Of course one shouldn’t jump to conclusions, especially in such a straight-laced Victorian context. But it’s not as though psychedelic drugs do no such thing. What do you think George Harrison was talking about when he characterized the late 60s/early 70s as a “mini renaissance”?
Yes and no. A lot of the political stuff came from the way in which the illustrator John Tenniel chose to draw Carroll’s characters based off of real-life likenesses. Carroll has some tongue-in-cheek references to the political system, such as having the animals run around in pointless caucus to get dry, but the specific commentary on individuals was more Tenniel’s doing, and, from what I understand, a point of conflict between the two creators.
Carroll was such a straight-laced, almost child-like man it is highly specious that he was using drugs. I don’t find anything particularly trippy about the original story, either, it seems that ‘‘freaky’’ aspect came much later when the story was embraced by the drug culture. All Dodgeson/Carroll was doing was writing a story for children, and unlike most adults of the day, he didn’t believe children ought to be patronized. The philosophical math-nerd sensibility just sort of slipped in there.
No doubt you’re right, but there are always exceptions. Specifically, I’m thinking about Wilkie Collins a very popular Victorian novelist, and longtime collaborator of Charles Dickens. He was also heavily addicted to Laudanum throughout most of his adult life. Despite that, I think some of his mystery fiction ranks up there with the best of the genre even though he was likely high as a kite when writing them.
LSD may not have been around but hallucinogenic mushrooms certainly were. The stories have direct reference to eating mushrooms and having trips.
Not sure if this is relevant any longer, but I just stumbled across an article attempting to interpret various elements of Alice’s adventures as satirical critiques of at the time emerging new concepts in mathematics – to be honest, it seems a bit vague and far-fetched to me in places, but it’s not something I’ve heard discussed so far, so it seemed original enough to bring up.
Can anyone direct me to a few good analyses of the Alice books? I’ve read both stories, and enjoyed them, but I got the distinct feeling that I was missing out on part of the fun.
I haven’t read it myself, but I bought a family member Martin Gardner’s The Annotated Alice, and by all accounts it’s excellent.
Yes, Gardner’s Annotated Alice is the answer to your question.
Thirded. It greatly enhances understanding and enjoyment of the story.