Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13920Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Wasp

Expand Messages
  • fernando soto
    Mar 2, 2008
      Hi All,


      How exactly is Carroll's use of the word "grey," as
      opposed to "gray" being used as evidence here? Please
      have a look at Carroll's actual use, not what you
      think Carroll used. This is easily done by opening up
      the two concordances devoted to the 'Alices' and his
      poetry. In the 'Alices' there is only one instance of
      "grey," in 'You Are Old F. W. and one use of "gray,"
      though this can't be used here because it is the one
      in 'The Wasp.' In the concordance to his poetry,
      however, this is by far not the case. On p. 101 we
      have 11 instances of "gray" and one of "grays". On p.
      102 we have only 2 instances of "grey", and one of
      them from 'You Are Old F. W.! I'd say that based on
      actual evidence this part of your argument is false

      The above points to another mistake in your argument.
      Carroll used both words interchangeably because there
      is a long history of this in Britain. The OED does
      not seem to mention the British vs American
      distinction you make. It does make the interesting
      case that the two words are to stand for slightly
      different shades of "gray/grey". "Grey" is supposed
      to be lighter. To give one example from history,
      Shakespeare used the two spellings interchangeably.
      So if you are to say that "gray" is the American
      spelling and "grey" the British, please provide some
      evidence, evidence strong enough to deal with the
      above objections to your claims.

      I don't even want to get into the overextended claims
      about the "rubbish"literary nature of 'Wasp.' Most
      times we are unsure about what Carroll was up to, so I
      think we ought to give him the benefit of doubt when
      we think that something he wrote is substandard,
      particularly at an early stage of the process.

      From my own ongoing experience I've found that
      carrying out an actual debate here is very difficult.
      Whenever I put forth evidence that does not agree with
      some of the list members' opinions, it is for the most
      part almost always ignored or twisted into something
      else and ridiculed in it's new habiliment. Meanwhile
      the ad hominems emerge with a vengeance!

      All best,


      --- doyle6060 <DOYLE60@...> wrote:

      > Nobody is going to test something without reason.
      > You need good
      > reason. You don't supply any. You just don't take
      > someone to court
      > for no reason. You just don't arrest some random
      > person on the
      > street and try him for murder. You have cause,
      > grand juries, etc.
      > You are jumping the gun here.
      > You are also avoiding evidence. You need to address
      > the time-line
      > argument. You need to admit your forger knew
      > something scholars
      > didn't. And that something he knew, why didn't he
      > sell that? I
      > responded to your point 3 in your last post with
      > facts and showed
      > your argument to be faulty on several grounds.
      > Well, you thought my
      > point good enough to respond to then, what about
      > now? You can't
      > ignore it. You are doing what all conspiracy
      > theorists do, avoiding
      > the evidence and "dwelling" on a minor ooh, ooh
      > facts.
      > You bring out the old your a bullheaded individual
      > and won't change
      > your mind. No, I am here for a discussion.
      > You pull out the old argument that other fakes were
      > found therefore
      > this may be a fake. Again, that means what,
      > exactly? "Your honor,
      > people have stolen therefore this person may have
      > stolen." "Okay,
      > let's try him."
      > No one has brought forth good cause for concern.
      > The way I see it is this: There are three ways to
      > test Wasp:
      > 1) The Scholar's approach.
      > 2) The Detective's approach.
      > 3) The Scientist's approach.
      > It is a matter of ethics almost that you do the
      > other two before you
      > so easily jump to number 3, which does require not
      > only money but
      > damaging the document. (I have no idea how much
      > damage, to tell you
      > the truth, but even if minor, I still believe we
      > should do all else
      > before this step otherwise we have cause to test
      > everything.)
      > The detective's approach would be to ask the auction
      > house if they
      > would be willing to notify the first seller for you
      > and have some
      > questions answered or if he would be willing to come
      > out of the
      > woodwork. Or to, let's say, try and figure out who
      > he was through
      > some other means. I never attempted this.
      > I believe my paper shows that jumping to number 3 is
      > a waste of
      > time. No, I didn't prove it so and no, don't listen
      > to Mike's
      > obnoxious claims of my "knowing" it genuine. I can
      > only claim that I
      > find it foolish to do number 3 at this time. There
      > is nothing
      > suspect enough about this piece to take the damaging
      > and costly step
      > of number 3.
      > You only have two real contentions here: the
      > provenance and the
      > quality. It is quite difficult for you and me to
      > handle that last.
      > First, you must expect it by definition to be
      > inferior for the most
      > part to anything still in Looking-Glass, and
      > understand that it is a
      > galley and even though it may have some Carroll
      > corrections on it, it
      > may be less fine tuned than the printed book.
      > Second, I can only
      > really respond to specific points, not general,
      > about its quality. I
      > collected such published points and handled them in
      > my article as
      > best I could.
      > Just for a bit of fun, for anybody who has not read
      > my article, how
      > would you defend these two accusations.
      > 1) The Wasp galleys use the word "gray," the
      > American spelling and
      > not "grey," the British spelling.
      > 2) Carroll would never have followed one old
      > character (the White
      > Knight) with another old character (the Wasp).
      > Mike, you mention that I use textual arguments to
      > prove the
      > authenticity. I never did anything on these
      > grounds, actually. I
      > was planning on testing the writing on certain
      > textual matters the
      > way Don Foster did in his book. But I thought it
      > was going a bit too
      > far. In fact, some of my Carroll friends thought I
      > covered too many
      > of the silly little points, like the two above, and
      > thought that I
      > wasted my time with the paper as a whole because no
      > serious scholars
      > today have any doubts.
      > My paper does not just discuss authenticity. My
      > favorite part is the
      > third section where I discuss how Looking-Glass once
      > couched it.
      > Come on, the thing is half as long as all previous
      > chapters. What to
      > make of that?
      > Personally, the reason why I believe it authentic is
      > not only the
      > time-line issue but also the bold decisions this
      > supposed forger
      > made. He did too many things that would just draw
      > attention to
      > itself. Why use the word "gray' at all, even if it
      > can be defended?
      > Why have an old character next to another, even if
      > it can be
      > defended? Why have it so short? Why risk composing
      > when he could
      > simply do 30 sheets of some known text (the Knight
      > Chapter itself)
      > and probably get nearly the same money? Why use
      > Carroll's hand
      > printed S when a cursive S would be expected? Why
      > place it after the
      > Knight chapter when others had it earlier and one
      > even stating it as
      > fact?
      > The Harvard contents page shows that short chapters
      > are possible.
      > The Christ Church document shows it is after the
      > Knight chapter. He
      > could not have made these decisions unless he had
      > both of these docs,
      > not just one. He could have had a third, but what
      > was that?
      > Continue to ignore this and who is going to listen
      > to you?
      > Subsequent finds support authenticity. How many
      > other such finds
      > will it take to begin to see the questionable
      > provenance as nothing
      > but a little error?
      > You are jumping the gun with your scientific method.
      > One starts with
      > a genuine hypothesis, not a ungrounded one. For
      > example, I have a
      > letter from some one who encloses a letter that
      > Carroll sent to a
      > relative of his. He tells me the recipient was Joe
      > when in fact it
      > was Sam. He was wrong. Should I now snip the
      > letter and test it?
      > Of course not. Other facts are clear to me. The
      > man was just wrong,
      > for whatever reasons. I can't ignore those other
      > facts. You are
      > ignoring them.
      > Mike wrote < For me it's always seemed fundamental
      > to the scientific
      > method that any
      > hypothesis should be tested in so far as this is
      > possible. >
      > I don't think "any hypothesis should be tested."
      > Monkeys flew out of
      > Newton's ass is one that doesn't need testing. Only
      > sound hypothesis
      > need testing, ones made without the ignorance of
      > facts.
      === message truncated ===

      Looking for last minute shopping deals?
      Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic