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

Re: [lewiscarroll] Dodgson's not-so young women.

Expand Messages
  • Alan Clarke
    John Carroll as Dodgson was an ordained deacon not an archdeacon! An an Anglican priest myself I thought I d point out the difference - a slip of the keys I m
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      John

      Carroll as Dodgson was an ordained deacon not an archdeacon! An an Anglican
      priest myself I thought I'd point out the
      difference - a slip of the keys I'm sure.

      Best wishes

      Alan
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <AnisaT@...>
      To: <lewiscarroll@egroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 3:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Dodgson's not-so young women.


      >
      > In a message dated 02/09/00 22:44:16 GMT Daylight Time, jdransom@...
      > writes:
      >
      > << I was not saying he didn't have friendships with women
      > close to or over his own age...I was making the point that he
      > apparently never drew or photographed them in the nude,
      > as he did the young uns, which I think seems to show that
      > the physical attraction was to them, rather than to those older
      > friends. I was also making the point that I don't think he
      > ever had a mature sexual relationship with these freinds, which
      > is an obvious corollary of his attraction being elsewhere.
      >
      > Sorry Jenifer, but I must stop you there!
      >
      > Carroll could NEVER have executed a nude portrait of an adult woman
      (sketch
      > or photo). It would have been so far beyond the pale of Victorian mores,
      his
      > reputation would never have survived it. Only an extremely well
      established
      > artist would have been able to do this - and Carroll's reputation
      certainly
      > did not fall into that category. Carroll's reputation as a major
      > photographic artist emerged largely posthumously - and the status of
      > photography as an art form was barely established during Carroll's time. -
      > also don't forget that he was an ordained archdeacon!
      >
      > The execution of images of pre-pubescent children (mainly female),
      however,
      > was almost an obsession in Victorian society. Often such images were
      clearly
      > intended to portray such phenomena as cherubs/cherubims, faeries etc but
      the
      > nude child-form as metaphor of innocence was extremely common. The
      portrayal
      > of such images as scantily or diaphonously clad - or simply nude - was the
      > norm.
      >
      > To create a significance beyond the above purely on the basis of artistic
      > output is a major analytic error. One would need convincing additional
      and
      > historically congruent evidence to make any sort of case that Carroll was
      > ABNORMALLY obsessed with the child-form.
      >
      > John Tufail>>
      >
      > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
      lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
    • Keith
      Jennifer, the Princeton first three albums photographs as posted on the net break down into the following, Men - 34 Views - 8 Girls - 44 Boys - 10 Women - 5
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Jennifer,

        the Princeton first three albums photographs as posted on the net break down
        into the following,

        Men - 34
        Views - 8
        Girls - 44
        Boys - 10
        Women - 5
        Family - 10
        Misc. - 11

        What I cannot say is how representative this is of the photography as a
        whole. Not all the photos in the albums are on the net but assuming it is a
        representative set then he is girl orientated as you say but not exclusively
        so.

        I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I would
        take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with and
        try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't know how
        to do this.

        There were many women friends but none which in our terms could be said to
        be special. Some of the ones Karoline mentioned were acquaintances, Richie,
        for instance, he saw only rarely and only met her in 1869 when she 32 and so
        was beyond what was considered marriageable age in Victorian times although
        she did eventually get married as Karoline says.

        Mrs.Bayne he visited as a child in Warrington and the Baynes came to
        Daresbury but in the terms of the discussion she's a non starter. She was a
        friend's mum.

        Lorina (mother) Liddell - an unlikely choice for Dodgson and she had far too
        much to lose by getting involved with a minor don. Much more likely to have
        had a liaison with Lorina, her daughter who he did remain friendly with
        after the 'Alice' days.

        Many of those child friends remained spinsters but whether this was the
        Dodgson influence or whether he gravitated to girls who would not get
        married is debatable. Florence Bickersteth remained a spinster but in looks
        she was fine, Agnes Weld also never married and he remained on speaking
        terms with her for many years, getting cross with her later on when she
        introduced him as Lewis Carroll to her friends. However, neither were
        objects of romance.

        Hope this helps in your discussions with Karoline - don't give up on it
        statistics are on your side.
        If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42 which
        nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody calculates
        wrongly in his birthdate etc.

        I think Friday was his day, he was born on it, told Alice on it and died on
        it and I dare say if I go through the diaries there will be lots of other
        significant Fridays but as a theory it's a flop - coincidences all of them!

        Keith



        >
        > Jenifer wrote:
        > >He may have looked at pictures of nude women, and had some in his
        possession, but I can't help thinking it is significant that he never drew
        or photographed them, "focusing" instead on young girls. And I would be
        very interested to know about any serious, sustained involvement with a
        woman, aside from his numerous young friends.
      • Jenifer Ransom
        Hi Karoline, I was not saying he didn t have friendships with women close to or over his own age...I was making the point that he apparently never drew or
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Karoline,

          I was not saying he didn't have friendships with women
          close to or over his own age...I was making the point that he
          apparently never drew or photographed them in the nude,
          as he did the young uns, which I think seems to show that
          the physical attraction was to them, rather than to those older
          friends. I was also making the point that I don't think he
          ever had a mature sexual relationship with these freinds, which
          is an obvious corollary of his attraction being elsewhere.

          Couldn't help feeling a bit sorry for Mrs. Liddell, left
          alone at the train station! Now would he ever have done that
          with Alice, f.e.?

          Jenifer

          KarolineLouise@... wrote:

          >
          > Jenifer wrote:
          > >He may have looked at pictures of nude women, and had some in his
          > possession,
          > >
          > > but I can't help thinking it is significant that he never drew or
          > > photographed
          > > them, "focusing" instead on young girls. And I would be very interested
          > to
          > > know
          > > about any serious, sustained involvement with a woman, aside from his
          > > numerous
          > > young friends.
          >
          > Okay.
          > This is just a brief list based on what I have to hand:
          > I don't include anyone who was more that ten years younger than CLD.
          >
          > CATHERINE LLOYD. (1824 -1898)
          > unmarried
          > 8 years OLDER than CLD and a lifelong friend.
          > She was the sister of a Christ Church colleague,
          > and his frequent companion on trips to the theatre
          > and other excursions.
          > They met when they were both in their 20s and
          > she was still holidaying with him when
          > they were both in their sixties.
          > There are several references to her in his diary.
          > For example in May 1883 he records:
          >
          > "Went to the recitation with Miss Lloyd...who
          > afterwards came to my rooms, and on the
          > roof, and so back by MagdalenTower
          > in the moonlight"
          >
          > Not much is known beyond this - because
          > no one has researched his relationship with her
          > at all.
          > Virtually no letters to her seem to survive.
          >
          > MARGARET WILCOX (1836 -1887)
          > unmarried.
          > CLD's cousin, 4 years younger than him
          > and a woman with whom
          > he seems to have been quite close -
          > particularly in intellectual matters.
          > When she was dying she asked specifically
          > for him and he went to see her.
          >
          > Again nothing much is known about her -
          > for the same reason as above.
          > Again no letters seem to have survived.
          >
          > ANNE THACKERAY RITCHIE (1837 - 1919)
          > unmarried at her first meeting with CLD;
          > later (1877) married to Richmond Ritchie
          >
          > Five years younger than CLD, and the daughter of WM
          > Thackeray the famous novelist.
          > She first met CLD some time in the 1860s, though the
          > precise date has not been tracked down so far.
          > They remained friends throughout their lives.
          > He admired her writing greatly.
          >
          > ATR featured him in her autobiographical novel
          > 'From An Island', (1877) in which
          > he has a love affair with the heroine.
          > Their friendship seems to have lapsed in the 1870s,
          > ATR wrote to him in 1887, asking CLD to
          > "come and dine and sleep
          > and renew old acquaintance"
          >
          > Signficantly or not this was at a time
          > when her marriage to Ritchie was in trouble
          > (he had been having an affair).
          >
          > MARY ANNE BAYNE (1805 -.1888)
          > married/widowed
          >
          > 27 years older than CLD, and the mother
          > of his friend and Ch. Ch. colleague
          > Thomas Vere Bayne, she was CLD's frequent
          > companion at the theatre in the 1860s
          > and by all accounts a close friend.
          >
          > LORINA LIDDELL (1826 -.1910)
          > married
          > Six years older than CLD; mother of the
          > three' and embroiled in all the mysterious
          > events of the 1860s, contrary to popular myth
          > she did NOT cut CLD out of her life after the
          > infamous 'break' of 1863.
          > Despite her near total absence from his
          > diaries, and while he remained on poor
          > terms with the Dean and with Alice, it's clear
          > he maintained a friendship with Lorina until
          > the end of his life.
          > Indeed they remained close enough
          > for her to ask him to go house-hunting
          > with her in 1892. Though in the end he
          > backed out of the plan and left her on
          > Guildford station with a list of Estate Agents
          > addresses and some probably pretty
          > unwelcome advice to go call on his sisters.
          >
          > MARY LONGLEY (c.1837 - ?)
          > married 1858
          > five years younger than CLD and eldest daughter of
          > Charles Longley, Bishop of Ripon and Archbishop
          > of Canterbury.
          > CLD met her when they were both children and
          > remained a close friend at least until her marriage.
          >
          > (indeed could she be the inspiration for the sad
          > and pining love poem 'Faces in the Fire', written
          > in 1860, two years after her marriage and a year
          > after the birth of her first child?)
          >
          > This is just a few.
          > If you look at the diaries you can find dozens of other such women, married
          > and single, sometimes gaining nothing more than a passing mention which yet
          > indicates they were quite involved in the parts of his life that don't make
          > it into his journal.
          >
          > Far from the mythic image of him as having some instinctive avoidance of
          > mature womanhood, it's clear he simply revelled in adult femaleness.
          >
          > Of course you don't get that impression from the biographies, but this is
          > because they are wrong.
          >
          > Karoline
          >
          > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        • Jenifer Ransom
          Hi Keith, ... take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with and try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don t know
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Keith,

