What a fine thing language is — boundlessly inventive, fanciful, jesting, sometimes as sharp as a spear or a shaft of light, sometimes meditative, like an afternoon in Indian-summer with the tang of ripening apples in the air, and sometimes vague, dim, suggestive, like a whisper in the night. People say it’s the most powerful tool man has made. Not so fast, not so fast! It’s more than a tool. It is a power of the human soul, encountering the mystery of itself, and other souls, the wide world around us, and the far wider world within us. Can you weave a spell? Sure you can. A little child asks for a story, and you glance up and to your right — which is where stories are located — and you say, “Once upon a time,” and a world comes into being. Only you don’t tell the child that. You say that once upon a time a girl named Alice went down a rabbit-hole, or somehow ended up on the opposite side of a looking-glass, and there you have it, or it has you.
You may say, “Well, but we do depend on words already invented,” so we’re bound by language. As much as to say that you’re chained by your legs, because you have to use them to walk into the fields! But the thing is, we invent words all the time, and people can get them without a dictionary, so long as they can recognize the forms. Language then is our sport, a kind of universal musical instrument with strings, pipes, stops, whistles, reeds, steel bars, jugs, rattles, skins, crystal glasses, bells, bags, bellows, and horns, and many a slight and slender thing that sounds and has no name.
Read the Poem of the Week below. It’s what got Alice through the looking-glass, and it’s all nonsense — except, you know, we do make sense of it. I don’t know that I want to be around “slithy toves,” which to my ear (though not to Humpty’s, who explains it to Alice) sound like water-lilies that are slippery, like the inside of okra. But I sure would like a “vorpal blade,” because if it’s as vorpal as the poem says, it can cut through anything, “snicker-snack!” What a “frabjous day” that would be. Other blades may be mimsy. Or worse — they frittle when you strike something really stranch, like a graniment or an iron galt. If it’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s a frittly blade when I’ve got an iron galt to deal with. It’s enough to make a guy go jub-jub.
I can’t wait for the comments on this one!
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. “Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!” He took his vorpal sword in hand; Long time the manxome foe he sought— So rested he by the Tumtum tree And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. “And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” He chortled in his joy. ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
The whole thing is of course indouligal, and schelches of ervaige potency as it grimps and katers along from line to melzin line. But perhaps my favorite bit is the last line of the first verse (repeated at the end of course).
For the other odd words of the poem are at least clearly recognizable in their function as grammatical operators within the sentences. We may not know exactly what "brillig" and "slithy" mean (though we have strong hints of a glittering quality of the former and a squirmy sense of the latter), but we certainly recognize them both as adjectives that describe the implied noun of atmosphere and the noun "toves" respectively, as well as the active-voiced verbal function that the toves gyre and gimble in the place name wabe. (I DO wonder if LC intentionally alliterated gyre and gimble in order to "force" a reader's contemplation about whether the former g-word is pronounced with a soft or hard "g," since we naturally want to associate "gyre" with gyroscope's soft "g")
But that last line is the florblish cantroblate of the entire poem since we really can't quiiiite decide for sure whether "outgrabe" is the correpsonding adjective for the poor mome raths to the mimsy borogoves' mimsiness, or if it is instead a verb that the borogoves actively perform (and even whether it is present or past tense, for that matter.
And yet we read it with perfect assurance that it does have "meaning" and acts with reasonable grammatical authority in our head. I'm reminded of the line in Brideshead Revisited when Charles is invited by Sebastian to a dinner party of friends and gets there early so that when the others arrive, we read, "...Each as he came into the room made first for the plovers' eggs, then noticed Sebastian and then myself with a polite lack of curiosity which seemed to say: "We should not dream of being so offensive as to suggest that you never met us before."
Ok, anyway, wonderful stuff...
Whenever I need a good laugh, I often turn to Lewis Carroll. I chuckle to think of the Looking-Glass Insects: "The Gnat amused itself meanwhile by humming round and round her head: at last it settled again and remarked, 'I suppose you don't want to lose your name?'"