THE PIGEON AND THE PUDDING: ANIMALS IN THE ALICE BOOKS

Lewis Carroll makes many comments on the relativity of suffering between humans and animals in his criticisms of vivisection. Though buried in his functional analysis of the problems of the research method, these comments present an idea most directly addressed in the Alice books – what differentiates us from animals, and how does that justify our treatment of them? Carroll states clearly that “the prevention of suffering to a human being does not justify the infliction of a greater amount of suffering on an animal”(Anthology 329), and while he makes it a purpose to differentiate between inflicting pain on an animal and killing it (which “needs no justification”), in the Alice books, Alice is confronted, and most puzzled by, the moral implications of killing animals for food.

Where does our food come from? Animals, a fact
that Alice must face in Wonderland.
source: http://ephemerist.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/meat47hands01.jpg

Though taken out of context, Carroll’s statement that “ while science arrogates to herself the right of torturing at her pleasure the whole sentient creation up to man himself, some inscrutable boundary-line is there drawn, over which she will never venture to pass,” (Anthology 329) brings up an important assertion that Carroll makes in this essay and in the Alice books – that animals are equally as sentient as humans, and therefore have the same capacity for experiencing pain. The problem arises for Alice when she is confronted by the abrasive sentience of the animals in wonderland – not only are they fully aware of themselves and their own suffering, but they are quick to judge and classify Alice, forcing her to admit to her selfish and sometimes hypocritical reasoning.

In Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Alice’s encounter with the pigeon marks the first time that she really starts to consider the implications of her animal-rich diet. When the pigeon assumes that Alice is “a kind of serpent” because she confesses to eating eggs, “this was such a new idea to Alice, that she was quite silent for a minute or two,”(Annotated Alice, 56). It is this silence which signifies Alice’s struggle to accept herself as being the equivalent of an animal – in her case a predatory one. The next lines support this as the pigeon asks, “What does it matter to me whether you’re a little girl or a serpent?” “It matters a good deal to me,” Alice replies, showing her disdain for the pigeon’s lack of distinction between the two (Annotated Alice, 56).

Alice being berated by the pigeon.
source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19033/19033-h/images/i015.jpg

In Through the Looking Glass, Carroll makes an even more outrageous attempt at forcing the reader, and Alice, to accept the sentience of the animals we kill for food, and ultimately the sentience of the animals we inflict suffering upon. At her coronation feast, when introduced to the leg of mutton she was to slice, “Alice returned the bow, not knowing whether to be frightened or amused,”(Annotated Alice, 262). This exchange marks Alice’s continuing dilemma throughout the books- are these talking animals simply an amusing fantasy of wonderland? Or does their sentience reveal a truth that Alice has never considered, the truth of their feeling, their awareness of suffering? The question is answered partly by the queen’s response to Alice’s attempt to slice her new acquaintance - “it isn’t etiquette to cut anyone you’ve been introduced to,” (Annotated Alice, 263). Even in the looking glass world, where everything is opposite, one would not dream of eating a creature that is self-aware, feeling, and in this case, rather polite.

Alice's encounter with the mutton.
source: http://www.ebbemunk.dk/alice/89leg_of_mutton.jpg

Although Alice must question, once again, the morality of eating animals, in this episode Carroll also suggests the futility of trying to prevent all suffering, and makes the same distinction between killing and hurting animals as he does in his essay on vivisection. After the fiasco with the mutton, Alice is quick to avoid the same interaction with the pudding, stating, “I wo’n’t be introduced to the pudding, please… or we shall get no dinner at all,”(Annotated Alice, 263). Though Alice has been forced to accept the moral fact of eating animals – that she is destroying once conscious beings – she makes the point that if we were to let that fact deter us completely, we would never eat. Alice introduces the concept of a necessary evil – one that Carroll also describes when he states “that man has an absolute right to inflict death on animals,”(Anthology, 324). In that vein, Alice takes the initiative to slice the pudding, despite having been properly introduced. She is once again affronted by an unexpected sentience. One could say that Carroll is almost mocking an extremist view – that we offend creation in every instance of killing another creature. The pudding’s ire at being consumed reflects Carroll’s opinion of the “reductio ad absurdum” proposition of trying to classify or justify the relative importance of creatures we kill for food. It is as ridiculous to feel guilt for eating an animal as it is to be scolded by the pudding at a banquet.

Though the points I have discussed here are only a fraction of Alice’s interactions with animals, I believe they have the most bearing on Carroll’s actual opinions on the treatment of animals, which, as evidenced by his essay, he cares about greatly. The Alice books serve to confront us with a reality we often ignore, or are indifferent to, that animals have the capacity to feel, and are as vulnerable to suffering, if not more so, as we are. Although Carroll seeks to reduce the suffering of animals, he is also aware of the absurdity of trying to prevent all suffering, and illustrates this in the ridiculous difficulty Alice has in her dealings with animals throughout the book. The challenges Alice faces in this regard can be characterized by an excerpt from Jude the Obscure, a story in which efforts made by the protagonist are equally as futile as Alice’s attempts to treat the creatures of wonderland fairly and with as much civility as she can manage – “It was impossible to advance in regular steps without crushing some of them at each tread,” (Anthology, 322). As Jude must “carefully [pick] his way on tiptoe among the earthworms,”(Anthology, 322) Alice must be constantly wary of what she says and does while in the company of these incredibly sensitive and easily offended animals. Though it would be easy to criticize Alice for her insensitive dealing with these animals, we must feel sympathy for her in that she is overwhelmed not only by the curious and often illogical demands of these creatures, but also by their blatant sentience, as we would be overwhelmed if we were expected to keep track of every animal we harm in passing – from the food we eat to the very steps we take.

Are we to avoid every earthworm?
source: http://www.conservationmagazine.org/images/worms.jpg