            >>>I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I would
            take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with and
            try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't know how
            to do this.

            I'm sure you're right about this. I got terrific pics of my son when
            he was small, but he seems awfully self-conscious in photos now.
            However, I was actually talking about nude photography . Most photographers
            interested in taking nudes are interested in the mature female form, but
            as far as I know Dodgson focused on only the very young in this regard,
            which seems to indicate that his attraction was to them.

            You say the photos are on the net. On our e-groups page, or where?

            >>>If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42 which
            nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody calculates
            wrongly in his birthdate etc.

            Kate and I both calculated the total of numbers in his birthdate. Her
            method was the generally accepted one in numerology, while I did
            not reduce his 27 birthdate. This is why she came up with 24 and I came
            up with 42. Either way, it is a very interesting coincidence. Remember
            Carroll's fascination with things being backward: looking-glasses, mirror
            writing--so the 42 is his 24 birth path backward.

            Jenifer

            Keith wrote:

            >
            > Jennifer,
            >
            > the Princeton first three albums photographs as posted on the net break down
            > into the following,
            >
            > Men - 34
            > Views - 8
            > Girls - 44
            > Boys - 10
            > Women - 5
            > Family - 10
            > Misc. - 11
            >
            > What I cannot say is how representative this is of the photography as a
            > whole. Not all the photos in the albums are on the net but assuming it is a
            > representative set then he is girl orientated as you say but not exclusively
            > so.
            >
            > I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I would
            > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with and
            > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't know how
            > to do this.
            >
            > There were many women friends but none which in our terms could be said to
            > be special. Some of the ones Karoline mentioned were acquaintances, Richie,
            > for instance, he saw only rarely and only met her in 1869 when she 32 and so
            > was beyond what was considered marriageable age in Victorian times although
            > she did eventually get married as Karoline says.
            >
            > Mrs.Bayne he visited as a child in Warrington and the Baynes came to
            > Daresbury but in the terms of the discussion she's a non starter. She was a
            > friend's mum.
            >
            > Lorina (mother) Liddell - an unlikely choice for Dodgson and she had far too
            > much to lose by getting involved with a minor don. Much more likely to have
            > had a liaison with Lorina, her daughter who he did remain friendly with
            > after the 'Alice' days.
            >
            > Many of those child friends remained spinsters but whether this was the
            > Dodgson influence or whether he gravitated to girls who would not get
            > married is debatable. Florence Bickersteth remained a spinster but in looks
            > she was fine, Agnes Weld also never married and he remained on speaking
            > terms with her for many years, getting cross with her later on when she
            > introduced him as Lewis Carroll to her friends. However, neither were
            > objects of romance.
            >
            > Hope this helps in your discussions with Karoline - don't give up on it
            > statistics are on your side.
            > If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42 which
            > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody calculates
            > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
            >
            > I think Friday was his day, he was born on it, told Alice on it and died on
            > it and I dare say if I go through the diaries there will be lots of other
            > significant Fridays but as a theory it's a flop - coincidences all of them!
            >
            > Keith
            >
            > >
            > > Jenifer wrote:
            > > >He may have looked at pictures of nude women, and had some in his
            > possession, but I can't help thinking it is significant that he never drew
            > or photographed them, "focusing" instead on young girls. And I would be
            > very interested to know about any serious, sustained involvement with a
            > woman, aside from his numerous young friends.
            >
            > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          • AnisaT@aol.com
            In a message dated 02/09/00 22:44:16 GMT Daylight Time, jdransom@toast.net writes:
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 2, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 02/09/00 22:44:16 GMT Daylight Time, jdransom@...
              writes:

              << I was not saying he didn't have friendships with women
              close to or over his own age...I was making the point that he
              apparently never drew or photographed them in the nude,
              as he did the young uns, which I think seems to show that
              the physical attraction was to them, rather than to those older
              friends. I was also making the point that I don't think he
              ever had a mature sexual relationship with these freinds, which
              is an obvious corollary of his attraction being elsewhere.

              Sorry Jenifer, but I must stop you there!

              Carroll could NEVER have executed a nude portrait of an adult woman (sketch
              or photo). It would have been so far beyond the pale of Victorian mores, his
              reputation would never have survived it. Only an extremely well established
              artist would have been able to do this - and Carroll's reputation certainly
              did not fall into that category. Carroll's reputation as a major
              photographic artist emerged largely posthumously - and the status of
              photography as an art form was barely established during Carroll's time. -
              also don't forget that he was an ordained archdeacon!

              The execution of images of pre-pubescent children (mainly female), however,
              was almost an obsession in Victorian society. Often such images were clearly
              intended to portray such phenomena as cherubs/cherubims, faeries etc but the
              nude child-form as metaphor of innocence was extremely common. The portrayal
              of such images as scantily or diaphonously clad - or simply nude - was the
              norm.

              To create a significance beyond the above purely on the basis of artistic
              output is a major analytic error. One would need convincing additional and
              historically congruent evidence to make any sort of case that Carroll was
              ABNORMALLY obsessed with the child-form.

              John Tufail>>
            • Kate Lyon
              Presumably this was why the child was depicted as trailing clouds of glory. Even G MacDonald did it Where do you come from, baby dear? We only need to
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 2, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Presumably this was why the child was depicted as "trailing clouds of
                glory." Even G MacDonald did it "Where do you come from, baby dear?" We
                only need to look at the Victorian social conditions, as John's already
                pointed out, to recognise how this comes about..
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <AnisaT@...>
                To: <lewiscarroll@egroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 10:25 AM
                Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Dodgson's not-so young women.


                >
                > In a message dated 02/09/00 22:44:16 GMT Daylight Time, jdransom@...
                > writes:
                >
                > << I was not saying he didn't have friendships with women
                > close to or over his own age...I was making the point that he
                > apparently never drew or photographed them in the nude,
                > as he did the young uns, which I think seems to show that
                > the physical attraction was to them, rather than to those older
                > friends. I was also making the point that I don't think he
                > ever had a mature sexual relationship with these freinds, which
                > is an obvious corollary of his attraction being elsewhere.
                >
                > Sorry Jenifer, but I must stop you there!
                >
                > Carroll could NEVER have executed a nude portrait of an adult woman
                (sketch
                > or photo). It would have been so far beyond the pale of Victorian mores,
                his
                > reputation would never have survived it. Only an extremely well
                established
                > artist would have been able to do this - and Carroll's reputation
                certainly
                > did not fall into that category. Carroll's reputation as a major
                > photographic artist emerged largely posthumously - and the status of
                > photography as an art form was barely established during Carroll's time. -
                > also don't forget that he was an ordained archdeacon!
                >
                > The execution of images of pre-pubescent children (mainly female),
                however,
                > was almost an obsession in Victorian society. Often such images were
                clearly
                > intended to portray such phenomena as cherubs/cherubims, faeries etc but
                the
                > nude child-form as metaphor of innocence was extremely common. The
                portrayal
                > of such images as scantily or diaphonously clad - or simply nude - was the
                > norm.
                >
                > To create a significance beyond the above purely on the basis of artistic
                > output is a major analytic error. One would need convincing additional
                and
                > historically congruent evidence to make any sort of case that Carroll was
                > ABNORMALLY obsessed with the child-form.
                >
                > John Tufail>>
                >
                > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >
                >
              • Jenifer Ransom
                Hi John, I have to disagree with you that there is no significance re his innate preferences, in his choosing to draw and photograph children in the nude
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 2, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi John,

                  I have to disagree with you that there is no significance
                  re his innate preferences, in his choosing to
                  draw and photograph children in the nude rather than
                  adult nudes. We "focus" on that which "turns us on"
                  in one way or another.

                  As for this being "beyond the pale of Victorian mores",
                  he could very well have done this if he wanted to without
                  anyone knowing about it except the model in question, who
                  would not be likely to spread the news. In any case, in a letter
                  to Gertrude Thomson concerning drawing nudes, he wrote,
                  "But *don't* get a grownup model, any time you are expecting
                  *me.* " If this was truly "beyond the pale" as you say, why would
                  he take such care to make sure Thomson didn't get one?

                  Jenifer

                  AnisaT@... wrote:

                  >
                  > In a message dated 02/09/00 22:44:16 GMT Daylight Time, jdransom@...
                  > writes:
                  >
                  > << I was not saying he didn't have friendships with women
                  > close to or over his own age...I was making the point that he
                  > apparently never drew or photographed them in the nude,
                  > as he did the young uns, which I think seems to show that
                  > the physical attraction was to them, rather than to those older
                  > friends. I was also making the point that I don't think he
                  > ever had a mature sexual relationship with these freinds, which
                  > is an obvious corollary of his attraction being elsewhere.
                  >
                  > Sorry Jenifer, but I must stop you there!
                  >
                  > Carroll could NEVER have executed a nude portrait of an adult woman (sketch
                  > or photo). It would have been so far beyond the pale of Victorian mores, his
                  > reputation would never have survived it. Only an extremely well established
                  > artist would have been able to do this - and Carroll's reputation certainly
                  > did not fall into that category. Carroll's reputation as a major
                  > photographic artist emerged largely posthumously - and the status of
                  > photography as an art form was barely established during Carroll's time. -
                  > also don't forget that he was an ordained archdeacon!
                  >
                  > The execution of images of pre-pubescent children (mainly female), however,
                  > was almost an obsession in Victorian society. Often such images were clearly
                  > intended to portray such phenomena as cherubs/cherubims, faeries etc but the
                  > nude child-form as metaphor of innocence was extremely common. The portrayal
                  > of such images as scantily or diaphonously clad - or simply nude - was the
                  > norm.
                  >
                  > To create a significance beyond the above purely on the basis of artistic
                  > output is a major analytic error. One would need convincing additional and
                  > historically congruent evidence to make any sort of case that Carroll was
                  > ABNORMALLY obsessed with the child-form.
                  >
                  > John Tufail>>
                  >
                  > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                • Keith
                  Jennifer, It was perhaps a little different with your son as you already had a relationship and perhaps now this relationship is getting in the way of
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 2, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jennifer,

                    It was perhaps a little different with your son as you already had a
                    relationship and perhaps now this relationship is getting in the way of
                    photography as you see him in a different way to his own perception of
                    himself and he does not want your way shown to his friends!

                    When a photographer comes to take a child he/she does not know well, or
                    anyone else for that matter, he/she has to build a relationship and the
                    success of the picture depends upon how well he/she does this. Dodgson,
                    from the writings, letters and reminiscences of child friends, had a fast
                    track way of getting a child on his side and it shows in lots of his photos,
                    one it does not show in is Maria White taken at Lambeth Palace not at Ch.Ch.
                    as Cohen states in Reflections. I think this class barrier shows in several
                    of his photographs and shows his inability to relate well to the lower
                    classes. I believe all successful child photographers have this ability to
                    relate to the subject. I often watch as my grandchildren and other children
                    are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The success
                    rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                    instantly home in onto the wavelength of any child they come across yet each
                    one may use a different technique.

                    I think Dodgson would have loved to do nudes of mature women and he said as
                    much in his diaries. However, he had to stay on, what in Victorian times
                    was safe ground, girls below the age at which their hair was put up, as he
                    described them. He wasn't the only one to do this. Sutcliffe in Whitby
                    took boys in the nude and the Prince of Wales had a copy of his famous
                    picture 'The Water Rats' put up in Marlborough House. Others were much more
                    involved in taking nudes, Rejlander for instance, however, since he did not
                    write 'Alice' his nude work is shunted aside and practically the only
                    photograph of his that is known widely is the one he took of Dodgson, fully
                    clothed I had better add! People forget that an image has to be interpreted
                    and what the viewer brings to the image is often as important as the image
                    itself. A few boys swimming in 'The Water Rats' is seen quite differently
                    by 21c eyes compared to what it would be seen as by 19c eyes.

                    On Cohen's book you have asked a tricky question - how bad is it?

                    I would estimate purely from several readings of Cohen's book that 80% of it
                    is opinion and 20% is facts, of one sort or another. The facts follow along
                    the lines of Collingwood, which in itself was flawed and incomplete, with a
                    sprinkling of new material from letters etc. and four child nudes, which he
                    discovered and upon which he placed the main sales thrust of the book.
                    Conclusions are drawn from things which I disagree with but have not full
                    facts to dispute the assertions made.
                    If I can draw a parallel it is the Von Danikin syndrome, lots of people want
                    to believe in ET's and UFO's and this with a few facts such as lines in the
                    desert and pyramids, which defy modern technology to replicate, and lots of
                    'clearly it is ...' and 'obviously this leads to .....' etc. etc.convinced
                    lots of people that he was on to something. However, some of his facts were
                    wrong, some had been fabricated and a great many of his conclusions were
                    flawed.
                    Similarly, If Cohen's 'Reflections' is a reflection of his ability to
                    present facts correctly then the biography is also fatally flawed! The
                    facts in 'Reflections' are much easier to check! The biography presents the
                    stereo typed Dodgson image and I don't see him that way at all. Examine
                    Dodgson's relationship with the Cecils - that will tell you quite a lot
                    about him - and the Cecils.

                    I look forward to reading John's analysis of this book - as long as he is
                    not overawed by Cohen's reputation and because of it does a kindly based
                    Cohen appreciation job. Karoline has been one of the few writers who have
                    put my doubts into words before I met Karoline I was struggling to come to
                    terms with things I knew to be not quite right, yet there were lots of
                    'experts' telling me I was wrong. That's not to say I think Dodgson had a
                    thing for Mrs.Liddell, if I was him I'd much rather have had a romance with
                    Lorina than with her mum, but that's a man's point of view! I was always
                    uneasy with the current picture of Dodgson as it just did not seem to fit
                    with anything I could relate to, it was not my idea of common sense even as
                    applied in the 19c. I am in the LCS but I maintained my objectivity so I
                    didn't swallow the myth wholesale, Karoline has opened up the debate.

