As Small begins the scene of David’s meeting with Dr. Davidson/the White
Rabbit, he follows the real-world script for a patient’s first meeting with a ther-
apist. That script says that patient and therapist will focus on getting to know
each other and establishing a working relationship built on mutual trust. In
addition, the therapist will focus on learning about the patient by asking such
questions as why the patient has sought therapy, what current symptoms she
or he may be especially concerned about, and what, if any, is the relevant med-
ical history. The script allows for the therapist to make an initial diagnosis, but
the overriding maxim is that the therapist ought not rush to judgment. Small
focalizes the scene through David as he and Dr. Davidson begin the process
of getting to know each other. A voice calls David into the office and invites
him to have a seat. David looks at the furniture, asks questions, and ventures
opinions about how things work: “Do I have to lie on the couch?” (249); “I
suppose you’ll be giving me drugs or hypnotizing me, or something like that”;
and the voice replies, “No, David. No drugs. No hypnosis. In here, we talk,
that’s it” (250). Then Small departs from the script and lets the crossover from
the unfolding readerly dynamics be his guide to the construction of the tex-
tual dynamics. For now I will set aside the issue of the accuracy/distortion in
Small’s depiction of the scene, but I will return to it later.
The first departure from the standard script comes when Small connects
the psychiatrist’s voice to a body—the body of the White Rabbit, dressed very
much as John Tenniel dresses him in Carroll’s Alice. Taking advantage of the
resources of the graphic medium in this way, Small simultaneously deploys
the Rules of Extraordinary Revelation and of Self-Assurance not only to depict
David’s subjective truth but also to signal to the audience that the usual script
will not entirely fit. As the scene proceeds, Small departs further and further
from the script, as Davidson/the White Rabbit barely listens to David and
instead both reconstructs and authoritatively interprets David’s story for him.
The Rabbit begins with an invitation, “Now tell me, what’s on your mind?”
and David, in the time-honored fashion of adolescent boys in the West, says,
“Nothing.” True to character, the Rabbit responds, “Nothing? That’s curious”
(251), and then reports that David’s mother had said he’s been “acting crazy,
doing crazy things.” When David replies, “I guess so,” the White Rabbit turns
the conversation, giving his own description of David that implicitly chal-
lenges his mother’s characterization of him: “A boy who has had cancer . . . A
boy whose parents and doctors did not tell him he had cancer . . . A boy who
had to find out the truth on his own . . . Is this crazy?” (252).
Small works the crossover by pushing the Meta-Rule of Dominant Focus
to its logical endpoint. In giving his litany, the Rabbit has just summarized the
key events that Small’s audience has experienced and responded to. In hav-
AUDIENCES AND PROBABLE IMPOSSIBILITIES • 55