On 27 Feb 2011, at 23:27, John Tufail wrote:
> Ambiguity is at the heart of 'Absurdist' literature.
And most other genres. Science fiction uses it certainly.
> This of course raises a point. Carroll, traditionally has been described as belonging to the 'Nonsense' genre. I disagree. I think more accurately he should be included within the absurdist genre - in fact, perhaps, the first absurdist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdist_fiction
It's really rather hard to find a reason to care about why these categories should be considered genuinely separate.
> Anyone who reads Carroll either linearly or as nonsense misses the point.
Well, you'll find me wholly disagreeing here. Anyone can read Carroll any way they like. And there is richness to be found no matter what lenses you're wearing while you read them.
I know... you criticized me for "turgidly" saying that I didn't want to burden my edition of the Snark with all sorts of criticism because I (like Carroll, explicitly) think people should get out of it what they want. If he addressed it to children (as he did) he can hardly have been concerned about them puzzling out the great emotional secret depths he plumbed in writing it.
I think it's arrogant, though, to suggest that there is any one way to read Carroll, or any one "point" to get out of it.
> To Carroll the world, the reality, in which we exist is relative and continguent. He challenges, both in his fictional and non-fictional work our perceptions of time, space and identity.
To YOU, he does these things, evidently. There are no absolutes with Carroll.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/