                    I'd better leave off there or everyone will be complaining that I go on too
                    long!

                    Keith


                    > Hi Keith,
                    >
                    > >>>I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I
                    would
                    > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with and
                    > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't know
                    how
                    > to do this.
                    >
                    > I'm sure you're right about this. I got terrific pics of my son when
                    > he was small, but he seems awfully self-conscious in photos now.
                    > However, I was actually talking about nude photography . Most
                    photographers
                    > interested in taking nudes are interested in the mature female form, but
                    > as far as I know Dodgson focused on only the very young in this regard,
                    > which seems to indicate that his attraction was to them.
                    >
                    > You say the photos are on the net. On our e-groups page, or where?
                    >
                    > >>>If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42
                    which
                    > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody calculates
                    > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                    >
                    > Kate and I both calculated the total of numbers in his birthdate. Her
                    > method was the generally accepted one in numerology, while I did
                    > not reduce his 27 birthdate. This is why she came up with 24 and I came
                    > up with 42. Either way, it is a very interesting coincidence. Remember
                    > Carroll's fascination with things being backward: looking-glasses, mirror
                    > writing--so the 42 is his 24 birth path backward.
                    >
                    > Jenifer
                    >
                    > Keith wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Jennifer,
                    > >
                    > > the Princeton first three albums photographs as posted on the net break
                    down
                    > > into the following,
                    > >
                    > > Men - 34
                    > > Views - 8
                    > > Girls - 44
                    > > Boys - 10
                    > > Women - 5
                    > > Family - 10
                    > > Misc. - 11
                    > >
                    > > What I cannot say is how representative this is of the photography as a
                    > > whole. Not all the photos in the albums are on the net but assuming it
                    is a
                    > > representative set then he is girl orientated as you say but not
                    exclusively
                    > > so.
                    > >
                    > > I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I would
                    > > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with
                    and
                    > > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't know
                    how
                    > > to do this.
                    > >
                    > > There were many women friends but none which in our terms could be said
                    to
                    > > be special. Some of the ones Karoline mentioned were acquaintances,
                    Richie,
                    > > for instance, he saw only rarely and only met her in 1869 when she 32
                    and so
                    > > was beyond what was considered marriageable age in Victorian times
                    although
                    > > she did eventually get married as Karoline says.
                    > >
                    > > Mrs.Bayne he visited as a child in Warrington and the Baynes came to
                    > > Daresbury but in the terms of the discussion she's a non starter. She
                    was a
                    > > friend's mum.
                    > >
                    > > Lorina (mother) Liddell - an unlikely choice for Dodgson and she had far
                    too
                    > > much to lose by getting involved with a minor don. Much more likely to
                    have
                    > > had a liaison with Lorina, her daughter who he did remain friendly with
                    > > after the 'Alice' days.
                    > >
                    > > Many of those child friends remained spinsters but whether this was the
                    > > Dodgson influence or whether he gravitated to girls who would not get
                    > > married is debatable. Florence Bickersteth remained a spinster but in
                    looks
                    > > she was fine, Agnes Weld also never married and he remained on speaking
                    > > terms with her for many years, getting cross with her later on when she
                    > > introduced him as Lewis Carroll to her friends. However, neither were
                    > > objects of romance.
                    > >
                    > > Hope this helps in your discussions with Karoline - don't give up on it
                    > > statistics are on your side.
                    > > If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42 which
                    > > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody
                    calculates
                    > > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                    > >
                    > > I think Friday was his day, he was born on it, told Alice on it and died
                    on
                    > > it and I dare say if I go through the diaries there will be lots of
                    other
                    > > significant Fridays but as a theory it's a flop - coincidences all of
                    them!
                    > >
                    > > Keith
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Jenifer wrote:
                    > > > >He may have looked at pictures of nude women, and had some in his
                    > > possession, but I can't help thinking it is significant that he never
                    drew
                    > > or photographed them, "focusing" instead on young girls. And I would be
                    > > very interested to know about any serious, sustained involvement with a
                    > > woman, aside from his numerous young friends.
                    > >
                    > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                    lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                    lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    >
                    >
                  • Jenifer Ransom
                    Hi Keith, ... are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The success rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 3, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Keith,

                      >>I often watch as my grandchildren and other children
                      are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The success
                      rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                      instantly home in onto the wavelength of any child they come across yet each
                      one may use a different technique.

                      You are right there--I've seldom seen a bad pic taken
                      in those situations. Hmm, I think I might be good at that
                      myself--I am usually able to tune in to children in this way.

                      >>>I think Dodgson would have loved to do nudes of mature women and he said as
                      much in his diaries.

                      I promised Mike I wasn't going to say anything more about this, so
                      I won't, but there is a letter he wrote Gertrude Thomson...uh-oh, I better
                      shut up.

                      thanks for your take on Cohen's book--much food for thought there.

                      Jenifer



                      Keith wrote:

