The Walrus and the Carpenter
The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright --
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.
The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done --
'It's very rude of him.' she said,
'To come and spoil the fun!'
The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead --
There were no birds to fly.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand:
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
'If this were only cleared away,'
They said, 'it would be grand.'
'If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose,' the Walrus said,
'That they could get it clear?'
'I doubt it,' said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.
'O Oysters, come and walk with us!
The Walrus did beseech.
'A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.'
The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head --
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.
Out four young Oysters hurried up.
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat --
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.
Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more --
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.
'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing wax --
Of cabbages -- and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings.'
'But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried,
'Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!'
'No hurry!' said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.
'A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said,
'Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed --
Now, if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.'
'But not on us!' the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
'After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!'
'The night is fine,' the Walrus said,
'Do you admire the view?'
'It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'Cut us another slice-
I wish you were not quite so deaf-
I've had to ask you twice!'
'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,
'To play them such a trick.
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'The butter's spread too thick!'
'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
'O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
'You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none --
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
Commentary
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: writing good nonsense verse is hard… I don’t know how Carroll manages to do it with such consummate ease.
What I find especially interesting is the way Carroll plays with so many different kinds of nonsense. For instance, the opening stanza (my favourite one, btw) of today’s poem reads like a piece of juvenilia straight out of a high-school poetry class (or, even worse, a Victorian children’s book) - that is, until the brilliantly deadpan final couplet
[1], which catches readers completely off-balance with its reversal of all that is ‘normal’.
Indeed, that final couplet sets the tone for the rest of the poem - snippets like
‘The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand:
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:’
and
‘Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat –
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn’t any feet.’
and of course the famous:
'’The time has come,’ the Walrus said,
‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes – and ships – and sealing wax –
Of cabbages – and kings –
And why the sea is boiling hot –
And whether pigs have wings.’’
are dazzling in their simplicity and sheer meaninglessness. And the whole poem is written in the same vein - simple, matter-of-fact, and utterly bizarre.
I suppose the key to Carroll’s particular brand of lunacy is incongruity. In ‘Jabberwocky’, the incongruity is verbal, with invented words and strange constructions. In ‘The Mad Gardener’s Song’, the incongruity is one of non sequiturs. In today’s poem, it’s one of situation. Each type is different (and difficult); yet each type is handled to a nicety. Sheer genius.
— Thomas
Minstrels Links
[1] I hadn’t thought of it before, but yes, this does fit in nicely with Martin’s comments of Saturday - you can read them at poem #345
Jabberwocky: poem #52
The Mad Gardener’s Song: poem #265
Endnote
Those of you with good memories (or lots of disk space) will remember that the Minstrels held a poetry-reading session in the Real World, about a month ago, at the Crossword bookstore in Mumbai. It went off pretty well (I thought), and plans are afoot to make it (the poetry session) a monthly affair. If you’re interested in attending the next edition, do email me or Seema Bhatia (note the double underscore) and we’ll take it from there.
Show 17 commentsHide comments
From the Wondering Minstrels mailing list, 1999–2008.
Nathan Smith · 22 February 2003
This poem by the outstanding writer and poet Lewis Carrol is not, in fact, sheer nonsensical writing. It is an obvious reference to ancient and modern religion. The Walrus, with it’s large and rotund physical attributes, seems to be referring to buddha or gamesha of the eastern religions. The Carpenter is is an obvious reference to Christ, who was brought up a carpenter. When one stops and thinks, the poem is, quite frankly, the author’s perception of religion in modern times. The characters in the poem trick a bunch of oysters (people?) into following them, after which the two devour the helpless creatures. Anyone agree or have further insight? Email me at . N. Smith
IamBubber · 2 March 2003
I am curious to read further discussion of the meaning of this poem. I am not familiar with any poetry but will be spending two weeks abroad with my 15 year old niece who just won a poetry recitation with this poem and I would like to learn more about it so I can discuss it with her.
I initally perceived the story as that of a “warning” to children that there are mean, manipulative authority figures out there that are not quite what they appear to be. But your explanation took it to the next level and I found it to be very logical.
I was wondering if you got any feedback from your question “Anyone agree or have further insight?”
regarding The Walrus And The Carpenter.
I appreciate any insight or discussion you can offer.
Nathan Smith · 4 March 2003
IamBubber,
Thank you for your time in giving a response to my recent posting. As a matter of fact, you are the first to respond so far, and I can see where you are coming from with your ideas of the meaning of Carroll’s The Walrus and the Carpenter. I still believe that the poem is pertaining to religion, but if you have an “argument” on your behalf, I would enjoy to hear your thoughts on the matter. Also, I would like to add that the line: “It seems a shame,” the Walrus said, “To play them such a trick. After we’ve brought them out so far, And made them trot so quick!” is another reference to the gods of the world religions. Can you see what I mean? If anyone does, please let me know. Once again, it’s . Thank you.
