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

Re: Wasp

Expand Messages
  • doyle6060
    Message 1 of 29 , Feb 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      < To deal first with your (almost unbelievable) last sentence: The
      point of having it tested would be to find out whether it's genuine. >

      It's simple: I find no need to have it tested just like I find no
      need to have any random letter tested that was sold anonymously.
      There are no red flags here of any considerable size.

      < Really there's no more to be said. You think it's genuine and I
      tend to think probably not, and neither of us will know any more
      until and unless the piece can be identified and tested. (Or, to be
      more exact - I can see good reasons for doubting the piece's
      authenticity, on the limited evidence currently available, and would
      like to see further tests done to establish the truth one way or the
      other; you on the other hand know you're right and know there's no
      point in proving yourself right because, well, you already know
      you're right. >

      I see no reason why we can't have a discussion here about it and not
      use the "you're bullheaded" accusations. I, of course, could turn it
      around and put that on you. Let's have a conversation. There is
      plenty to talk about.

      < If only the Library of Congress had had you on hand to advise
      on 'The Oath of a Freeman'). >

      Again, you use the weak argument that just because there was another
      case of forgery this could therefore be a forgery. You could use
      this on anything, anytime. Analogies of this sort are meaningless.
      They only say everything should be tested.

      < 1) Provenance (the first thing a real forgery expert looks for and
      the thing which makes him/her most suspicious). The provenance isn't
      just anonymous, it's fallacious. The piece is claimed to have been
      sold with the rest of Dodgson's effects immediately following his
      death in 1898. No such item appears in the sale catalogue. >

      True. But as I said earlier this is not enough for me to have
      concern and it seems to be only a natural, honest mistake. Plus,
      it's a double-edged sword. Why would a forger make up a fact that
      could be proved wrong? Why not simply be mum on the issue? Would it
      raise the value? Yes, maybe so. But I don't think by enough to take
      this risk. This is, admittedly, the only genuine red flag I see
      here. But it isn't enough for me. No reason to have it tested just
      for this. As I said, families seem to get things like this wrong all
      the time. Jeffery Stern, as I point out in my article (p. 19b),
      mentions quite a few letters that point out that goods were sold at
      the time of the auction but that were not in the auction. Therefore,
      the piece of misinformation is explainable, and reasonably so.

      Also, I have collected many letters from Carroll and know that the
      auction catalog often gets details wrong, such as, who the letter was
      sent to. I see no reason why these little "family" errors should
      automatically send up a red flag on authenticity.

      < 2) The abysmal quality of the writing. I find it hard to believe
      that CLD, then at the height of his powers, could not only have
      written this garbage but considered it fit for publication. >

      It's a galley and by definition that means the writing may not be
      fine tuned. Carroll, like many writers of his day, used galleys to
      fine tune the writing, to make deletions, additions, and changes. We
      know Carroll was particularly interested in doing this. Also, it was
      deleted from the book so we must expect it to be doubly bad. You
      can't compare, as you seem to be doing, the fine-tuned and published
      Looking-Glass with the un-fined-tuned galleys of Wasp. Apples and
      oranges.

      By definition and the history that we do know, we must expect it to
      be bad. I think it fits the bill perfectly, by the way. I can't
      agree that it is "garbage" as you state. That seems to be a
      calculated word, said only to bolster your argument. If it were
      indeed garbage, it wouldn't have fooled anyone. No one I know thinks
      it that bad. If it were "abysmal" as you claim it would not have
      been sold at auction twice.

      I honestly can't believe that this is an honest assessment of its
      value. Is everyone stupid but you? It was sold at auction...
      twice! Let's be honest here, it is not garbage nor abysmal. It may
      be subpar or bad but it isn't all that bad. Carroll was able to
      write such a thing. You say "height of his powers". This seems to
      be added so I can't use the abysmal, garbage of Sylvie and Bruno.
      But I think I can. Sorry, but Carroll was capable of writing garbage.

      Perhaps you should point out some of these points about the writing.
      I know it is subjective, but what exactly are you talking about
      here?

      < (Besides the sheer quality, the style and the characterisation are
      all wrong, and it pastiches other parts of the Alice books in a way
      that real writers don't). >

      In my article, "The Authentic Wasp," I list all the similarities with
      other episodes that writers have commented on. I let the reader
      judge them for themselves. I point out that other similarities, even
      stronger ones, are presently in the book (p. 17a-b), yes, already in
      the book as it stands. So what is the big deal? Of the many
      complaints about Wasp on this account, only a few are strong enough
      for serious mention.

      I show that Carroll did pastiche himself as equally here in Wasp as
      in other non-Wasp episodes in Looking-Glass. I had so many such
      examples, I actually limited my list to only those that had to do
      with the Knight Chapter.

      And how, by the way, does this support forgery? A forger who copies
      something from another chapter and amends it would obviously change
      the similar words. One wouldn't leave vestiges of the original.
      Doesn't follow.

      < 3) The point Matt dwells on at such very great length, that the
      piece comes in exactly the place in the full text where the
      illustration plan says it should. Just one problem here - it doesn't.
      Count the words in the galleys, compare the word length with that of
      the published TTLG, and by the numbers on the galleys the 'Wasp'
      should come BEFORE the White Knight chapter, not after. (Selwyn
      Goodacre did the maths when the Wasp first emerged - see the Lewis
      Carroll Society's Wasp Symposium special.) >

      You are making several mistakes here.

      1) To be exact, Goodacre claims that it comes only 10 pages too
      early, not early enough to place it in the spot that other
      commentators thought it appeared. That is obviously not enough pages
      to place it where the commentators had it. So your point is lost on
      me. Goodacre would have had to claim it was many more pages than 10
      to allow you to make the point you are trying to make here.

      2) Galley pages are not uniform. I did my homework here. Some of
      the Carroll's galleys at NYU have different size galley sheets even
      for the same book. Look at the Wasp galleys themselves---page 67 is
      much shorter than the others!!! Remember too that Carroll took two
      or so years to write this book and the longer he takes the more
      variable things can be, especially with galleys; page numbers, paper
      sizes, and style, that is, page breaking, chapter breaks, margin
      sizes, all can change. Goodacre's numbers are a perfect world and
      galleys by definition are a scramble, used for editing, deletions and
      additions. The Wasp was deleted after all.

      In fact, Goodacre never used this as an argument against authenticity
      (and neither is Mike). Being 10 pages too early is not, especially
      for galleys and with the issues raised above, any cause for concern.

      3) You claim it doesn't come after the White Knight chapter, but ten
      pages earlier. But it isn't the page numbers on the galleys that
      show its placement. Gardner didn't use that to place the episode in
      the existing Looking-Glass. It is the text itself that places it
      after the Knight chapter.

      Near the end of the Knight chapter we have these words:

      "I hope it encouraged him," she said, as she turned to run down the
      hill: "and now for the last brook, and to be a Queen! How grand it
      sounds!" A very few steps brought her to the edge of the brook. "The
      Eighth Square at last!" she cried as she bounded acrossÂ…

      The Wasp galleys end with these words:

      "Good-bye, and thank-ye," said the Wasp, and Alice tripped down the
      hill again, quite pleased that she had gone back and given a few
      minutes to making the poor old creature comfortable.

      So the words "as she turned to run down the hill" in the White Knight
      chapter and the words "tripped down the hill again"---note
      the "again"---in the Wasp galleys places the episode AFTER the White
      Knight chapter. There may be other textual issues that place the
      piece after Knight.

      So the whole of your point 3 is miscalculated and does not, by the
      evidence and knowledge of what we know of galleys, effectively damage
      the point I so "dwell" on. My "time-line" argument---developed with
      Mark Israel but much expanded by me---shows that those who believe
      there is some conspiracy here have a lot to answer for. How did this
      forger know more than scholars? Why was he so brave to do things
      that would only draw attention to himself?

      This forger knew to place it after Knight and all commentators had it
      much earlier than the Knight chapter. One commentator even had it as
      a fact that it occurred much earlier. If there was a forger he would
      have done his homework and read many, many books. He would have
      known that Hudson made such a claim. Why did he go against him? What
      balls! He must have known something.

      Those who believe this thing should be tested need to give better,
      more studied and thoughtful reasons for doing so. I see nothing but
      a few minor issues that can be mostly said of anything. Before we
      begin to snip a corner off one of the pages of these galleys and
      before we begin to burn it up with some chemical, we need to do make
      a full and accurate argument for doing so. I claim it has not been
      made. We also need to understand the timeline of events and to
      properly and affectively respond to what it suggests with a good
      understanding of probabilities and coincidences.

      Subsequent finds by scholars support the wasp's authenticity. This
      is troublesome for those who suspect it. It must be explained away
      before we take that first snip.

      If you are interested in this issue, please seek out my article. It
      was not lightly researched.

      Matt
    • mikeindex2001
      Okay there are really several debates here. The literary content is one, the structure of the piece is another. But to be honest, it s fairly meaningless to
      Message 2 of 29 , Mar 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        Okay there are really several debates here. The literary content is one,  the structure of the piece is another. But to be honest,  it's fairly meaningless to engage in any of that until we know whether or not the piece has even the first semblance of being genuine. First thing is to test the paper, the ink, the type. If it passes these basic tests, then is the time to debate the finer details.  At this  point we don't even know how old the paper is it's printed on! It could be tested  and found to be forty years old which would render further debate futile.

        All our opinions aside, surely we have to concede that if  any artefact  arrives suddenly on the scene with a fake provenance  (not anonymous - fake; the claim for its origin is a lie) ,  it  should be examined with as much care as possible? 

        Bottom line - fakes happen. You seem to think saying it should be tested is synonymous  with saying "it's a fake. "  But of course it's not. It's saying we need to rule out the awful possibility that it isn't what it claims to be. It's slightly incredible hubris on your part to argue that you are so sure you're right there's  no need to even prove it!   I  urge you to reflect a moment.  The Hitler Diaries fooled experts.  The Oath of  a Freeman fooled experts.  The people who believed in them marshaled very similar complex logistical and textual arguments to the ones you are using.  They also just 'knew'  they  were right.  Forgers depend on that kind of  conviction in their victims.  Let's not fall into that trap. Let's eschew hubris and certitude.  Let's be cautious and wait to make our minds up until after the thing has been examined with as much rigour as possible. Maybe it will pass with flying colours, and we'll all have to concede Dodgson was possibly capable of crimes against  literature that defy belief, or just maybe it'll  turn out to have been printed circa  1970 on modern paper  with modern ink,  and you ( and a few others) will  end up wishing you'd been more circumspect in your endorsement.

         

         

         

         

         

        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "doyle6060" <DOYLE60@...> wrote:
        >
        > < To deal first with your (almost unbelievable) last sentence: The
        > point of having it tested would be to find out whether it's genuine. >
        >
        > It's simple: I find no need to have it tested just like I find no
        > need to have any random letter tested that was sold anonymously.
        > There are no red flags here of any considerable size.
        >
        > < Really there's no more to be said. You think it's genuine and I
        > tend to think probably not, and neither of us will know any more
        > until and unless the piece can be identified and tested. (Or, to be
        > more exact - I can see good reasons for doubting the piece's
        > authenticity, on the limited evidence currently available, and would
        > like to see further tests done to establish the truth one way or the
        > other; you on the other hand know you're right and know there's no
        > point in proving yourself right because, well, you already know
        > you're right. >
        >
        > I see no reason why we can't have a discussion here about it and not
        > use the "you're bullheaded" accusations. I, of course, could turn it
        > around and put that on you. Let's have a conversation. There is
        > plenty to talk about.
        >
        > < If only the Library of Congress had had you on hand to advise
        > on 'The Oath of a Freeman'). >
        >
        > Again, you use the weak argument that just because there was another
        > case of forgery this could therefore be a forgery. You could use
        > this on anything, anytime. Analogies of this sort are meaningless.
        > They only say everything should be tested.
        >
        > < 1) Provenance (the first thing a real forgery expert looks for and
        > the thing which makes him/her most suspicious). The provenance isn't
        > just anonymous, it's fallacious. The piece is claimed to have been
        > sold with the rest of Dodgson's effects immediately following his
        > death in 1898. No such item appears in the sale catalogue. >
        >
        > True. But as I said earlier this is not enough for me to have
        > concern and it seems to be only a natural, honest mistake. Plus,
        > it's a double-edged sword. Why would a forger make up a fact that
        > could be proved wrong? Why not simply be mum on the issue? Would it
        > raise the value? Yes, maybe so. But I don't think by enough to take
        > this risk. This is, admittedly, the only genuine red flag I see
        > here. But it isn't enough for me. No reason to have it tested just
        > for this. As I said, families seem to get things like this wrong all
        > the time. Jeffery Stern, as I point out in my article (p. 19b),
        > mentions quite a few letters that point out that goods were sold at
        > the time of the auction but that were not in the auction. Therefore,
        > the piece of misinformation is explainable, and reasonably so.
        >
        > Also, I have collected many letters from Carroll and know that the
        > auction catalog often gets details wrong, such as, who the letter was
        > sent to. I see no reason why these little "family" errors should
        > automatically send up a red flag on authenticity.
        >
        > < 2) The abysmal quality of the writing. I find it hard to believe
        > that CLD, then at the height of his powers, could not only have
        > written this garbage but considered it fit for publication. >
        >
        > It's a galley and by definition that means the writing may not be
        > fine tuned. Carroll, like many writers of his day, used galleys to
        > fine tune the writing, to make deletions, additions, and changes. We
        > know Carroll was particularly interested in doing this. Also, it was
        > deleted from the book so we must expect it to be doubly bad. You
        > can't compare, as you seem to be doing, the fine-tuned and published
        > Looking-Glass with the un-fined-tuned galleys of Wasp. Apples and
        > oranges.
        >
        > By definition and the history that we do know, we must expect it to
        > be bad. I think it fits the bill perfectly, by the way. I can't
        > agree that it is "garbage" as you state. That seems to be a
        > calculated word, said only to bolster your argument. If it were
        > indeed garbage, it wouldn't have fooled anyone. No one I know thinks
        > it that bad. If it were "abysmal" as you claim it would not have
        > been sold at auction twice.
        >
        > I honestly can't believe that this is an honest assessment of its
        > value. Is everyone stupid but you? It was sold at auction...
        > twice! Let's be honest here, it is not garbage nor abysmal. It may
        > be subpar or bad but it isn't all that bad. Carroll was able to
        > write such a thing. You say "height of his powers". This seems to
        > be added so I can't use the abysmal, garbage of Sylvie and Bruno.
        > But I think I can. Sorry, but Carroll was capable of writing garbage.
        >
        > Perhaps you should point out some of these points about the writing.
        > I know it is subjective, but what exactly are you talking about
        > here?
        >
        > < (Besides the sheer quality, the style and the characterisation are
        > all wrong, and it pastiches other parts of the Alice books in a way
        > that real writers don't). >
        >
        > In my article, "The Authentic Wasp," I list all the similarities with
        > other episodes that writers have commented on. I let the reader
        > judge them for themselves. I point out that other similarities, even
        > stronger ones, are presently in the book (p. 17a-b), yes, already in
        > the book as it stands. So what is the big deal? Of the many
        > complaints about Wasp on this account, only a few are strong enough
        > for serious mention.
        >
        > I show that Carroll did pastiche himself as equally here in Wasp as
        > in other non-Wasp episodes in Looking-Glass. I had so many such
        > examples, I actually limited my list to only those that had to do
        > with the Knight Chapter.
        >
        > And how, by the way, does this support forgery? A forger who copies
        > something from another chapter and amends it would obviously change
        > the similar words. One wouldn't leave vestiges of the original.
        > Doesn't follow.
        >
        > < 3) The point Matt dwells on at such very great length, that the
        > piece comes in exactly the place in the full text where the
        > illustration plan says it should. Just one problem here - it doesn't.
        > Count the words in the galleys, compare the word length with that of
        > the published TTLG, and by the numbers on the galleys the 'Wasp'
        > should come BEFORE the White Knight chapter, not after. (Selwyn
        > Goodacre did the maths when the Wasp first emerged - see the Lewis
        > Carroll Society's Wasp Symposium special.) >
        >
        > You are making several mistakes here.
        >
        > 1) To be exact, Goodacre claims that it comes only 10 pages too
        > early, not early enough to place it in the spot that other
        > commentators thought it appeared. That is obviously not enough pages
        > to place it where the commentators had it. So your point is lost on
        > me. Goodacre would have had to claim it was many more pages than 10
        > to allow you to make the point you are trying to make here.
        >
        > 2) Galley pages are not uniform. I did my homework here. Some of
        > the Carroll's galleys at NYU have different size galley sheets even
        > for the same book. Look at the Wasp galleys themselves---page 67 is
        > much shorter than the others!!! Remember too that Carroll took two
        > or so years to write this book and the longer he takes the more
        > variable things can be, especially with galleys; page numbers, paper
        > sizes, and style, that is, page breaking, chapter breaks, margin
        > sizes, all can change. Goodacre's numbers are a perfect world and
        > galleys by definition are a scramble, used for editing, deletions and
        > additions. The Wasp was deleted after all.
        >
        > In fact, Goodacre never used this as an argument against authenticity
        > (and neither is Mike). Being 10 pages too early is not, especially
        > for galleys and with the issues raised above, any cause for concern.
        >
        > 3) You claim it doesn't come after the White Knight chapter, but ten
        > pages earlier. But it isn't the page numbers on the galleys that
        > show its placement. Gardner didn't use that to place the episode in
        > the existing Looking-Glass. It is the text itself that places it
        > after the Knight chapter.
        >
        > Near the end of the Knight chapter we have these words:
        >
        > "I hope it encouraged him," she said, as she turned to run down the
        > hill: "and now for the last brook, and to be a Queen! How grand it
        > sounds!" A very few steps brought her to the edge of the brook. "The
        > Eighth Square at last!" she cried as she bounded acrossÂ…
        >
        > The Wasp galleys end with these words:
        >
        > "Good-bye, and thank-ye," said the Wasp, and Alice tripped down the
        > hill again, quite pleased that she had gone back and given a few
        > minutes to making the poor old creature comfortable.
        >
        > So the words "as she turned to run down the hill" in the White Knight
        > chapter and the words "tripped down the hill again"---note
        > the "again"---in the Wasp galleys places the episode AFTER the White
        > Knight chapter. There may be other textual issues that place the
        > piece after Knight.
        >
        > So the whole of your point 3 is miscalculated and does not, by the
        > evidence and knowledge of what we know of galleys, effectively damage
        > the point I so "dwell" on. My "time-line" argument---developed with
        > Mark Israel but much expanded by me---shows that those who believe
        > there is some conspiracy here have a lot to answer for. How did this
        > forger know more than scholars? Why was he so brave to do things
        > that would only draw attention to himself?
        >
        > This forger knew to place it after Knight and all commentators had it
        > much earlier than the Knight chapter. One commentator even had it as
        > a fact that it occurred much earlier. If there was a forger he would
        > have done his homework and read many, many books. He would have
        > known that Hudson made such a claim. Why did he go against him? What
        > balls! He must have known something.
        >
        > Those who believe this thing should be tested need to give better,
        > more studied and thoughtful reasons for doing so. I see nothing but
        > a few minor issues that can be mostly said of anything. Before we
        > begin to snip a corner off one of the pages of these galleys and
        > before we begin to burn it up with some chemical, we need to do make
        > a full and accurate argument for doing so. I claim it has not been
        > made. We also need to understand the timeline of events and to
        > properly and affectively respond to what it suggests with a good
        > understanding of probabilities and coincidences.
        >
        > Subsequent finds by scholars support the wasp's authenticity. This
        > is troublesome for those who suspect it. It must be explained away
        > before we take that first snip.
        >
        > If you are interested in this issue, please seek out my article. It
        > was not lightly researched.
        >
        > Matt
        >

      • Michael Everson
        ... I ve been a reader for 40 years, and I have some literary taste, and I do not believe that your characterization of this charming and Carrollian episode is
        Message 3 of 29 , Mar 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          At 14:01 +0000 2008-03-01, mikeindex2001 wrote:

          >Maybe it will pass with flying colours, and we'll all have to
          >concede Dodgson was possibly capable of crimes against literature
          >that defy belief,

          I've been a reader for 40 years, and I have some literary taste, and
          I do not believe that your characterization of this charming and
          Carrollian episode is particularly bad. "Crime against literature"
          is, I think, fairly annoying hyperbole.

          >or just maybe it'll turn out to have been printed circa 1970 on
          >modern paper with modern ink, and you ( and a few others) will
          >end up wishing you'd been more circumspect in your endorsement.

          For my part in this I tend to agree with Matt. (I'd like to read his
          article; where is it available?) I don't see enough cause to doubt
          the authenticity. The doubts you raise seem minor and as Matt says
          could be applied to many documents and artefacts. I've read Gardner's
          introduction and essay in the 1977 edition of the episode. Those also
          do not cast doubt on the authenticity of the work.
          --
          Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
        • Michael Everson
          ... What an odd assumption to make. ... I find it a charming episode. I think the character of the Wasp has a real personality. -- Michael Everson *
          Message 4 of 29 , Mar 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            At 16:35 +0000 2008-02-29, mikeindex2001 wrote:

            >The more convinced you are that it's genuine the more anxious you
            >should be to have the tests done in order to prove yourself right.

            What an odd assumption to make.

            >2) The abysmal quality of the writing. I find it hard to believe
            >that CLD, then at the height of his powers, could not only have
            >written this garbage but considered it fit for publication.

            I find it a charming episode. I think the character of the Wasp has a
            real personality.


            --
            Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
          • mikeindex2001
            ... For me it s always seemed fundamental to the scientific method that any hypothesis should be tested in so far as this is possible. It also seems pure
            Message 5 of 29 , Mar 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > >The more convinced you are that it's genuine the more anxious you
              > >should be to have the tests done in order to prove yourself right.
              >
              > What an odd assumption to make.

              For me it's always seemed fundamental to the scientific method that any
              hypothesis should be tested in so far as this is possible. It also
              seems pure common sense that if one is confident of the accuracy of
              one's hypothesis one should be quite willing to see it tested, and 'my
              hypothesis is too right to need testing' to me bespeaks outrageous
              arrogance and/or underlying insecurity.

              I'm well aware that many others, Matt Demakos and Martin Gardner to
              name but two, share your opposing view.

              > >2) The abysmal quality of the writing. I find it hard to believe
              > >that CLD, then at the height of his powers, could not only have
              > >written this garbage but considered it fit for publication.
              >
              > I find it a charming episode. I think the character of the Wasp has a
              > real personality.
              >
              I guess literary tastes differ just as approaches to research do.

              However, since I have been asked for a more detailed commentary on the
              literary qualities of the piece and don't have time to write anything
              new just now, here's an extract from a posting of mine back in 2002
              (specifically about the Wasp's verses):

              [Replying to: 'Actually I'd like to ask John Tufail and Mike or anyone
              who has studied his verse what they think about this. Does even CLD's
              worst poetry fit with the terrible stuff in the Wasp? Is it as bad? Or
              is it bad in the same way?]

              I'd say, no, it is most definitely not as bad - but that's just a
              subjective view. I think your second question penetrates to the real
              heart of the matter - is it bad in the same way?

              Take 'Beatrice'. A lot of you will already know that I find many of
              CLD's serious poems full of interest and artistic value. 'Beatrice' is
              not among them. It is, frankly, pretty dire. But what makes it so are
              its saccharine sentiments and the at times overblown language in which
              they're expressed. These are glaring and indeed fatal flaws. But they
              don't affect the rhythmic or syntactical structure, both of which
              remain strong and elegant throughout. The vocabulary is never prosaic -
              if anything it's too poetic for its own good. It's never trite (I'm
              talking strictly about the means of expression, not the content, at
              this point). And trite is pretty well all that the Wasp's poem is.

              'Beatrice' is a bad poem, but - I hope I've made the distinction clear -
              it's not bad poetry. The Wasp's verses are barely poetry at all.
              They jingle along in the most pedestrian of rhymed prose like the worst
              of Wilhelm Muller (undeservedly immortalised by Schubert). The
              rhymes and stresses turn up in more or less the right places but
              there's no rhythmic momentum - something CLD's verse almost always
              possesses whatever its defects.

              A couple of specific points have occurred to me as I've been writing
              this. One of the things which make the Wasp's verses such desperately
              dull reading is the monotony of every line having the same rhythmic
              pattern. The only other instance of this in a CLD poem of comparable
              verse structure is 'The Sailor's Wife', comfortably the worst
              (with 'Beatrice') of his serious poems, and one written many years
              earlier in what might be termed his apprenticeship. (The published
              version is dated 1857, but is apparently a recasting of a much earlier
              original.) In the intervening years CLD had produced such rhythmically
              interesting pieces as 'Stolen Waters', 'Only a Woman's Hair' and 'After
              Three Days'. It's possible, of course, but doesn't seem very likely,
              that he would at the height of his creativity return to an unsuccessful
              and discarded method.

              Also in the Wasp's piece both the sense and the syntax ramble on from
              one line to the next in a thoroughly undisciplined way. This is of
              interest because CLD's poetry has been rightly criticised for precisely
              the opposite fault, straitjacketing his poetic expression by an over-
              insistence on the end-stopped line. (See Lennon - one of the few
              sensible things she says about the serious poems. 'The Path of Roses'
              provides a string of particularly good examples.)

              So the Wasp doesn't just miss out on the good points of CLD's best
              poetry, it has quite different, and in some ways almost precisely the
              opposite, faults to those of his mediocre poetry - a much less likely
              result of an off-day.

              Mike
            • doyle6060
              Nobody is going to test something without reason. You need good reason. You don t supply any. You just don t take someone to court for no reason. You just
              Message 6 of 29 , Mar 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Nobody is going to test something without reason. You need good
                reason. You don't supply any. You just don't take someone to court
                for no reason. You just don't arrest some random person on the
                street and try him for murder. You have cause, grand juries, etc.
                You are jumping the gun here.

                You are also avoiding evidence. You need to address the time-line
                argument. You need to admit your forger knew something scholars
                didn't. And that something he knew, why didn't he sell that? I
                responded to your point 3 in your last post with facts and showed
                your argument to be faulty on several grounds. Well, you thought my
                point good enough to respond to then, what about now? You can't
                ignore it. You are doing what all conspiracy theorists do, avoiding
                the evidence and "dwelling" on a minor ooh, ooh facts.

                You bring out the old your a bullheaded individual and won't change
                your mind. No, I am here for a discussion.

                You pull out the old argument that other fakes were found therefore
                this may be a fake. Again, that means what, exactly? "Your honor,
                people have stolen therefore this person may have stolen." "Okay,
                let's try him."

                No one has brought forth good cause for concern.

                The way I see it is this: There are three ways to test Wasp:

                1) The Scholar's approach.
                2) The Detective's approach.
                3) The Scientist's approach.

                It is a matter of ethics almost that you do the other two before you
                so easily jump to number 3, which does require not only money but
                damaging the document. (I have no idea how much damage, to tell you
                the truth, but even if minor, I still believe we should do all else
                before this step otherwise we have cause to test everything.)

                The detective's approach would be to ask the auction house if they
                would be willing to notify the first seller for you and have some
                questions answered or if he would be willing to come out of the
                woodwork. Or to, let's say, try and figure out who he was through
                some other means. I never attempted this.

                I believe my paper shows that jumping to number 3 is a waste of
                time. No, I didn't prove it so and no, don't listen to Mike's
                obnoxious claims of my "knowing" it genuine. I can only claim that I
                find it foolish to do number 3 at this time. There is nothing
                suspect enough about this piece to take the damaging and costly step
                of number 3.

                You only have two real contentions here: the provenance and the
                quality. It is quite difficult for you and me to handle that last.
                First, you must expect it by definition to be inferior for the most
                part to anything still in Looking-Glass, and understand that it is a
                galley and even though it may have some Carroll corrections on it, it
                may be less fine tuned than the printed book. Second, I can only
                really respond to specific points, not general, about its quality. I
                collected such published points and handled them in my article as
                best I could.

                Just for a bit of fun, for anybody who has not read my article, how
                would you defend these two accusations.

                1) The Wasp galleys use the word "gray," the American spelling and
                not "grey," the British spelling.
                2) Carroll would never have followed one old character (the White
                Knight) with another old character (the Wasp).

                Mike, you mention that I use textual arguments to prove the
                authenticity. I never did anything on these grounds, actually. I
                was planning on testing the writing on certain textual matters the
                way Don Foster did in his book. But I thought it was going a bit too
                far. In fact, some of my Carroll friends thought I covered too many
                of the silly little points, like the two above, and thought that I
                wasted my time with the paper as a whole because no serious scholars
                today have any doubts.

                My paper does not just discuss authenticity. My favorite part is the
                third section where I discuss how Looking-Glass once couched it.
                Come on, the thing is half as long as all previous chapters. What to
                make of that?

                Personally, the reason why I believe it authentic is not only the
                time-line issue but also the bold decisions this supposed forger
                made. He did too many things that would just draw attention to
                itself. Why use the word "gray' at all, even if it can be defended?
                Why have an old character next to another, even if it can be
                defended? Why have it so short? Why risk composing when he could
                simply do 30 sheets of some known text (the Knight Chapter itself)
                and probably get nearly the same money? Why use Carroll's hand
                printed S when a cursive S would be expected? Why place it after the
                Knight chapter when others had it earlier and one even stating it as
                fact?

                The Harvard contents page shows that short chapters are possible.
                The Christ Church document shows it is after the Knight chapter. He
                could not have made these decisions unless he had both of these docs,
                not just one. He could have had a third, but what was that?
                Continue to ignore this and who is going to listen to you?

                Subsequent finds support authenticity. How many other such finds
                will it take to begin to see the questionable provenance as nothing
                but a little error?

                You are jumping the gun with your scientific method. One starts with
                a genuine hypothesis, not a ungrounded one. For example, I have a
                letter from some one who encloses a letter that Carroll sent to a
                relative of his. He tells me the recipient was Joe when in fact it
                was Sam. He was wrong. Should I now snip the letter and test it?
                Of course not. Other facts are clear to me. The man was just wrong,
                for whatever reasons. I can't ignore those other facts. You are
                ignoring them.

                Mike wrote < For me it's always seemed fundamental to the scientific
                method that any
                hypothesis should be tested in so far as this is possible. >

                I don't think "any hypothesis should be tested." Monkeys flew out of
                Newton's ass is one that doesn't need testing. Only sound hypothesis
                need testing, ones made without the ignorance of facts.

                < It also seems pure common sense that if one is confident of the
                accuracy of
                one's hypothesis one should be quite willing to see it tested, and 'my
                hypothesis is too right to need testing' to me bespeaks outrageous
                arrogance and/or underlying insecurity. >

                The old I'm a bullhead argument. Wonderful. Let's turn it around,
                shall we? I'd rather not. I didn't write a paper to show how
                needless it would be to test a document to have it proven by actually
                testing the document. Anyway, I'm not scared or insecure in the
                least. This is a laugh. I bet fewer people here find that I
                have "outrageous arrogance" than you have outrageous ignorance. For
                you must ignore a lot to argue that this thing needs scientific
                testing. I'm not opposed to any safe scientific testing though I do
                feel it a waste of time. At this time, I certainly am opposed to any
                testing that would damage the goods.

                I'm just arguing concepts and ideas. My personality does not have to
                come into play. You brought it into play, what, three times now?

                (Excuse me for the repetition but I do not have time to fine tune
                this post and cut it down. I'll do so when I get the galleys.)

                Matt
              • doyle6060
                Thanks Michael. You can read my paper by ordering Knight Letter, Winter 2003, from our secretary: imholtz99@atlantech.net. Tell her that she can bill me. I
                Message 7 of 29 , Mar 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks Michael. You can read my paper by ordering Knight Letter,
                  Winter 2003, from our secretary: imholtz99@....

                  Tell her that she can bill me. I hope you decide to join our society,
                  too.

                  I have a new article in the latest issue.

                  Matt Demakos
                • Michael Everson
                  ... Thank you. I look forward to reading it. ... This is most kind. ... I just have. -- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
                  Message 8 of 29 , Mar 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 18:09 +0000 2008-03-02, doyle6060 wrote:
                    >Thanks Michael. You can read my paper by ordering Knight Letter,
                    >Winter 2003, from our secretary:
                    ><mailto:imholtz99%40atlantech.net>imholtz99@....

                    Thank you. I look forward to reading it.

                    >Tell her that she can bill me.

                    This is most kind.

                    >I hope you decide to join our society, too.

                    I just have.
                    --
                    Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
                  • fernando soto
                    Hi All, Mike, How exactly is Carroll s use of the word grey, as opposed to gray being used as evidence here? Please have a look at Carroll s actual use,
                    Message 9 of 29 , Mar 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi All,

                      Mike,

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

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

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

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

                      All best,

                      Fernando


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

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


                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                      Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                      Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                    • tufail45
                      Hi all, First let me make it clear that this mail is not specifically a response to Fernando s last mail. I ve been following this debate, as best I can, and
                      Message 10 of 29 , Mar 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi all,

                        First let me make it clear that this mail is not specifically a
                        response to Fernando's last mail. I've been following this debate,
                        as best I can, and confess to being unhappy with 'both side's'
                        arguments. Most unCarrollian!. It appears that there are entrenched
                        views and all are prepared to strike their standards in the earth to
                        defend their turf. Off with their Heads!

                        It has been mentioned in the past that I have declined to comment on
                        the Wasp In the Wig Debate. This is true. There are many reasons
                        for this.

                        1. Most important, it is a comparatively slight episode that could,
                        if true, add little to an understabding of Lewis Caroll or, indeed
                        interpretations of Looking Glass'.

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

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

                        We have no such guidance here from Carroll, so, even if the episode
                        is genuine it is unlikely that he himself would have much regard for
                        it.

                        In terms of Carroll scholarship it can add little. I doubt Carroll
                        would much like the idea of people scrabbling over the bones of this
                        in order to establish their pace in the pack heirarchy. Much less, I
                        doubt, would he wish any commercial benefit be drived from something
                        that he has rejected as worthless (if indeed he wrote it).

                        The whole debate is unseemly. Let it lie it detracts from many more
                        pertinent issues.
                        JT


