“The Walrus and the Carpenter” by Lewis Carroll: A Critical Analysis

“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.

But 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.”

Question 1: What does the poem suggest about the dangers of blind trust in authority figures?

The oysters’ naivety in trusting the Walrus and the Carpenter raises a critical question about the consequences of unquestioning faith in authority figures. The young oysters, despite their innocence, fail to recognize the subtle signs of deception in the Walrus and Carpenter’s behavior. Their willingness to follow strangers on a whimsical walk, despite the absence of any clear benefit, highlights how easily trust can be exploited. Carroll underscores this vulnerability in the lines, “O Oysters, come and walk with us!” / The Walrus did beseech. The poem thus invites readers to consider how easily those in positions of perceived power or authority can manipulate others for their gain. Are the oysters’ tragic fate a result of their blind trust, or does the blame lie entirely with the Walrus and the Carpenter for their deceitful manipulation?

---

Question 2: How does Carroll’s use of personification deepen the moral implications of the poem?

By personifying the oysters, Carroll transforms them from mere shellfish into characters with human-like traits, making their fate all the more tragic and morally significant. The oysters are described as dressing neatly and behaving obediently: “Their coats were brushed, their faces washed, / Their shoes were clean and neat.” This anthropomorphism invites readers to empathize with the oysters, casting their destruction not as a casual act of consumption but as a deliberate and cruel exploitation of innocence. The personification also highlights the moral implications of the Walrus and the Carpenter’s actions, as their betrayal becomes a reflection of human greed and callousness. This raises the question: Would the moral impact of the story differ if the oysters were not given human characteristics?

---

Question 3: Does the poem critique the human tendency toward exploitation, and if so, to what extent?

The Walrus and the Carpenter’s exploitation of the oysters serves as an allegory for humanity’s often exploitative relationship with nature and vulnerable individuals. Their casual planning of the oysters’ demise, evident in the lines, “A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said, / “Is what we chiefly need: / Pepper and vinegar besides / Are very good indeed,” suggests a lack of empathy and a sense of entitlement to take what they desire without considering the cost. Carroll subtly critiques this mindset by highlighting the innocence of the oysters and contrasting it with the Walrus and Carpenter’s calculated greed. Readers are prompted to ask whether the poem serves as a broader commentary on humanity’s inclination to exploit for personal gain and whether this critique still resonates in modern contexts.

---

Question 4: How does the poem handle the concept of remorse, and does it excuse wrongdoing?

The Walrus’s apparent remorse after consuming the oysters introduces a moral complexity to his character, contrasting with the Carpenter’s unapologetic demeanor. The Walrus says, “I weep for you,” the Walrus said: / “I deeply sympathize,” suggesting a hint of guilt or regret. However, this sorrow rings hollow as he continues to eat the oysters despite his claimed sympathy. This juxtaposition raises questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of remorse. Can genuine regret coexist with the continuation of harmful actions? Furthermore, does the presence of remorse mitigate the gravity of wrongdoing, or does it merely serve as a way to ease the conscience of the wrongdoer? Carroll’s portrayal of these characters leaves readers pondering the relationship between actions, intentions, and the moral weight of regret.