Mallarme, Nonsense, and Language

The shift from Lewis Carrol and Edward Lear to Mallarme was certainly a tad turbulent one for me (in all fairness, I was told to buckle my seatbelt). Not that I felt unprepared or blindsided or didn't understand why we were reading it, but, in the context of this class, these are definitely two very distinct types of "nonsense." At least, the areas of nonsense that are explored in the Carrol/Lear literature are very different than the areas Mallarme explores.

I think one major distinction we must make between these two "types" of nonsense is in regards to form vs. content. While we can probably argue the degree to which Alice in Wonderland eschewed the typical narrative/plot structure of a novel, for the most part it adheres to the conventions of a  traditional "story" in both form and content. All the words are written left to right, in lines, with margins (except for that one "tale/tail" part, maybe a few others I don't remember). The narrative  is straightforward--the reader isn't left guessing about what is going on the whole time. There are chapters. There are pictures. So what makes Alice in Wonderland ridiculous? The content. Basically, things happen, concrete, plot-things, and we, the readers, are able to identify those plot points and pieces of content as they are described to us, rather straightforwardly (it is a kid's book, after all) by an omniscient third person narrator. The form of the story is why we're able to know what's going on. The content, however, is where the nonsense lies--the fantastic events and comedic misunderstandings and magical encounters are all nonsense because they could never happen. The rules of Wonderland regarding language, social conduct, even races are all very different from the ones we typically find in reality, and Carrol constructs this world of nonsense, yes--but he relays the story of that world in a very straightforward, easy-to-comprehend format that, most likely, allows us to more fully appreciate the comedic, strange, illogical nonsense that occurs in Wonderland. Lear employs the same tactics in his limericks--the rigid format of the poem requires a straightforward, easy-to-understand narrative to be employed. Thus, the "nonsense" that occurs in Lear's limericks lies mostly in the content--people cutting off their thumbs, birds building nests in dudes' beards, grandmas from Smyrna burning cats--you name it, he's got it.

In Mallarme's poetry, however, we don't really know what's going on. At least, I don't. First of all, its a poem--so already, we know its going to use form and content in dramatically different ways than Carrol. Secondly, its a freeform poem, or at least a poem whose structure Mallarme clearly made up himself. It's not an instantly recognizable, rhyming, or fun poem structure, like Lear's limericks. So just by using this weird poetic form, Mallarme has already set himself far apart from the "nonsense" of Lear and Carrol. As a freeform poem, we already know its form is going to be different than the novel, or the limerick. Naturally, it follows that the content of a freeform poem is, also, going to be vastly different from the content of a novel or a limerick. Both Lear and Carrol employ characters, "action" scenes (where those characters do/say something), and some kind of story arc. Mallarme's poem, however, is not a "story," at all. The nonsense of Mallarme's poem, in fact, lies just as much in the form as it does in the content--unlike the nonsense of Lear and Carrol, which limits the nonsense to the content of their work. The form Mallarme employs is nonsensical because its unlike anything we've ever seen before. You can read it multiple ways because you're not really sure which way you're supposed to read it. Margins and alignment shifts with each line. There's lots of white space. Line breaks happen frequently. Both capital and lowercase letters, italic and standard fonts are used seemingly without explanation. So if the form of Mallarme's poem is nonsensical, is the content as well? In my opinion, the only way to make sense of the nonsensical form would be to employ nonsense in the content. Again, this is a different kind of nonsense than Lear and Carrol employ in the content of their works, and I'm not really sure what to make of that (are the contents of Alice in Wonderland & Lear's limericks any more or less nonsensical than the contents of A Throw of the Dice)?