                      >
                      > Jennifer,
                      >
                      > It was perhaps a little different with your son as you already had a
                      > relationship and perhaps now this relationship is getting in the way of
                      > photography as you see him in a different way to his own perception of
                      > himself and he does not want your way shown to his friends!
                      >
                      > When a photographer comes to take a child he/she does not know well, or
                      > anyone else for that matter, he/she has to build a relationship and the
                      > success of the picture depends upon how well he/she does this. Dodgson,
                      > from the writings, letters and reminiscences of child friends, had a fast
                      > track way of getting a child on his side and it shows in lots of his photos,
                      > one it does not show in is Maria White taken at Lambeth Palace not at Ch.Ch.
                      > as Cohen states in Reflections. I think this class barrier shows in several
                      > of his photographs and shows his inability to relate well to the lower
                      > classes. I believe all successful child photographers have this ability to
                      > relate to the subject. I often watch as my grandchildren and other children
                      > are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The success
                      > rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                      > instantly home in onto the wavelength of any child they come across yet each
                      > one may use a different technique.
                      >
                      > I think Dodgson would have loved to do nudes of mature women and he said as
                      > much in his diaries. However, he had to stay on, what in Victorian times
                      > was safe ground, girls below the age at which their hair was put up, as he
                      > described them. He wasn't the only one to do this. Sutcliffe in Whitby
                      > took boys in the nude and the Prince of Wales had a copy of his famous
                      > picture 'The Water Rats' put up in Marlborough House. Others were much more
                      > involved in taking nudes, Rejlander for instance, however, since he did not
                      > write 'Alice' his nude work is shunted aside and practically the only
                      > photograph of his that is known widely is the one he took of Dodgson, fully
                      > clothed I had better add! People forget that an image has to be interpreted
                      > and what the viewer brings to the image is often as important as the image
                      > itself. A few boys swimming in 'The Water Rats' is seen quite differently
                      > by 21c eyes compared to what it would be seen as by 19c eyes.
                      >
                      > On Cohen's book you have asked a tricky question - how bad is it?
                      >
                      > I would estimate purely from several readings of Cohen's book that 80% of it
                      > is opinion and 20% is facts, of one sort or another. The facts follow along
                      > the lines of Collingwood, which in itself was flawed and incomplete, with a
                      > sprinkling of new material from letters etc. and four child nudes, which he
                      > discovered and upon which he placed the main sales thrust of the book.
                      > Conclusions are drawn from things which I disagree with but have not full
                      > facts to dispute the assertions made.
                      > If I can draw a parallel it is the Von Danikin syndrome, lots of people want
                      > to believe in ET's and UFO's and this with a few facts such as lines in the
                      > desert and pyramids, which defy modern technology to replicate, and lots of
                      > 'clearly it is ...' and 'obviously this leads to .....' etc. etc.convinced
                      > lots of people that he was on to something. However, some of his facts were
                      > wrong, some had been fabricated and a great many of his conclusions were
                      > flawed.
                      > Similarly, If Cohen's 'Reflections' is a reflection of his ability to
                      > present facts correctly then the biography is also fatally flawed! The
                      > facts in 'Reflections' are much easier to check! The biography presents the
                      > stereo typed Dodgson image and I don't see him that way at all. Examine
                      > Dodgson's relationship with the Cecils - that will tell you quite a lot
                      > about him - and the Cecils.
                      >
                      > I look forward to reading John's analysis of this book - as long as he is
                      > not overawed by Cohen's reputation and because of it does a kindly based
                      > Cohen appreciation job. Karoline has been one of the few writers who have
                      > put my doubts into words before I met Karoline I was struggling to come to
                      > terms with things I knew to be not quite right, yet there were lots of
                      > 'experts' telling me I was wrong. That's not to say I think Dodgson had a
                      > thing for Mrs.Liddell, if I was him I'd much rather have had a romance with
                      > Lorina than with her mum, but that's a man's point of view! I was always
                      > uneasy with the current picture of Dodgson as it just did not seem to fit
                      > with anything I could relate to, it was not my idea of common sense even as
                      > applied in the 19c. I am in the LCS but I maintained my objectivity so I
                      > didn't swallow the myth wholesale, Karoline has opened up the debate.
                      >
                      > I'd better leave off there or everyone will be complaining that I go on too
                      > long!
                      >
                      > Keith
                      >
                      > > Hi Keith,
                      > >
                      > > >>>I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I
                      > would
                      > > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with and
                      > > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't know
                      > how
                      > > to do this.
                      > >
                      > > I'm sure you're right about this. I got terrific pics of my son when
                      > > he was small, but he seems awfully self-conscious in photos now.
                      > > However, I was actually talking about nude photography . Most
                      > photographers
                      > > interested in taking nudes are interested in the mature female form, but
                      > > as far as I know Dodgson focused on only the very young in this regard,
                      > > which seems to indicate that his attraction was to them.
                      > >
                      > > You say the photos are on the net. On our e-groups page, or where?
                      > >
                      > > >>>If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42
                      > which
                      > > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody calculates
                      > > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                      > >
                      > > Kate and I both calculated the total of numbers in his birthdate. Her
                      > > method was the generally accepted one in numerology, while I did
                      > > not reduce his 27 birthdate. This is why she came up with 24 and I came
                      > > up with 42. Either way, it is a very interesting coincidence. Remember
                      > > Carroll's fascination with things being backward: looking-glasses, mirror
                      > > writing--so the 42 is his 24 birth path backward.
                      > >
                      > > Jenifer
                      > >
                      > > Keith wrote:
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Jennifer,
                      > > >
                      > > > the Princeton first three albums photographs as posted on the net break
                      > down
                      > > > into the following,
                      > > >
                      > > > Men - 34
                      > > > Views - 8
                      > > > Girls - 44
                      > > > Boys - 10
                      > > > Women - 5
                      > > > Family - 10
                      > > > Misc. - 11
                      > > >
                      > > > What I cannot say is how representative this is of the photography as a
                      > > > whole. Not all the photos in the albums are on the net but assuming it
                      > is a
                      > > > representative set then he is girl orientated as you say but not
                      > exclusively
                      > > > so.
                      > > >
                      > > > I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I would
                      > > > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with
                      > and
                      > > > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't know
                      > how
                      > > > to do this.
                      > > >
                      > > > There were many women friends but none which in our terms could be said
                      > to
                      > > > be special. Some of the ones Karoline mentioned were acquaintances,
                      > Richie,
                      > > > for instance, he saw only rarely and only met her in 1869 when she 32
                      > and so
                      > > > was beyond what was considered marriageable age in Victorian times
                      > although
                      > > > she did eventually get married as Karoline says.
                      > > >
                      > > > Mrs.Bayne he visited as a child in Warrington and the Baynes came to
                      > > > Daresbury but in the terms of the discussion she's a non starter. She
                      > was a
                      > > > friend's mum.
                      > > >
                      > > > Lorina (mother) Liddell - an unlikely choice for Dodgson and she had far
                      > too
                      > > > much to lose by getting involved with a minor don. Much more likely to
                      > have
                      > > > had a liaison with Lorina, her daughter who he did remain friendly with
                      > > > after the 'Alice' days.
                      > > >
                      > > > Many of those child friends remained spinsters but whether this was the
                      > > > Dodgson influence or whether he gravitated to girls who would not get
                      > > > married is debatable. Florence Bickersteth remained a spinster but in
                      > looks
                      > > > she was fine, Agnes Weld also never married and he remained on speaking
                      > > > terms with her for many years, getting cross with her later on when she
                      > > > introduced him as Lewis Carroll to her friends. However, neither were
                      > > > objects of romance.
                      > > >
                      > > > Hope this helps in your discussions with Karoline - don't give up on it
                      > > > statistics are on your side.
                      > > > If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42 which
                      > > > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody
                      > calculates
                      > > > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                      > > >
                      > > > I think Friday was his day, he was born on it, told Alice on it and died
                      > on
                      > > > it and I dare say if I go through the diaries there will be lots of
                      > other
                      > > > significant Fridays but as a theory it's a flop - coincidences all of
                      > them!
                      > > >
                      > > > Keith
                      > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Jenifer wrote:
                      > > > > >He may have looked at pictures of nude women, and had some in his
                      > > > possession, but I can't help thinking it is significant that he never
                      > drew
                      > > > or photographed them, "focusing" instead on young girls. And I would be
                      > > > very interested to know about any serious, sustained involvement with a
                      > > > woman, aside from his numerous young friends.
                      > > >
                      > > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                      > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                      > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    • Keith
                      Jenifer, it s worth a try if you really can tune in to children but you need a very good acceptance rate, by parents that is, in order to make a go of it. I m
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 3, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jenifer,

                        it's worth a try if you really can tune in to children but you need a very
                        good acceptance rate, by parents that is, in order to make a go of it. I'm
                        too much of a chicken to try it. I even tried to back out of my sister's
                        wedding photos because of the responsibility. She insisted though and in
                        the
                        end they were fine but I think I suffered on the day! I much prefer just to
                        take informal photographs that can be repeated if they go wrong. I don't
                        have a large failure rate, certainly not as much as CLD would have with the
                        wet process. He was really brave to tackle taking children knowing that
                        they would not understand fully why sometimes it worked and sometimes it
                        didn't.

                        Mike knows my views on censorship and I won't repeat them here but in CLD's
                        case the horse has already bolted and the stable door needs shutting and it
                        can only be done by examining the evidence. This is a man's reputation we
                        are dealing with and he has been, in my opinion, wrongly accused. The fact
                        that he is dead does not lessen the crime of the false accusations and I am
                        in favour of a law which allows the relatives of a dead person to sue for an
                        apology. Unfortunately there appears no chance of there ever being such a
                        law.

                        Apologies for also nnot answering your query about princeton images. They
                        are on the net and are best found by searching for the Lewis Carroll home
                        page, then photography and then Princeton. There are over a hundred images
                        there some of which are fairly well known.

