is a raven like a writing-desk? Enjoy.

2 comments:

  1. Christina GauthreauxJuly 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM

    I was curious about Carroll and if he was actually mad and this is what the trusty wikipedia had to say about him and the priesthood. His actual name was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson...

    Dodgson had been groomed for the ordained ministry in the Anglican Church from a very early age and was expected, as a condition of his residency at Christ Church, to take holy orders within four years of obtaining his master's degree. He delayed the process for some time but eventually took deacon's orders on 22 December 1861. But when the time came a year later to progress to priestly orders, Dodgson appealed to the dean for permission not to proceed. This was against college rules, and initially Dean Liddell told him he would have to consult the college ruling body, which would almost undoubtedly have resulted in his being expelled. For unknown reasons, Dean Liddell changed his mind overnight and permitted Dodgson to remain at the college, in defiance of the rules.[44] Uniquely amongst Senior Students of his time Dodgson never became a priest.

    There is currently no conclusive evidence about why Dodgson rejected the priesthood. Some have suggested his stammer made him reluctant to take the step, because he was afraid of having to preach. Wilson quotes letters by Dodgson describing difficulty in reading lessons and prayers rather than preaching in his own words. But Dodgson did indeed preach in later life, even though not in priest's orders, so it seems unlikely his impediment was a major factor affecting his choice. Wilson also points out that the then Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, who ordained Dodgson, had strong views against members of the clergy going to the theatre, one of Dodgson's great interests. Others have suggested that he was having serious doubts about the Anglican church. He was interested in minority forms of Christianity (he was an admirer of F.D. Maurice) and "alternative" religions (theosophy). Dodgson became deeply troubled by an unexplained sense of sin and guilt at this time (the early 1860s), and frequently expressed the view in his diaries that he was a "vile and worthless" sinner, unworthy of the priesthood, and this sense of sin and unworthiness may well have affected his decision to abandon the priesthood

    P.S.- I'm enjoying your posts, keep them comming! I hope all is well :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. You read it correctly. See Galatians 4:26 and Malachi 4.

    ReplyDelete