- Mar 3, 2008Tufail 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 aprimitive but clear forms how he wished images to be portrayed. He
> wonderful understanding of the relationship between text and
> illustration. He was always clearly able to illustrate, in
was also VERY clear about what he didn't want portrayed.
> We have no such guidance here from Carroll, so, even if the episodefor it.
> is genuine it is unlikely that he himself would have much regard
>I honestly don't know what to make of this. Just because there is no
> In terms of Carroll scholarship it can add little. >
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
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>