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

13926Re: Wasp

Expand Messages
  • doyle6060
    Mar 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Tufail wrote:
      < 1. Most important, it is a comparatively slight episode that
      could, if true, add little to an understabding of Lewis Caroll or,
      indeed interpretations of Looking Glass'. >

      I disagree. The third part of my essay, my favorite part, is not
      about the authenticity at all. It examines what Looking-Glass was
      when it was part of the whole book. How did it couch the episode? I
      don't see how this would "add little to an understanding" of Looking-
      Glass. Certainly the creative process is up for discussion. This is
      done all the time. And it isn't as easy as you think to place Wasp
      in Looking-Glass. I show that Collingwood did not mean that there
      was once thirteen chapters. I show that Carroll did have an affinity
      for twelve and was not going to settle for 11 or 13. When he cleaved
      two chapters together, "Living Backwards" and "Scented Rushes" to
      get "Wool and Water" was it this or the excise of Wasp that
      necessitated making another one sentence chapter, "Shaking"---you
      see, he at one point only had "Waking." This is not in Gardner's
      Annotated, and there is plenty here to put into Annotated. He
      completely avoided Wakeling's printing of the Illustration Plan in
      his Definitive and what it tells us about the creation of Looking-
      Glass, and of course, did not know about the details of the Chapter
      content page I printed for the first time.

      No John, these ideas and many others are certainly up your alley.
      Please take the time to read my paper. But you are a bad, bad boy
      and I'm not offering a free copy to you---you've been around too long.

      < 2. The whole debate been less about understanding Caroll than
      money and prestige >

      If this refers to me, I am only defending my paper as any scholar
      should do. It IS all about understanding Carroll.

      > 3. Carroll. as we know, was a very visual writer. He has a
      > wonderful understanding of the relationship between text and
      > illustration. He was always clearly able to illustrate, in
      primitive but clear forms how he wished images to be portrayed. He
      was also VERY clear about what he didn't want portrayed.

      > We have no such guidance here from Carroll, so, even if the episode
      > is genuine it is unlikely that he himself would have much regard
      for it.
      >
      > In terms of Carroll scholarship it can add little. >

      I honestly don't know what to make of this. Just because there is no
      illustration I shouldn't have studied it? Well, he tried to get
      one. I don't know. Actually, I'll pass on this. I don't think you
      would read my last part and think the same here.

      < I doubt Carroll would much like the idea of people scrabbling over
      the bones of this in order to establish their pace in the pack
      heirarchy. >

      I don't care in the least what Carroll would think, and you certainly
      don't know what he would think. I don't try to emulate him or try to
      make him proud of me. I am only defending my piece.

      Matt
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic