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

Re: Grandville

Expand Messages
  • johntufail
    Hi Keith, I don t believe in imposed censorship, but I do believe in self censorship. In order to believe in imposed censorship, one would have to believe
    Message 1 of 32 , Sep 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Keith,

      I don't believe in imposed censorship, but I do believe in self
      censorship. In order to believe in imposed censorship, one would
      have to believe totaly in the integrity, honesty and impartiality of
      the censors (not to mention the prescience of the censors). Also, I
      believe that censorship at this level, misses the point. It's the
      easy option. And we also know that many those who most stridently,
      promote censorship, are those who prefer that they practice their
      proclivities in private.

      I never suggested that you hadn't seen the Grandville illustrations
      in question. My query, I suppose, was, if you had seen them, how do
      you explain them. Certainly, they are not similarites that I
      have 'manufactured'. To me, quite frankly, it was the application
      of Occam's Razor. Why should I go through interminably more
      compicated reasons of why Carroll could not possibly have been
      influened by Grandville, when the simple explanation was that he
      was. The only remaning questions remain, to what extent, and why,
      at a particularly sensitive time in his career, would he openly
      allow such an association to be tied to his mast. Don't forget
      that, In the eyes of the established High Church Anglical regime
      then ruling, Grandville's work was apostophy. he was not only
      deemed a 'Republican', he was also an anti-Christ. But so was Blake
      during the period we are talking about (basically 1850 to 1860) -
      and at least we do know that Carroll was so interested in Blake's
      illustrations that he spent a comparative fortune to get his own set
      reproduced.

      These are questions Keith. Not answers.

      By the way, I'm told that there are several hundred people out there
      who subscribe to this list. It apears to be one of the most
      subribed to Lewis Carroll Lists. Some, I know fotr a fact, are
      more competent than I in some of the areas I occasionally stray into.

      To me, The point is not arriving at the Truth about Lewis Carroll.
      There is no one truth that we can ever know. The first thing is to
      get rid of the mythical construct. Only then can we feel
      comfortable about revelling in to many, many truths that the genious
      of this remarkable man can reveal.

      Every reader of this e-mail, has something to offer. So why is it
      that so few contribute?

      The genious of Carrol is that he has inspired people in so many
      diffrent fields of human endeavour. I believe that every member of
      this list should at least post one e-mail saying why they
      subscribe. Even if it is done anonomously.

      regards

      John Tufail





      Regards

      John Tufail


      --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith" <keith@...> wrote:
      >
      > John,
      >
      > since even those people who knew CLD did not understand what he
      was about then I sense you are doomed to failure in your quest.
      After 100+ years the culture is so different now compared to then
      that people no longer have the basis for understanding Victorian
      times in detail. I found that when I tried to teach Kate about the
      English class system and the public schools.
      >
      > I don't believe in censorship for adults - it always assumes that
      some stuffed shirt pratt knows more about what I should read than I
      do. Censoring what a child reads is the responsibility of its
      parents but I doubt if any child would choose to read 'Lolita' as it
      is quite a boring read. Mind, they read Harry Potter and that's
      rubbish.
      >
      > I don't see, however, that your purpose is served by inventing
      links to an illustrator, especially when the 'Alice' illustrations
      are, in my opinion, not that good whereas some of Grandville's stuff
      is fairly well done.
      >
      > I've given up on the universities, too many 'Mickey Mouse' degrees
      about nowadays and plagiarism rampant - we see that on here when
      students write in wanting us to do their leg work for them as well
      as their thinking. Where have you found any 'reputable scholars' -
      contradiction of terms there? As to supervising tutors - best say
      nothing or I'd have the moderator after me.
      >
      > The more that people present barmy theories with no real evidence
      to back them up then the greater the damage done to studies. Every
      time a barmy book comes out, such as Jones and Gladstone's 'Red
      King's Dream' where two raw prawns dash about discovering what
      everyone knew already, then the more damage that is done to serious
      studies. As to the 'Jack the Ripper' one! Totally off beam with no
      research done whatsoever, or if it was it was neglected when the
      author found that CLD was in Eastbourne when some of the murders
      were committed so could not possibly have been in London and decided
      not to throw out a theory because of some inconvenient facts.
      >
      > I have looked at Grandville's work, why do you assume I have not?
      I assess him as a better illustrator than Tenniel but not as
      humorous as Caldecott. However, that may be because of his political
      intent in quite a few of his works. He supported the revolution in
      1830 and many of his works are along those lines. Possibly Crane
      would be a similar illustrator but perhaps I think that because
      Crane was political also. I would think a Caldecott 'Alice' would
      have been much more to CLD's ideals than was Tenniel's 'Alice'
      although I find it odd that Tenniel accepted the restraints CLD
      imposed on his work, especially as CLD knew nothing of how the
      illustrations were to be reproduced. A Greenaway 'Alice' could not
      exist of course!
      >
      > Keith
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: johntufail
      > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:55 AM
      > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Grandville
      >
      >
      >
      > Plagiarism!!??
      >
      > All I'm trying to do is to develop an understanding of the many
      > things that influenced the development of a series of works that
      in
      > there turn have had more influence on post-20th century thought
      than
      > any other body of work since Shakespeare. Carroll's works have
      > directly influenced the development of literature, art,
      philosophy,
      > physics, linguistics - even psychology and politics in a way
      that
      > little else has or could. I could produce an interminable list
      of
      > 20th century greats who have readily stated the profound
      influence
      > Carroll's writings have had on their thinking. Mind you, I think
      I
      > would censor the name Nabokov!
      >
      > Keith, by training and inclination I am two things. First a
      student
      > of the relationship between formal language (written and verbal)
      and
      > other language forms, especially the language of illustration,
      > secondly I was trained in and continue to pursue, 'the history
      of
      > ideas'.
      >
      > With Lewis Carroll, both these roles coalesce. The major problem
      I
      > have had with Carroll (wearing either of these hats) is that the
      > current description of Charles Dodgson is, quite honestly, a
      picture
      > of a person that is extremely difficult to reconcile with the
      person
      > who appears in the majority of his written works.
      >
      > At the moment, it appears to me that what we have is a partially
      > completed jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, this is rather like a
      > jigsaw of the Cutty Sark in which all that has been filled is
      the
      > upper third, leaving us with a view of plenty of sky, the tops
      of a
      > couple of buildings and some mastheads!
      >
      > My interest is not in gaining some unique insight into the soul
      of
      > Lewis carroll, mapping his psychology, making yet another claim
      that
      > I, and only I have a key to the 'real' Lewis Carroll
      > (or 'Charles'). That is an arrogant and self-defeating pursuit.
      I
      > AM interested, in examining, as objectively and with as much
      > cynicism as thirty years of professional research in unrelated
      > fields can muster, all aspects of Carroll's social, political,
      > theological, artistic and professional life purely as a means to
      > trace, so far as is possible, the development of his ideas and
      > beliefs and how these may have combined to produce this truly
      > remarkable body of work.
      >
      > It is not an easy task, not least because Carroll himself (or
      more
      > acurately Dodgson), had great delight in muddying the waters!
      But
      > more so because from the outset every attempt possible appears
      to
      > have been made to create A CLD who, in actual fact, never
      existed.
      >
      > More than anything I deplore the suppression of facts,
      information
      > and debate. Unfortunately the Carroll Legacy has been replete
      with
      > all of these.
      >
      > Even worse, quite 'reputable' scholars have quite clearly fallen
      > woefully short of any standard of genuine scholarship in their
      > published works.
      >
      > What particularly annoys me about this lack of scholarship, is
      that
      > it has invariably concentrated on the erroneous accounts of
      > Carroll's relationship with women, the myth that Carroll only
      valued
      > the female until they reached pubescence. If any UK university
      > offered Carroll Studies as a major unit, this myth would have
      been
      > destroyed by a second year undergraduate (Mind you, the
      supervisor
      > would have made his or her academic reputation out of it!).
      >
      > To be honest, Lewis Carroll's sexual proclivities do not
      interest me
      > in the least other than as a phenomena that is more construct
      than
      > reality. What does interest me is that the whole issue of
      Carroll's
      > relationship with women has completely obscured every other
      aspect
      > of his life. EVERYTHING is subservient to this.
      >
      > It is quite clear, for example, that no publisher will even
      consider
      > a book on Carroll that will not include a new and preferably
      novel
      > or prurient slant on Carroll's relationship with women.
      >
      > So far as I know, Keith, you deplore this trend - probably even
      more
      > than I. A person who I respect totally believes that you are a
      > seeker of truth.
      >
      > At least, Keith, look at the evidence before delivering the
      verdict.
      >
      > regards
      >
      > JT
      >
      > Regards
      >
      > JT
      >
      > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith" <keith@> wrote:
      > >
      > > John,
      > >
      > > yes, but to put a charge of plagerism you need much stronger
      > evidence than you have produced. If CLD was alive right now both
      you
      > and Fernando would be as quiet as church mice because you'd be
      both
      > facing a legal battle in court from either CLD himself or
      Tenniel.
      > >
      > > The fact that someone studies various forms of art does not
      make
      > them a judge in the legal sense. The final word rests with
      > the 'layman' as it does in any matter. Look at the mess the so
      > called experts get into in forensics, this happens because they
      > believe their own publicity and start to think they are gods.
      > >
      > > To some extent all life is plagerism in that we learn
      everything
      > from someone else, most academics merely re-arrange the
      knowledge
      > they gain to put another slant on things and often they get
      things
      > drastically wrong.
      > >
      > > Where's your evidence that CLD or Tenniel even saw
      Grandville's
      > work?
      > >
      > > Where's your evidence, side by side, that a series of
      Tenniel's
      > drawings matched closely Grandville's stuff? Not just one cat or
      one
      > cow with four legs and a tail.
      > >
      > > You'd be very hard pressed to make anything but a superficial
      case
      > which in legal terms would be laughed out of court. I doubt if
      you
      > could even work up an article for a newsletter but if you do
      I'll
      > publish it in my Daresbury LC society newsletter and see what
      > reaction I get then. Very parochial it is so you'd not be
      getting
      > much stick!
      > >
      > > Keith
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: johntufail
      > > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:40 PM
      > > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Grandville
      > >
      > >
      > > Who on earth was it who said this list is getting boring!!??.
      > >
      > > Keith it is not just I who have noted the very close
      > correspondences
      > > between some of Grandville's works and illustrations in the
      two
      > > Alice books. I have noticed when looking at various sources
      > (both
      > > on-line and off line) that these coorepondences are pretty
      > widely
      > > remarked upon - most especially by those who practice and
      study
      > the
      > > various forms of graphic art. I think Bryan Talbot has
      remarked
      > on
      > > this too.
      > >
      > > I can see of no reason why Carroll should have particularly
      > > mentioned Grandville in his diaries, any more than he did many
      > other
      > > authors whose works he read.
      > >
      > > I am merely attempting to place the Carroll books into some
      > > historical context and locate Carroll himself within a
      > paerticular
      > > historical and social milieu. Surely it would not be
      appropriate
      > > for someone to identify the development of a particular form
      of
      > art
      > > and thought without commenting on it. Also having noted this
      > > phenomenon to invite debate on the subject.
      > >
      > > Having seen the various Grandville illustrations and compared
      > these
      > > with the Tenniel illustrations mentioned, I find it very hard
      to
      > see
      > > these similarities as mere coincidence. However, I am NOT
      > claiming
      > > that Grandville was the only, or even the major source of
      > > inspiration for either of the Alice books. It is just
      difficult
      > to
      > > discount Grandville as one of many sources of inspiration.
      > >
      > > JT
      > >
      > > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, fernando soto
      <ferjsoto42@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi,
      > > >
      > > > While I don't want to comment on the connection or
      > > > lack thereof between LC, JT, or Granville, I would
      > > > like to do so regarding the ad hominem that is being
      > > > tossed about. I would like to continue this old and
      > > > notable tradition of argumentation by calling Keith's
      > > > method "the Flat-Earther" way of thinking. No matter
      > > > what you present these wise people, they just won't be
      > > > fooled. The Earth is flat and if you don't believe
      > > > them just go for a walk. Don't go too far though, you
      > > > might fall off the edge.
      > > >
      > > > So why, Keith, instead of asking why others are
      > > > reading too much into the works, don't we ask why you
      > > > are reading so little into them, while stepping on any
      > > > little bit of possible evidence that every once in a
      > > > while emerges? If Carroll was alive today I am sure
      > > > that he would rather have us looking for more meaning
      > > > and context in his works than to portray him as some
      > > > sort of idiot savant, someone who somehow wrote some
      > > > of the most famous books ever, yet whose books are
      > > > simple and contextless. At worst the first is
      > > > flattery, at best the latter is an insult to any
      > > > artist worth his salt.
      > > >
      > > > So while John maybe ought to trim back his "of
      > > > course," you could look at your own use of language
      > > > and then completely shave your "are," as in "you're
      > > > reading too much into similarities which are just
      > > > coincidences". I am not even going to comment on your
      > > > authoritative theories on the merits of LC's and
      > > > Tenniel's illustrations as compared to other artists!
      > > >
      > > > So, in the end I ask, "what are you so afraid of that
      > > > you must stomp on any possible link between Carroll's
      > > > works and those of other writers and illustrators?".
      > > > If you must have your flat Wonderland, then by all
      > > > means do so. But why do you waste your time and
      > > > effort pouring water on any little spark that doesn't
      > > > fit your scarecrow theory? If people thought Carroll
      > > > was as boring and as outside of the artistic realm as
      > > > you put forth, what would be the use of studying the
      > > > man's works some 150 years after they were written?
      > > > But if you must stoop to using these bizarre ways of
      > > > arguing, (and ironically because we are dealing with
      > > > the work of an imaginative logician), then I hope you
      > > > would at least ask yourself why. Is there some sort
      > > > of Saul complex driving this whole thing?
      > > >
      > > > "Humorously",
      > > >
      > > > Fernando
      > > > --- Keith <keith@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > John,
      > > > >
      > > > > you're reading too much into similarities which are
      > > > > just coincidences. Grandville was never mentioned in
      > > > > CLD's diaries.
      > > > >
      > > > > Stubbs could not draw a horse for toffee, if you
      > > > > want to see how a horse should be drawn, or anything
      > > > > else for that matter, look at Caldecott.
      > > > >
      > > > > It's a big step from looking at a style and copying
      > > > > it as you allege. CLD could not draw, his
      > > > > illustrations are what I would call 'basic.'
      > > > > Tenniel's illustrations are only special because
      > > > > they were the originals but I've seen better.
      > > > > However, style changes so perhaps Tenniel's
      > > > > illustrations were in tune with his times.
      > > > >
      > > > > You're up to Von Daniken again. There's no 'of
      > > > > course' about it. The question is really why you
      > > > > want to attach Grandville to 'Alice?' Another new
      > > > > theory with it's band of followers? Another web site
      > > > > pronouncing the 'new aspect' of CLD - jobs for the
      > > > > boys!
      > > > >
      > > > > Keith
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: johntufail
      > > > > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:09 PM
      > > > > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Grandville
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith"
      > > > > <keith@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > Hi Keith, I don't even accept your point re cats.
      > > > > Indeed there are
      > > > > whole books devoted to feline art in which it can
      > > > > be clearly seen
      > > > > that influences can be traced. For example, tyro
      > > > > that I am, i have
      > > > > no difficulty in watching the antique road show
      > > > > and identifying the
      > > > > influence of, say Stubbs, on later painters. That
      > > > > argument won't
      > > > > wash. but in the case of Carroll, Tenniel and
      > > > > Grandville it is not
      > > > > even as simple as that. It is the whole concept,
      > > > > such as
      > > > > Grandville's use of cards in a court seting, the
      > > > > way he slyly
      > > > > disguised which playing card was which , his use
      > > > > of the heart
      > > > > symbol. his chimera-like approach to the creation
      > > > > of particular
      > > > > illustrations (as in the mock turtle -which is
      > > > > virtually a direct
      > > > > copy of Grandville).
      > > > >
      > > > > And of course it is not just a question of an
      > > > > isolated illustration
      > > > > such as the frog footman, but of a whole series of
      > > > > illustrations.
      > > > > The question is, not so much as whther Grandville
      > > > > ifluenced the
      > > > > illustrations of the Alice books as to what extent
      > > > > gradville's
      > > > > illustrations influenced the text of the Alice
      > > > > books (if at all).
      > > > >
      > > > > In my mind there is no doubt that Grandville's
      > > > > works can be clearly
      > > > > seen in the Alice books. My question is really
      > > > > whether this
      > > > > influece lay greatest on Tenniel or Carroll.
      > > > >
      > > > > > John,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > the only thing that makes me less confident is
      > > > > that Wakeling
      > > > > agrees with me. I must admit that shakes my belief
      > > > > that you are
      > > > > wrong. Why on earth do you ned an opinion from
      > > > > someone - make up
      > > > > your own mind and to hell with the self appointed
      > > > > experts.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > However, even when illustrations look alike it
      > > > > is wrong to say one
      > > > > influenced the other. The techniques used can
      > > > > influence the final
      > > > > outcome and engravers also have an input. To say a
      > > > > cat in 'Alice'
      > > > > looks like a cat in one of Grandville's
      > > > > illustrations, just using a
      > > > > cat as an example, is simply stating the obvious.
      > > > > A cat is a cat and
      > > > > it should be no surprise that two illustrators
      > > > > come up with a
      > > > > similar product. And copying a style, as Beatrix
      > > > > Potter found out
      > > > > when she tried to copy the master illustrator,
      > > > > Randolph Caldecott,
      > > > > is no easy thing to do.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Keith
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > > From: johntufail
      > > > > > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:14 PM
      > > > > > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Grandville
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hi Keith,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I suggest you compare the Grandville
      > > > > illustrations that I and
      > > > > others
      > > > > > have mentioned with those used in the Alice
      > > > > books. i have never
      > > > > > used the word conclusive! I rely on you and
      > > > > others of similar
      > > > > > sceptical opinions you to ensure that I never
      > > > > will. I must admit
      > > > > > that your reaction was exactly that of Edward
      > > > > Wakeling when I
      > > > > > mentioned Grandville to him - so perhaps I am
      > > > > outnumbered.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Erm, Please e-mail me separately regarding
      > > > > Kate's computer.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > johntufail@
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Regards
      > > > > >
      > > > > > John Tufail
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith"
      > > > > <keith@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > John,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I never said that you stated that the two met
      > > > > but the
      > > > > implication
      > > > > > for someone who knows no better was that they
      > > > > did.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I've never found Tennyson to be guilty of
      > > > > being economocal
      > > > > with
      > > > > > the truth, if anything he was blunt and
      > > > > outspoken even before he
      > > > > was
      > > > > > famous after his year of success in 1850.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I always react to the Von Daniken methods 'it
      > > > > can clearly be
      > > > > > seen' 'everyone knows' etc etc. when it isn't
      > > > > clear and everyone
      > > > > > doesn't know.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Which evidence is conclusive? I cannot see it
      > > > > myself.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Keith
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > PS fix Kate's computer - it's not rocket
      > > > > science.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > > > From: johntufail
      > > > > > > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:27 AM
      > > > > > > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Grandville
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hi Keith!
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > CLD could not possibly have met with
      > > > > Grandville. I never said
      > > > > he
      > > > > > > did.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Tennyson, like TS Elliot and George Bush - and
      > > > > CLD was being
      > > > > > > economical with the truth when he said that!
      > > > > And
      > > > === message truncated ===
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > __________________________________________________________
      > > _______________
      > > > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from
      > someone
      > > who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
      > > > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > -----------
      > >
      > >
      > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release
      Date:
      > 09/09/2007 10:17
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release
      Date: 12/09/2007 10:56
      >
    • fernando soto
      Hi, It seems that so long as the personal attacks are either emerging from established members or a couched in indirect or paradoxical language, all is fine
      Message 32 of 32 , Sep 14, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        It seems that so long as the personal attacks are
        either emerging from established members or a couched
        in "indirect" or paradoxical language, all is fine for
        some lists. OK, let's see if someone new to this
        novel way of writing can learn to make his/her way
        through this type of looking-glass mode of
        communicating?

        ) If someone claims to be made of Teflon, then they
        can still complain about getting "flamed" and
        personally attacked though in a "clever," non-direct
        manner (the whole time implying that they are either
        OK with the said roasting or maybe even liked the
        supposed broiling).

        If someone, let say the someone who may have been the
        original bully and who may have started with the
        insults, both personal and general, gets a response
        about this mode of "arguing," then that original
        someone can later go on to claim that it is the second
        "personal attack" that is the reason for lack of
        active membership (i.e. the writing of messages) in
        the list. This is neither to be taken as nonsensical,
        ironic, resentful clap-trap or the attempted
        silencing of criticism.

        If someone writes paradoxical messages - in an
        attempt to "get back" at someone else - then this is a
        good manner of winning an argument. (More on this may
        be, or could possibly be, found below, or at least
        this latter part of the message would not or might not
        be as high in the message as the parts that came
        before it.)

        If another person, say we use the letter J to stand
        for his/her name, was continually associated with a
        discredited weirdo theorist or nutbar, this is neither
        to be considered as a flaming message nor an insult
        towards J.

        If anyone who does not agree with someone (say we use
        the letter T to mean this particular someone), then T
        can go on to state or imply that they are fools, blind
        followers, or mind-less idiots. These statements or
        implications are to be accepted without a thought by
        the supposed fools, blind followers and mindless
        idiots. And, by all means, these kind words and
        implications are never to be taken as personal attacks
        or flaming messages by anyone.

        (Now to the possible paradox!) According to someone,
        say T (a different T), another someone, say J (another
        J), would have won his/her argument after the first
        insult was blurted in his/her direction. So
        congratulations J, whoever that might be! On the other
        hand, even after J wins this argument, T could still
        theoretically claim that s/he was not convinced! And
        because someone, say F, delivered certain "flaming
        messages", "insults", or carried out "personal
        attacks", "etc.", then T also wins his/her argument!
        This is fine, until (and the possibility is unlikely)
        it could be found that J and T had taken opposite
        sides on the same argument. This would mean that due
        to the insults, personal attacks, etc, they had both
        won, and both must have prizes! At least someone may
        be discomfited here!

        All best,

        Someone or let's us say, for the sake of ending this
        post, F.


        --- Keith <keith@...> wrote:

        > John,
        >
        > in answer to your query - they don't post because
        > unlike me they are not made of Teflon so when they
        > get 'flamed' by someone as I did they don't like it!
        >
        > I would urge them though to think of a personal
        > attack as a sign that they have won the point and
        > that all the opposition can do in reply is refer to
        > them as 'flat earthers' etc.
        >
        > Keith
        >
        > PS On the main point - Grandville. You've not
        > convinced me and I'll say no more on the subject.
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: johntufail
        > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 1:17 PM
        > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Grandville
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi Keith,
        >
        > I don't believe in imposed censorship, but I do
        > believe in self
        > censorship. In order to believe in imposed
        > censorship, one would
        > have to believe totaly in the integrity, honesty
        > and impartiality of
        > the censors (not to mention the prescience of the
        > censors). Also, I
        > believe that censorship at this level, misses the
        > point. It's the
        > easy option. And we also know that many those who
        > most stridently,
        > promote censorship, are those who prefer that they
        > practice their
        > proclivities in private.
        >
        > I never suggested that you hadn't seen the
        > Grandville illustrations
        > in question. My query, I suppose, was, if you had
        > seen them, how do
        > you explain them. Certainly, they are not
        > similarites that I
        > have 'manufactured'. To me, quite frankly, it was
        > the application
        > of Occam's Razor. Why should I go through
        > interminably more
        > compicated reasons of why Carroll could not
        > possibly have been
        > influened by Grandville, when the simple
        > explanation was that he
        > was. The only remaning questions remain, to what
        > extent, and why,
        > at a particularly sensitive time in his career,
        > would he openly
        > allow such an association to be tied to his mast.
        > Don't forget
        > that, In the eyes of the established High Church
        > Anglical regime
        > then ruling, Grandville's work was apostophy. he
        > was not only
        > deemed a 'Republican', he was also an anti-Christ.
        > But so was Blake
        > during the period we are talking about (basically
        > 1850 to 1860) -
        > and at least we do know that Carroll was so
        > interested in Blake's
        > illustrations that he spent a comparative fortune
        > to get his own set
        > reproduced.
        >
        > These are questions Keith. Not answers.
        >
        > By the way, I'm told that there are several
        > hundred people out there
        > who subscribe to this list. It apears to be one of
        > the most
        > subribed to Lewis Carroll Lists. Some, I know fotr
        > a fact, are
        > more competent than I in some of the areas I
        > occasionally stray into.
        >
        > To me, The point is not arriving at the Truth
        > about Lewis Carroll.
        > There is no one truth that we can ever know. The
        > first thing is to
        > get rid of the mythical construct. Only then can
        > we feel
        > comfortable about revelling in to many, many
        > truths that the genious
        > of this remarkable man can reveal.
        >
        > Every reader of this e-mail, has something to
        > offer. So why is it
        > that so few contribute?
        >
        > The genious of Carrol is that he has inspired
        > people in so many
        > diffrent fields of human endeavour. I believe that
        > every member of
        > this list should at least post one e-mail saying
        > why they
        > subscribe. Even if it is done anonomously.
        >
        > regards
        >
        > John Tufail
        >
        > Regards
        >
        > John Tufail
        >
        > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith"
        > <keith@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > John,
        > >
        > > since even those people who knew CLD did not
        > understand what he
        > was about then I sense you are doomed to failure
        > in your quest.
        > After 100+ years the culture is so different now
        > compared to then
        > that people no longer have the basis for
        > understanding Victorian
        > times in detail. I found that when I tried to
        > teach Kate about the
        > English class system and the public schools.
        > >
        > > I don't believe in censorship for adults - it
        > always assumes that
        > some stuffed shirt pratt knows more about what I
        > should read than I
        > do. Censoring what a child reads is the
        > responsibility of its
        > parents but I doubt if any child would choose to
        > read 'Lolita' as it
        > is quite a boring read. Mind, they read Harry
        > Potter and that's
        > rubbish.
        > >
        > > I don't see, however, that your purpose is
        > served by inventing
        > links to an illustrator, especially when the
        > 'Alice' illustrations
        > are, in my opinion, not that good whereas some of
        > Grandville's stuff
        > is fairly well done.
        > >
        > > I've given up on the universities, too many
        > 'Mickey Mouse' degrees
        > about nowadays and plagiarism rampant - we see
        > that on here when
        > students write in wanting us to do their leg work
        > for them as well
        > as their thinking. Where have you found any
        > 'reputable scholars' -
        > contradiction of terms there? As to supervising
        > tutors - best say
        > nothing or I'd have the moderator after me.
        > >
        > > The more that people present barmy theories with
        > no real evidence
        > to back them up then the greater the damage done
        > to studies. Every
        > time a barmy book comes out, such as Jones and
        > Gladstone's 'Red
        > King's Dream' where two raw prawns dash about
        > discovering what
        > everyone knew already, then the more damage that
        > is done to serious
        > studies. As to the 'Jack the Ripper' one! Totally
        > off beam with no
        > research done whatsoever, or if it was it was
        > neglected when the
        > author found that CLD was in Eastbourne when some
        > of the murders
        > were committed so could not possibly have been in
        > London and decided
        > not to throw out a theory because of some
        > inconvenient facts.
        > >
        > > I have looked at Grandville's work, why do you
        > assume I have not?
        > I assess him as a better illustrator than Tenniel
        > but not as
        > humorous as Caldecott. However, that may be
        > because of his political
        > intent in quite a few of his works. He supported
        > the revolution in
        > 1830 and many of his works are along those lines.
        > Possibly Crane
        > would be a similar illustrator but perhaps I think
        > that because
        >
        === message truncated ===



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
        http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.