                        Keith
                        >
                        > Hi Keith,
                        >
                        > >>I often watch as my grandchildren and other children
                        > are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The success
                        > rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                        > instantly home in onto the wavelength of any child they come across yet
                        each
                        > one may use a different technique.
                        >
                        > You are right there--I've seldom seen a bad pic taken
                        > in those situations. Hmm, I think I might be good at that
                        > myself--I am usually able to tune in to children in this way.
                        >
                        > >>>I think Dodgson would have loved to do nudes of mature women and he
                        said as
                        > much in his diaries.
                        >
                        > I promised Mike I wasn't going to say anything more about this, so
                        > I won't, but there is a letter he wrote Gertrude Thomson...uh-oh, I better
                        > shut up.
                        >
                        > thanks for your take on Cohen's book--much food for thought there.
                        >
                        > Jenifer
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Keith wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > > Jennifer,
                        > >
                        > > It was perhaps a little different with your son as you already had a
                        > > relationship and perhaps now this relationship is getting in the way of
                        > > photography as you see him in a different way to his own perception of
                        > > himself and he does not want your way shown to his friends!
                        > >
                        > > When a photographer comes to take a child he/she does not know well, or
                        > > anyone else for that matter, he/she has to build a relationship and the
                        > > success of the picture depends upon how well he/she does this. Dodgson,
                        > > from the writings, letters and reminiscences of child friends, had a
                        fast
                        > > track way of getting a child on his side and it shows in lots of his
                        photos,
                        > > one it does not show in is Maria White taken at Lambeth Palace not at
                        Ch.Ch.
                        > > as Cohen states in Reflections. I think this class barrier shows in
                        several
                        > > of his photographs and shows his inability to relate well to the lower
                        > > classes. I believe all successful child photographers have this ability
                        to
                        > > relate to the subject. I often watch as my grandchildren and other
                        children
                        > > are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The
                        success
                        > > rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                        > > instantly home in onto the wavelength of any child they come across yet
                        each
                        > > one may use a different technique.
                        > >
                        > > I think Dodgson would have loved to do nudes of mature women and he said
                        as
                        > > much in his diaries. However, he had to stay on, what in Victorian
                        times
                        > > was safe ground, girls below the age at which their hair was put up, as
                        he
                        > > described them. He wasn't the only one to do this. Sutcliffe in
                        Whitby
                        > > took boys in the nude and the Prince of Wales had a copy of his famous
                        > > picture 'The Water Rats' put up in Marlborough House. Others were much
                        more
                        > > involved in taking nudes, Rejlander for instance, however, since he did
                        not
                        > > write 'Alice' his nude work is shunted aside and practically the only
                        > > photograph of his that is known widely is the one he took of Dodgson,
                        fully
                        > > clothed I had better add! People forget that an image has to be
                        interpreted
                        > > and what the viewer brings to the image is often as important as the
                        image
                        > > itself. A few boys swimming in 'The Water Rats' is seen quite
                        differently
                        > > by 21c eyes compared to what it would be seen as by 19c eyes.
                        > >
                        > > On Cohen's book you have asked a tricky question - how bad is it?
                        > >
                        > > I would estimate purely from several readings of Cohen's book that 80%
                        of it
                        > > is opinion and 20% is facts, of one sort or another. The facts follow
                        along
                        > > the lines of Collingwood, which in itself was flawed and incomplete,
                        with a
                        > > sprinkling of new material from letters etc. and four child nudes, which
                        he
                        > > discovered and upon which he placed the main sales thrust of the book.
                        > > Conclusions are drawn from things which I disagree with but have not
                        full
                        > > facts to dispute the assertions made.
                        > > If I can draw a parallel it is the Von Danikin syndrome, lots of people
                        want
                        > > to believe in ET's and UFO's and this with a few facts such as lines in
                        the
                        > > desert and pyramids, which defy modern technology to replicate, and lots
                        of
                        > > 'clearly it is ...' and 'obviously this leads to .....' etc.
                        etc.convinced
                        > > lots of people that he was on to something. However, some of his facts
                        were
                        > > wrong, some had been fabricated and a great many of his conclusions were
                        > > flawed.
                        > > Similarly, If Cohen's 'Reflections' is a reflection of his ability to
                        > > present facts correctly then the biography is also fatally flawed! The
                        > > facts in 'Reflections' are much easier to check! The biography presents
                        the
                        > > stereo typed Dodgson image and I don't see him that way at all. Examine
                        > > Dodgson's relationship with the Cecils - that will tell you quite a lot
                        > > about him - and the Cecils.
                        > >
                        > > I look forward to reading John's analysis of this book - as long as he
                        is
                        > > not overawed by Cohen's reputation and because of it does a kindly based
                        > > Cohen appreciation job. Karoline has been one of the few writers who
                        have
                        > > put my doubts into words before I met Karoline I was struggling to come
                        to
                        > > terms with things I knew to be not quite right, yet there were lots of
                        > > 'experts' telling me I was wrong. That's not to say I think Dodgson had
                        a
                        > > thing for Mrs.Liddell, if I was him I'd much rather have had a romance
                        with
                        > > Lorina than with her mum, but that's a man's point of view! I was
                        always
                        > > uneasy with the current picture of Dodgson as it just did not seem to
                        fit
                        > > with anything I could relate to, it was not my idea of common sense even
                        as
                        > > applied in the 19c. I am in the LCS but I maintained my objectivity so
                        I
                        > > didn't swallow the myth wholesale, Karoline has opened up the debate.
                        > >
                        > > I'd better leave off there or everyone will be complaining that I go on
                        too
                        > > long!
                        > >
                        > > Keith
                        > >
                        > > > Hi Keith,
                        > > >
                        > > > >>>I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I
                        > > would
                        > > > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with
                        and
                        > > > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't
                        know
                        > > how
                        > > > to do this.
                        > > >
                        > > > I'm sure you're right about this. I got terrific pics of my son when
                        > > > he was small, but he seems awfully self-conscious in photos now.
                        > > > However, I was actually talking about nude photography . Most
                        > > photographers
                        > > > interested in taking nudes are interested in the mature female form,
                        but
                        > > > as far as I know Dodgson focused on only the very young in this
                        regard,
                        > > > which seems to indicate that his attraction was to them.
                        > > >
                        > > > You say the photos are on the net. On our e-groups page, or where?
                        > > >
                        > > > >>>If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42
                        > > which
                        > > > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody
                        calculates
                        > > > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                        > > >
                        > > > Kate and I both calculated the total of numbers in his birthdate. Her
                        > > > method was the generally accepted one in numerology, while I did
                        > > > not reduce his 27 birthdate. This is why she came up with 24 and I
                        came
                        > > > up with 42. Either way, it is a very interesting coincidence. Remember
                        > > > Carroll's fascination with things being backward: looking-glasses,
                        mirror
                        > > > writing--so the 42 is his 24 birth path backward.
                        > > >
                        > > > Jenifer
                        > > >
                        > > > Keith wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Jennifer,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > the Princeton first three albums photographs as posted on the net
                        break
                        > > down
                        > > > > into the following,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Men - 34
                        > > > > Views - 8
                        > > > > Girls - 44
                        > > > > Boys - 10
                        > > > > Women - 5
                        > > > > Family - 10
                        > > > > Misc. - 11
                        > > > >
                        > > > > What I cannot say is how representative this is of the photography
                        as a
                        > > > > whole. Not all the photos in the albums are on the net but assuming
                        it
                        > > is a
                        > > > > representative set then he is girl orientated as you say but not
                        > > exclusively
                        > > > > so.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I
                        would
                        > > > > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work
                        with
                        > > and
                        > > > > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't
                        know
                        > > how
                        > > > > to do this.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > There were many women friends but none which in our terms could be
                        said
                        > > to
                        > > > > be special. Some of the ones Karoline mentioned were acquaintances,
                        > > Richie,
                        > > > > for instance, he saw only rarely and only met her in 1869 when she
                        32
                        > > and so
                        > > > > was beyond what was considered marriageable age in Victorian times
                        > > although
                        > > > > she did eventually get married as Karoline says.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Mrs.Bayne he visited as a child in Warrington and the Baynes came to
                        > > > > Daresbury but in the terms of the discussion she's a non starter.
                        She
                        > > was a
                        > > > > friend's mum.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Lorina (mother) Liddell - an unlikely choice for Dodgson and she had
                        far
                        > > too
                        > > > > much to lose by getting involved with a minor don. Much more likely
                        to
                        > > have
                        > > > > had a liaison with Lorina, her daughter who he did remain friendly
                        with
                        > > > > after the 'Alice' days.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Many of those child friends remained spinsters but whether this was
                        the
                        > > > > Dodgson influence or whether he gravitated to girls who would not
                        get
                        > > > > married is debatable. Florence Bickersteth remained a spinster but
                        in
                        > > looks
                        > > > > she was fine, Agnes Weld also never married and he remained on
                        speaking
                        > > > > terms with her for many years, getting cross with her later on when
                        she
                        > > > > introduced him as Lewis Carroll to her friends. However, neither
                        were
                        > > > > objects of romance.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Hope this helps in your discussions with Karoline - don't give up on
                        it
                        > > > > statistics are on your side.
                        > > > > If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42
                        which
                        > > > > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody
                        > > calculates
                        > > > > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I think Friday was his day, he was born on it, told Alice on it and
                        died
                        > > on
                        > > > > it and I dare say if I go through the diaries there will be lots of
                        > > other
                        > > > > significant Fridays but as a theory it's a flop - coincidences all
                        of
                        > > them!
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Keith
                        > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Jenifer wrote:
                        > > > > > >He may have looked at pictures of nude women, and had some in
                        his
                        > > > > possession, but I can't help thinking it is significant that he
                        never
                        > > drew
                        > > > > or photographed them, "focusing" instead on young girls. And I
                        would be
                        > > > > very interested to know about any serious, sustained involvement
                        with a
                        > > > > woman, aside from his numerous young friends.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                        > > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                        > > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                        lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                        lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >
                        >
                      • AnisaT@aol.com
                        Alan, I never blame inanimate objects when the fault is mine! But certainly it was a pre-freudian slip! Thank you. I hope that with your experience of the
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 3, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Alan,

                          I never blame inanimate objects when the fault is mine!

                          But certainly it was a pre-freudian slip!

                          Thank you. I hope that with your experience of the Anglican Church you will
                          be able to continue picking me up - particularly as I shall be throwing a few
                          ideas around over the next couple of weeks which will be stretching my
                          knowledge of Anglican Church history. If you want to do some boning up, I'll
                          probably start (more accurately continue) with the Carroll/Jowett
                          relationship.

                          Gratefully,

                          John Tufail
                        • Jenifer Ransom
                          Hi Keith, Not really thinking of going into business as a kiddiephotog-- it just occured to me that it is one of the things I would probably be pretty good
                          Message 12 of 12 , Sep 3, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Keith,

                            Not really thinking of going into business as a kiddiephotog--
                            it just occured to me that it is one of the things I would probably
                            be pretty good at--building mini-castles in the air! :)

                            I agree with you about Dodgson's bravery and strong will
                            in making a go of photography, given the difficulties of
                            this in his time. I think his photos are wonderful, especially the
                            ones of Alice--a magic melding of model and phtographer!
                            It does seem to me that in general, there were beautiful results
                            with the wet-plate process. I have a postcard on my desk with
                            a photo from 1869, titled "The Kiss Of Peace", of (it looks
                            like) a mother and daughter, atrributed to Julia Cameron--ethereally
                            beautiful.

                            I am very aware of this issue about Dodgson's reputation, and this
                            is why I often react strongly to suggestions that he was in any way
                            irresponsible
                            in his conduct with his young friends (of whatever age). I can't help
                            thinking of how he would feel if he knew he was the object of such
                            speculations. I am not saying that he fit the romanticized
                            image put forth by biographers, however I think he did the best he
                            could for his friends and for humanity as a whole. As things are now,
                            it seems doubtful, given the lack of evidence, that we will ever be
                            able to prove any wrongdoing, so why not give him the benefit of the
                            doubt?

                            Thanks for the info about the Princeton photos.

                            Jenifer

                            Keith wrote:

                            >
                            > Jenifer,
                            >
                            > it's worth a try if you really can tune in to children but you need a very
                            > good acceptance rate, by parents that is, in order to make a go of it. I'm
                            > too much of a chicken to try it. I even tried to back out of my sister's
                            > wedding photos because of the responsibility. She insisted though and in
                            > the
                            > end they were fine but I think I suffered on the day! I much prefer just to
                            > take informal photographs that can be repeated if they go wrong. I don't
                            > have a large failure rate, certainly not as much as CLD would have with the
                            > wet process. He was really brave to tackle taking children knowing that
                            > they would not understand fully why sometimes it worked and sometimes it
                            > didn't.
                            >
                            > Mike knows my views on censorship and I won't repeat them here but in CLD's
                            > case the horse has already bolted and the stable door needs shutting and it
                            > can only be done by examining the evidence. This is a man's reputation we
                            > are dealing with and he has been, in my opinion, wrongly accused. The fact
                            > that he is dead does not lessen the crime of the false accusations and I am
                            > in favour of a law which allows the relatives of a dead person to sue for an
                            > apology. Unfortunately there appears no chance of there ever being such a
                            > law.
                            >
                            > Apologies for also nnot answering your query about princeton images. They
                            > are on the net and are best found by searching for the Lewis Carroll home
                            > page, then photography and then Princeton. There are over a hundred images
                            > there some of which are fairly well known.
                            >
                            > Keith
                            > >
                            > > Hi Keith,
                            > >
                            > > >>I often watch as my grandchildren and other children
                            > > are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The success
                            > > rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                            > > instantly home in onto the wavelength of any child they come across yet
                            > each
                            > > one may use a different technique.
                            > >
                            > > You are right there--I've seldom seen a bad pic taken
                            > > in those situations. Hmm, I think I might be good at that
                            > > myself--I am usually able to tune in to children in this way.
                            > >
                            > > >>>I think Dodgson would have loved to do nudes of mature women and he
                            > said as
                            > > much in his diaries.
                            > >
                            > > I promised Mike I wasn't going to say anything more about this, so
                            > > I won't, but there is a letter he wrote Gertrude Thomson...uh-oh, I better
                            > > shut up.
                            > >
                            > > thanks for your take on Cohen's book--much food for thought there.
                            > >
                            > > Jenifer
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Keith wrote:
                            > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Jennifer,
                            > > >
                            > > > It was perhaps a little different with your son as you already had a
                            > > > relationship and perhaps now this relationship is getting in the way of
                            > > > photography as you see him in a different way to his own perception of
                            > > > himself and he does not want your way shown to his friends!
                            > > >
                            > > > When a photographer comes to take a child he/she does not know well, or
                            > > > anyone else for that matter, he/she has to build a relationship and the
                            > > > success of the picture depends upon how well he/she does this. Dodgson,
                            > > > from the writings, letters and reminiscences of child friends, had a
                            > fast
                            > > > track way of getting a child on his side and it shows in lots of his
                            > photos,
                            > > > one it does not show in is Maria White taken at Lambeth Palace not at
                            > Ch.Ch.
                            > > > as Cohen states in Reflections. I think this class barrier shows in
                            > several
                            > > > of his photographs and shows his inability to relate well to the lower
                            > > > classes. I believe all successful child photographers have this ability
                            > to
                            > > > relate to the subject. I often watch as my grandchildren and other
                            > children
                            > > > are taken by shop photographers or by school photographers. The
                            > success
                            > > > rate of these photographers is phenomenal and it is because they can
                            > > > instantly home in onto the wavelength of any child they come across yet
                            > each
                            > > > one may use a different technique.
                            > > >
                            > > > I think Dodgson would have loved to do nudes of mature women and he said
                            > as
                            > > > much in his diaries. However, he had to stay on, what in Victorian
                            > times
                            > > > was safe ground, girls below the age at which their hair was put up, as
                            > he
                            > > > described them. He wasn't the only one to do this. Sutcliffe in
                            > Whitby
                            > > > took boys in the nude and the Prince of Wales had a copy of his famous
                            > > > picture 'The Water Rats' put up in Marlborough House. Others were much
                            > more
                            > > > involved in taking nudes, Rejlander for instance, however, since he did
                            > not
                            > > > write 'Alice' his nude work is shunted aside and practically the only
                            > > > photograph of his that is known widely is the one he took of Dodgson,
                            > fully
                            > > > clothed I had better add! People forget that an image has to be
                            > interpreted
                            > > > and what the viewer brings to the image is often as important as the
                            > image
                            > > > itself. A few boys swimming in 'The Water Rats' is seen quite
                            > differently
                            > > > by 21c eyes compared to what it would be seen as by 19c eyes.
                            > > >
                            > > > On Cohen's book you have asked a tricky question - how bad is it?
                            > > >
                            > > > I would estimate purely from several readings of Cohen's book that 80%
                            > of it
                            > > > is opinion and 20% is facts, of one sort or another. The facts follow
                            > along
                            > > > the lines of Collingwood, which in itself was flawed and incomplete,
                            > with a
                            > > > sprinkling of new material from letters etc. and four child nudes, which
                            > he
                            > > > discovered and upon which he placed the main sales thrust of the book.
                            > > > Conclusions are drawn from things which I disagree with but have not
                            > full
                            > > > facts to dispute the assertions made.
                            > > > If I can draw a parallel it is the Von Danikin syndrome, lots of people
                            > want
                            > > > to believe in ET's and UFO's and this with a few facts such as lines in
                            > the
                            > > > desert and pyramids, which defy modern technology to replicate, and lots
                            > of
                            > > > 'clearly it is ...' and 'obviously this leads to .....' etc.
                            > etc.convinced
                            > > > lots of people that he was on to something. However, some of his facts
                            > were
                            > > > wrong, some had been fabricated and a great many of his conclusions were
                            > > > flawed.
                            > > > Similarly, If Cohen's 'Reflections' is a reflection of his ability to
                            > > > present facts correctly then the biography is also fatally flawed! The
                            > > > facts in 'Reflections' are much easier to check! The biography presents
                            > the
                            > > > stereo typed Dodgson image and I don't see him that way at all. Examine
                            > > > Dodgson's relationship with the Cecils - that will tell you quite a lot
                            > > > about him - and the Cecils.
                            > > >
                            > > > I look forward to reading John's analysis of this book - as long as he
                            > is
                            > > > not overawed by Cohen's reputation and because of it does a kindly based
                            > > > Cohen appreciation job. Karoline has been one of the few writers who
                            > have
                            > > > put my doubts into words before I met Karoline I was struggling to come
                            > to
                            > > > terms with things I knew to be not quite right, yet there were lots of
                            > > > 'experts' telling me I was wrong. That's not to say I think Dodgson had
                            > a
                            > > > thing for Mrs.Liddell, if I was him I'd much rather have had a romance
                            > with
                            > > > Lorina than with her mum, but that's a man's point of view! I was
                            > always
                            > > > uneasy with the current picture of Dodgson as it just did not seem to
                            > fit
                            > > > with anything I could relate to, it was not my idea of common sense even
                            > as
                            > > > applied in the 19c. I am in the LCS but I maintained my objectivity so
                            > I
                            > > > didn't swallow the myth wholesale, Karoline has opened up the debate.
                            > > >
                            > > > I'd better leave off there or everyone will be complaining that I go on
                            > too
                            > > > long!
                            > > >
                            > > > Keith
                            > > >
                            > > > > Hi Keith,
                            > > > >
                            > > > > >>>I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I
                            > > > would
                            > > > > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work with
                            > and
                            > > > > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't
                            > know
                            > > > how
                            > > > > to do this.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > I'm sure you're right about this. I got terrific pics of my son when
                            > > > > he was small, but he seems awfully self-conscious in photos now.
                            > > > > However, I was actually talking about nude photography . Most
                            > > > photographers
                            > > > > interested in taking nudes are interested in the mature female form,
                            > but
                            > > > > as far as I know Dodgson focused on only the very young in this
                            > regard,
                            > > > > which seems to indicate that his attraction was to them.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > You say the photos are on the net. On our e-groups page, or where?
                            > > > >
                            > > > > >>>If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42
                            > > > which
                            > > > > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody
                            > calculates
                            > > > > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Kate and I both calculated the total of numbers in his birthdate. Her
                            > > > > method was the generally accepted one in numerology, while I did
                            > > > > not reduce his 27 birthdate. This is why she came up with 24 and I
                            > came
                            > > > > up with 42. Either way, it is a very interesting coincidence. Remember
                            > > > > Carroll's fascination with things being backward: looking-glasses,
                            > mirror
                            > > > > writing--so the 42 is his 24 birth path backward.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Jenifer
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Keith wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Jennifer,
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > the Princeton first three albums photographs as posted on the net
                            > break
                            > > > down
                            > > > > > into the following,
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Men - 34
                            > > > > > Views - 8
                            > > > > > Girls - 44
                            > > > > > Boys - 10
                            > > > > > Women - 5
                            > > > > > Family - 10
                            > > > > > Misc. - 11
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > What I cannot say is how representative this is of the photography
                            > as a
                            > > > > > whole. Not all the photos in the albums are on the net but assuming
                            > it
                            > > > is a
                            > > > > > representative set then he is girl orientated as you say but not
                            > > > exclusively
                            > > > > > so.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > I am the same with my photography, I'll take pretty girls before I
                            > would
                            > > > > > take boys or family groups, they are just so much easier to work
                            > with
                            > > > and
                            > > > > > try their best to produce a good result whereas boys and men don't
                            > know
                            > > > how
                            > > > > > to do this.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > There were many women friends but none which in our terms could be
                            > said
                            > > > to
                            > > > > > be special. Some of the ones Karoline mentioned were acquaintances,
                            > > > Richie,
                            > > > > > for instance, he saw only rarely and only met her in 1869 when she
                            > 32
                            > > > and so
                            > > > > > was beyond what was considered marriageable age in Victorian times
                            > > > although
                            > > > > > she did eventually get married as Karoline says.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Mrs.Bayne he visited as a child in Warrington and the Baynes came to
                            > > > > > Daresbury but in the terms of the discussion she's a non starter.
                            > She
                            > > > was a
                            > > > > > friend's mum.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Lorina (mother) Liddell - an unlikely choice for Dodgson and she had
                            > far
                            > > > too
                            > > > > > much to lose by getting involved with a minor don. Much more likely
                            > to
                            > > > have
                            > > > > > had a liaison with Lorina, her daughter who he did remain friendly
                            > with
                            > > > > > after the 'Alice' days.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Many of those child friends remained spinsters but whether this was
                            > the
                            > > > > > Dodgson influence or whether he gravitated to girls who would not
                            > get
                            > > > > > married is debatable. Florence Bickersteth remained a spinster but
                            > in
                            > > > looks
                            > > > > > she was fine, Agnes Weld also never married and he remained on
                            > speaking
                            > > > > > terms with her for many years, getting cross with her later on when
                            > she
                            > > > > > introduced him as Lewis Carroll to her friends. However, neither
                            > were
                            > > > > > objects of romance.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Hope this helps in your discussions with Karoline - don't give up on
                            > it
                            > > > > > statistics are on your side.
                            > > > > > If I had two less of the girls in my list it would be the magic 42
                            > which
                            > > > > > nobody knows the answer to whatever they may say and everybody
                            > > > calculates
                            > > > > > wrongly in his birthdate etc.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > I think Friday was his day, he was born on it, told Alice on it and
                            > died
                            > > > on
                            > > > > > it and I dare say if I go through the diaries there will be lots of
                            > > > other
                            > > > > > significant Fridays but as a theory it's a flop - coincidences all
                            > of
                            > > > them!
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Keith
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Jenifer wrote:
                            > > > > > > >He may have looked at pictures of nude women, and had some in
                            > his
                            > > > > > possession, but I can't help thinking it is significant that he
                            > never
                            > > > drew
                            > > > > > or photographed them, "focusing" instead on young girls. And I
                            > would be
                            > > > > > very interested to know about any serious, sustained involvement
                            > with a
                            > > > > > woman, aside from his numerous young friends.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                            > > > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                            > > > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                            > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                            > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.