Someone out there · 9 June 2003
If you read the poem you will find many refrences to religion/politics/big bussines/england at the time however you care to interpert it. religion is most apparent to me the number 7 which is very biblical is refered to throghout the poem (6 lines and a space and 7 maids) also the carpenter keeps asking for bread, staple around1bc also the walrus could be peter and clams disples following jesus to the end if you look at it as political the walrus and carpenter represent different political parties but you end up with the same thing in the end, both eating bread with toppings and still want more- they always want more big bussines interpertation is very similar to the political it could also represent england durring the colonial period, clams/colonies, taking all the good from them without actually helping them In any of these interpertations the eldest clam could represent lewis carol and that he see them for what they are, although the big clam doesn’t really work for colonial interpertation because colonies didn’t have a choice about joining england and america was a colony for a long time I take no credit for coming up with the main ideas but i did add my interpertations of some parts, i mainly did this for myself to help me orginize my thoughts before i have to do a project on the poem so dont e-mail me with with your thoughts please
Allison Lingenfelter · 15 June 2003
I completely agree with the interpetation. I just taught this to a class and they thought that I was crazy and wondered where I got the religious, business idea from. I am glad that someone else reached the same conclusion that I did.
Nairwita · 25 August 2003
well it was god one ‘someone out there’ i liked it.
Naked_Jellybean · 9 September 2004
Nathan Smith’s comment on this poem come from the movie “Dogma” which is written and directed by Kevin Smith. The scene is close to the beginning of the movie where the angel Loki is trying to convince a nun that religion is stupid. Here is the exact text from the movie (compare it closely to Nathan’s):
Nun: Let me get this straight. You don’t believe in God because of “Alice in Wonderland?”
Loki: No, Through the Looking Glass. That poem, “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” thats an indictment of orginized religion. The walrus, with his girth and good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or with his tusks the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. Now that takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ who was raised a carpenter’s son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem what do they do? They dupe all of these oysters into following them and procede to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don’t know what that says to your, but to me it says that following these faiths, based on mytholoical figures ensures the destruction of one’s inner-being. Orginized religion destroys who we are, by inhibiting our actions, inhibiting our decisions, out of fear of some intangible parent figure who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says, “Do it and I’ll f*cking spank you!”
Hope this helps out some. Oh, and I suggest to everyone the movie “Dogma.”
Kevin
Mickey Krebs · 27 November 2004
One day a Fr. Rutler, a well know priest, was walking across his campus and saw Robert Frost walking along and hurried to catch up with him so that he might get a chance to chat with this illustrious poet who was teaching there at the time. He asked Robert Frost what his own interpretation of the “The Road Less Traveled” was expecting some deep psychological meaning. The poet answered “oh I was just talking about the two roads there in Boston” and he named them and that was all he said.
I think that to get a religous meaning out of this poem is to analyze to the extreme. Perhaps, the poem is merely about life and the ups and downs of life and somehow or other things don’t always work out the way we’d like.
I teach poetry and its interpretation can stretched, I think, to confirm anyone’s particular bias and as I showed by the example above, the poet probably had hardly anything in mind. Maybe Lewis Carroll liked the nonsense of it and it kept the theme of nonsense going that is visible in “Through a Looking Glass”. Lewis is showing a rather mixed up world in values all the way around.
Mickey
Morgan.Chaivre · 22 February 2005
I realize that this board was posted a while ago, but after reading the posts, I just had to respond. Okay, those of you who are firm believers in the “Carpenter as Christ” theory, that’s a very popular idea and well-supported, especially since Lewis Carroll described himself as being pretty religous. However, please keep in mind that Carroll left the choosing of the character of the carpenter up to John Tenniel, the illustrator. Carroll offered Tenniel a choice of drawing a carpenter, butterfly, or baronet. Each word fit the rhyme scheme, and Carroll had no preference so far as the nonsense was concerned. Tenniel chose the carpenter. I don’t know how religious John Tenniel was, but it is worth looking up. Also, just a fun piece of trivia, some years after writing the poem, Carroll decided that the story should end with the Walrus and the Carpenter being punished for their cruelty. So, when a musical version was being prepared, he wrote some additional lines in which the ghosts of the oysters take revenge on the Walrus and the Carpenter by jumping on their chests while they slept (AKA indigestion)!
Morgan Chaivre
Anna Hickling · 27 May 2005
Fab
Elizabeth · 2 June 2005
Sorry to be a complete stranger asking a silly question out of the blue, so to speak… However…
Do you happen to have any further information about the alternative wording for the Walrus and the Carpenter that yo alluded to? I’m intensely intrigued after reading your thread in the conversation regarding this. I would very much like to see this alternative version, but have no idea where to start looking, other than asking you.
I’d be very grateful if you could assist me with this…
Regards
E. Campbell
Sarah · 20 June 2005
I’ve heard of the religious references for some time, but what always surprises me is that no one catches the Pagan/Wiccan reference to the Sun God and Moon Goddess:
“The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright–
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.
The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done–
‘It’s very rude of him.’ she said,
‘To come and spoil the fun!’
Obviously, the Moon (Goddess) is upset at being overshadowed, and ultimately made non-existent, by the the Sun (God).
-Bethey sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright –
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.
The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done –
‘It’s very rude of him.’ she said,
‘To come and spoil the fun!’
morambar · 23 June 2005
An indictment of Christianity from a Divinity School graduate/professor and ministers son with religious ambitions does seem a bit, well, odd…. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and it’s worth noting that, if the Carpenter was selected “multiple guess” by someone besides Carroll, substitution of ANY other sea creature returns the focus of analysis to the situation and away from the characters. Personally, I see at as a morality tale warning the young to look gift horses in the mouth.
I might be willing to accept an interpretation as a criticism of ORGANIZED religion, or at least its perils (something about which Jesus was Himself far more overt and explicit) were it not for the intricate relationship between Carroll and Christianity as an institution. That said, I can only imagine how Buddha would view his deification by some Buddhist disciplines (given that he took the material positivist view that Deity is unknowable and therefore, whether real or imagined, a fruitless intellectuall pursuit) or Christs view of the “Pharisizing” of so many “Christian” churches.
Morgan Chaivre · 30 June 2005
I forgot to add that the alternate ending can be found in Martin Gardner’s The Annotated Alice. Also, if you’re interested in Lewis Carroll, a great book to get is Lewis Carroll in Wonderland: The Life and Times of Alice and Her Creator. It’s pocket-sized and packed with great photos and illustrations.
Morgan Chaivre
Morgan Chaivre · 30 June 2005
While Carroll never actually wrote any version of the poem with any other character than the carpenter, he did add an alternate ending to the poem for an operetta of Alice in Wonderland. In the alternate ending, the ghosts of the oysters proceed to jump up and down on the chests of the Walrus and the Carpenter, thereby giving them heartburn. He added this ending because he was convinced that theatrical life could be physically, intellectually, and morally strengthening to children, making him feel he had to somehow punish the Walrus and the Carpenter. For those of you who are interested, here is the alternate ending, just tacked on to the ending we all know:
The Carpenter he ceased to sob;
The Walrus ceased to weep;
They’d finished all the oysters;
And they laid them down to sleep–
And od their craft and cruelty
The punishment to reap.
The Carpenter is sleeping, the butter’s
on his face,
The vinegar and pepper are all about
the place!
Let oysters rock your cradle and hull
you into rest;
And if that will not do it, we’ll sit
upon your chest!
(the ghost of the first oyster sings)
We’ll sit upon your chest! We’ll sit
upon your chest!
The simplest way to do it is to sit
upon your chest!
(the ghost of the second oyster sings)
O woeful, weeping Walrus, your
tears are all a sham!
You’re greedier for Oysters than
children are for jam.
You like to have an Oyster to give
a meal a zest–
Excuse me, wicked Walrus,
for stamping on your chest!
For stamping on your chest!
For stamping on your chest!
Excuse me, wicked Walrus,
For stamping on your chest!
Morgan Chaivre
KerryB3858 · 15 October 2005
My father was a 2nd Lieutenant on the Destroyer USS Lang at the end of the Pacific campaign of WWII. He quoted this poem a lot. Cover of darkness was safest; bright nights, or overhead flares left them vulnerable. The oysters–the poor unquestioning soldiers who pay the price. He would’ve loved to see all those endless sandy beaches disappear, but to think of many such things – Well, ill-fitting Navy issue shoes, warships, letters from home, the time the crew left a whole load of cabbages on deck so it could roll off (preventing farts belowdeck!), and we could talk of the kings in control of all this, but, –“when pigs fly…” Poetry has kept my dad sane through a lot, and meant a lot to him. He drew his own parallels, obviously. Before today, I never knew this wasn’t a poem about homesick sailors and their captains.
lelainehowell · 10 April 2008
Carroll was a drug user. This could and probably is just a vision he had while he was tripping.