                        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi All,
                        >
                        > Mike,
                        >
                        > How exactly is Carroll's use of the word "grey," as
                        > opposed to "gray" being used as evidence here? Please
                        > have a look at Carroll's actual use, not what you
                        > think Carroll used. This is easily done by opening up
                        > the two concordances devoted to the 'Alices' and his
                        > poetry. In the 'Alices' there is only one instance of
                        > "grey," in 'You Are Old F. W. and one use of "gray,"
                        > though this can't be used here because it is the one
                        > in 'The Wasp.' In the concordance to his poetry,
                        > however, this is by far not the case. On p. 101 we
                        > have 11 instances of "gray" and one of "grays". On p.
                        > 102 we have only 2 instances of "grey", and one of
                        > them from 'You Are Old F. W.! I'd say that based on
                        > actual evidence this part of your argument is false
                        >
                        > The above points to another mistake in your argument.
                        > Carroll used both words interchangeably because there
                        > is a long history of this in Britain. The OED does
                        > not seem to mention the British vs American
                        > distinction you make. It does make the interesting
                        > case that the two words are to stand for slightly
                        > different shades of "gray/grey". "Grey" is supposed
                        > to be lighter. To give one example from history,
                        > Shakespeare used the two spellings interchangeably.
                        > So if you are to say that "gray" is the American
                        > spelling and "grey" the British, please provide some
                        > evidence, evidence strong enough to deal with the
                        > above objections to your claims.
                        >
                        > I don't even want to get into the overextended claims
                        > about the "rubbish"literary nature of 'Wasp.' Most
                        > times we are unsure about what Carroll was up to, so I
                        > think we ought to give him the benefit of doubt when
                        > we think that something he wrote is substandard,
                        > particularly at an early stage of the process.
                        >
                        > Matt,
                        > From my own ongoing experience I've found that
                        > carrying out an actual debate here is very difficult.
                        > Whenever I put forth evidence that does not agree with
                        > some of the list members' opinions, it is for the most
                        > part almost always ignored or twisted into something
                        > else and ridiculed in it's new habiliment. Meanwhile
                        > the ad hominems emerge with a vengeance!
                        >
                        > All best,
                        >
                        > Fernando
                        >
                        >
                        > --- doyle6060 <DOYLE60@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Nobody is going to test something without reason.
                        > > You need good
                        > > reason. You don't supply any. You just don't take
                        > > someone to court
                        > > for no reason. You just don't arrest some random
                        > > person on the
                        > > street and try him for murder. You have cause,
                        > > grand juries, etc.
                        > > You are jumping the gun here.
                        > >
                        > > You are also avoiding evidence. You need to address
                        > > the time-line
                        > > argument. You need to admit your forger knew
                        > > something scholars
                        > > didn't. And that something he knew, why didn't he
                        > > sell that? I
                        > > responded to your point 3 in your last post with
                        > > facts and showed
                        > > your argument to be faulty on several grounds.
                        > > Well, you thought my
                        > > point good enough to respond to then, what about
                        > > now? You can't
                        > > ignore it. You are doing what all conspiracy
                        > > theorists do, avoiding
                        > > the evidence and "dwelling" on a minor ooh, ooh
                        > > facts.
                        > >
                        > > You bring out the old your a bullheaded individual
                        > > and won't change
                        > > your mind. No, I am here for a discussion.
                        > >
                        > > You pull out the old argument that other fakes were
                        > > found therefore
                        > > this may be a fake. Again, that means what,
                        > > exactly? "Your honor,
                        > > people have stolen therefore this person may have
                        > > stolen." "Okay,
                        > > let's try him."
                        > >
                        > > No one has brought forth good cause for concern.
                        > >
                        > > The way I see it is this: There are three ways to
                        > > test Wasp:
                        > >
                        > > 1) The Scholar's approach.
                        > > 2) The Detective's approach.
                        > > 3) The Scientist's approach.
                        > >
                        > > It is a matter of ethics almost that you do the
                        > > other two before you
                        > > so easily jump to number 3, which does require not
                        > > only money but
                        > > damaging the document. (I have no idea how much
                        > > damage, to tell you
                        > > the truth, but even if minor, I still believe we
                        > > should do all else
                        > > before this step otherwise we have cause to test
                        > > everything.)
                        > >
                        > > The detective's approach would be to ask the auction
                        > > house if they
                        > > would be willing to notify the first seller for you
                        > > and have some
                        > > questions answered or if he would be willing to come
                        > > out of the
                        > > woodwork. Or to, let's say, try and figure out who
                        > > he was through
                        > > some other means. I never attempted this.
                        > >
                        > > I believe my paper shows that jumping to number 3 is
                        > > a waste of
                        > > time. No, I didn't prove it so and no, don't listen
                        > > to Mike's
                        > > obnoxious claims of my "knowing" it genuine. I can
                        > > only claim that I
                        > > find it foolish to do number 3 at this time. There
                        > > is nothing
                        > > suspect enough about this piece to take the damaging
                        > > and costly step
                        > > of number 3.
                        > >
                        > > You only have two real contentions here: the
                        > > provenance and the
                        > > quality. It is quite difficult for you and me to
                        > > handle that last.
                        > > First, you must expect it by definition to be
                        > > inferior for the most
                        > > part to anything still in Looking-Glass, and
                        > > understand that it is a
                        > > galley and even though it may have some Carroll
                        > > corrections on it, it
                        > > may be less fine tuned than the printed book.
                        > > Second, I can only
                        > > really respond to specific points, not general,
                        > > about its quality. I
                        > > collected such published points and handled them in
                        > > my article as
                        > > best I could.
                        > >
                        > > Just for a bit of fun, for anybody who has not read
                        > > my article, how
                        > > would you defend these two accusations.
                        > >
                        > > 1) The Wasp galleys use the word "gray," the
                        > > American spelling and
                        > > not "grey," the British spelling.
                        > > 2) Carroll would never have followed one old
                        > > character (the White
                        > > Knight) with another old character (the Wasp).
                        > >
                        > > Mike, you mention that I use textual arguments to
                        > > prove the
                        > > authenticity. I never did anything on these
                        > > grounds, actually. I
                        > > was planning on testing the writing on certain
                        > > textual matters the
                        > > way Don Foster did in his book. But I thought it
                        > > was going a bit too
                        > > far. In fact, some of my Carroll friends thought I
                        > > covered too many
                        > > of the silly little points, like the two above, and
                        > > thought that I
                        > > wasted my time with the paper as a whole because no
                        > > serious scholars
                        > > today have any doubts.
                        > >
                        > > My paper does not just discuss authenticity. My
                        > > favorite part is the
                        > > third section where I discuss how Looking-Glass once
                        > > couched it.
                        > > Come on, the thing is half as long as all previous
                        > > chapters. What to
                        > > make of that?
                        > >
                        > > Personally, the reason why I believe it authentic is
                        > > not only the
                        > > time-line issue but also the bold decisions this
                        > > supposed forger
                        > > made. He did too many things that would just draw
                        > > attention to
                        > > itself. Why use the word "gray' at all, even if it
                        > > can be defended?
                        > > Why have an old character next to another, even if
                        > > it can be
                        > > defended? Why have it so short? Why risk composing
                        > > when he could
                        > > simply do 30 sheets of some known text (the Knight
                        > > Chapter itself)
                        > > and probably get nearly the same money? Why use
                        > > Carroll's hand
                        > > printed S when a cursive S would be expected? Why
                        > > place it after the
                        > > Knight chapter when others had it earlier and one
                        > > even stating it as
                        > > fact?
                        > >
                        > > The Harvard contents page shows that short chapters
                        > > are possible.
                        > > The Christ Church document shows it is after the
                        > > Knight chapter. He
                        > > could not have made these decisions unless he had
                        > > both of these docs,
                        > > not just one. He could have had a third, but what
                        > > was that?
                        > > Continue to ignore this and who is going to listen
                        > > to you?
                        > >
                        > > Subsequent finds support authenticity. How many
                        > > other such finds
                        > > will it take to begin to see the questionable
                        > > provenance as nothing
                        > > but a little error?
                        > >
                        > > You are jumping the gun with your scientific method.
                        > > One starts with
                        > > a genuine hypothesis, not a ungrounded one. For
                        > > example, I have a
                        > > letter from some one who encloses a letter that
                        > > Carroll sent to a
                        > > relative of his. He tells me the recipient was Joe
                        > > when in fact it
                        > > was Sam. He was wrong. Should I now snip the
                        > > letter and test it?
                        > > Of course not. Other facts are clear to me. The
                        > > man was just wrong,
                        > > for whatever reasons. I can't ignore those other
                        > > facts. You are
                        > > ignoring them.
                        > >
                        > > Mike wrote < For me it's always seemed fundamental
                        > > to the scientific
                        > > method that any
                        > > hypothesis should be tested in so far as this is
                        > > possible. >
                        > >
                        > > I don't think "any hypothesis should be tested."
                        > > Monkeys flew out of
                        > > Newton's ass is one that doesn't need testing. Only
                        > > sound hypothesis
                        > > need testing, ones made without the ignorance of
                        > > facts.
                        > >
                        > === message truncated ===
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        ______________________________________________________________________
                        ______________
                        > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                        > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                        http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                        >
                      • Hoyeru Zaharia
                        Oh, whatta nest of wasps have I stirred! Ducks and hides* sorry but it HAD to be said. If Jewish holocausts memoirs can be faked(I have recently Annie
                        Message 11 of 29 , Mar 2, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Oh, whatta nest of wasps have I stirred!

                          "Ducks and hides*
                          sorry but it HAD to be said.

                          If Jewish holocausts "memoirs" can be faked(I have recently Annie Frank's diaries could not have been written during WWWII because when checked it was written with a ball point pen)  I guess Carroll's can be easily faked to.


                          Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                        • Michael Everson
                          ... Urban myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank#Denials_and_legal_action With Otto Frank s death in 1980, the original diary, including letters and
                          Message 12 of 29 , Mar 3, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 22:07 -0800 2008-03-02, Hoyeru Zaharia wrote:

                            >If Jewish holocausts "memoirs" can be faked(I have recently Annie
                            >Frank's diaries could not have been written during WWWII because
                            >when checked it was written with a ball point pen)

                            Urban myth.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank#Denials_and_legal_action

                            With Otto Frank's death in 1980, the original diary, including
                            letters and loose sheets, were willed to the Netherlands Institute
                            for War Documentation,[65] who commissioned a forensic study of the
                            diary through the Netherlands Ministry of Justice in 1986. They
                            examined the handwriting against known examples and found that they
                            matched, and determined that the paper, glue and ink were readily
                            available during the time the diary was said to have been written.
                            Their final determination was that the diary is authentic, and their
                            findings were published in what has become known as the "Critical
                            Edition" of the diary. On 1990-03-23, the Hamburg Regional Court
                            confirmed its authenticity.[49]

                            --
                            Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
                          • mikeindex2001
                            Fernando it was Matt who discussed the use of the word grey , not me. Maybe he ll be able to answer you. ...
                            Message 13 of 29 , Mar 3, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Fernando it was Matt who discussed the use of the word 'grey', not
                              me. Maybe he'll be able to answer you.


                              --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi All,
                              >
                              > Mike,
                              >
                              > How exactly is Carroll's use of the word "grey," as
                              > opposed to "gray" being used as evidence here? Please
                              > have a look at Carroll's actual use, not what you
                              > think Carroll used. This is easily done by opening up
                              > the two concordances devoted to the 'Alices' and his
                              > poetry. In the 'Alices' there is only one instance of
                              > "grey," in 'You Are Old F. W. and one use of "gray,"
                              > though this can't be used here because it is the one
                              > in 'The Wasp.' In the concordance to his poetry,
                              > however, this is by far not the case. On p. 101 we
                              > have 11 instances of "gray" and one of "grays". On p.
                              > 102 we have only 2 instances of "grey", and one of
                              > them from 'You Are Old F. W.! I'd say that based on
                              > actual evidence this part of your argument is false
                              >
                              > The above points to another mistake in your argument.
                              > Carroll used both words interchangeably because there
                              > is a long history of this in Britain. The OED does
                              > not seem to mention the British vs American
                              > distinction you make. It does make the interesting
                              > case that the two words are to stand for slightly
                              > different shades of "gray/grey". "Grey" is supposed
                              > to be lighter. To give one example from history,
                              > Shakespeare used the two spellings interchangeably.
                              > So if you are to say that "gray" is the American
                              > spelling and "grey" the British, please provide some
                              > evidence, evidence strong enough to deal with the
                              > above objections to your claims.
                              >
                              > I don't even want to get into the overextended claims
                              > about the "rubbish"literary nature of 'Wasp.' Most
                              > times we are unsure about what Carroll was up to, so I
                              > think we ought to give him the benefit of doubt when
                              > we think that something he wrote is substandard,
                              > particularly at an early stage of the process.
                              >
                              > Matt,
                              > From my own ongoing experience I've found that
                              > carrying out an actual debate here is very difficult.
                              > Whenever I put forth evidence that does not agree with
                              > some of the list members' opinions, it is for the most
                              > part almost always ignored or twisted into something
                              > else and ridiculed in it's new habiliment. Meanwhile
                              > the ad hominems emerge with a vengeance!
                              >
                              > All best,
                              >
                              > Fernando
                              >
                              >
                              > --- doyle6060 <DOYLE60@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Nobody is going to test something without reason.
                              > > You need good
                              > > reason. You don't supply any. You just don't take
                              > > someone to court
                              > > for no reason. You just don't arrest some random
                              > > person on the
                              > > street and try him for murder. You have cause,
                              > > grand juries, etc.
                              > > You are jumping the gun here.
                              > >
                              > > You are also avoiding evidence. You need to address
                              > > the time-line
                              > > argument. You need to admit your forger knew
                              > > something scholars
                              > > didn't. And that something he knew, why didn't he
                              > > sell that? I
                              > > responded to your point 3 in your last post with
                              > > facts and showed
                              > > your argument to be faulty on several grounds.
                              > > Well, you thought my
                              > > point good enough to respond to then, what about
                              > > now? You can't
                              > > ignore it. You are doing what all conspiracy
                              > > theorists do, avoiding
                              > > the evidence and "dwelling" on a minor ooh, ooh
                              > > facts.
                              > >
                              > > You bring out the old your a bullheaded individual
                              > > and won't change
                              > > your mind. No, I am here for a discussion.
                              > >
                              > > You pull out the old argument that other fakes were
                              > > found therefore
                              > > this may be a fake. Again, that means what,
                              > > exactly? "Your honor,
                              > > people have stolen therefore this person may have
                              > > stolen." "Okay,
                              > > let's try him."
                              > >
                              > > No one has brought forth good cause for concern.
                              > >
                              > > The way I see it is this: There are three ways to
                              > > test Wasp:
                              > >
                              > > 1) The Scholar's approach.
                              > > 2) The Detective's approach.
                              > > 3) The Scientist's approach.
                              > >
                              > > It is a matter of ethics almost that you do the
                              > > other two before you
                              > > so easily jump to number 3, which does require not
                              > > only money but
                              > > damaging the document. (I have no idea how much
                              > > damage, to tell you
                              > > the truth, but even if minor, I still believe we
                              > > should do all else
                              > > before this step otherwise we have cause to test
                              > > everything.)
                              > >
                              > > The detective's approach would be to ask the auction
                              > > house if they
                              > > would be willing to notify the first seller for you
                              > > and have some
                              > > questions answered or if he would be willing to come
                              > > out of the
                              > > woodwork. Or to, let's say, try and figure out who
                              > > he was through
                              > > some other means. I never attempted this.
                              > >
                              > > I believe my paper shows that jumping to number 3 is
                              > > a waste of
                              > > time. No, I didn't prove it so and no, don't listen
                              > > to Mike's
                              > > obnoxious claims of my "knowing" it genuine. I can
                              > > only claim that I
                              > > find it foolish to do number 3 at this time. There
                              > > is nothing
                              > > suspect enough about this piece to take the damaging
                              > > and costly step
                              > > of number 3.
                              > >
                              > > You only have two real contentions here: the
                              > > provenance and the
                              > > quality. It is quite difficult for you and me to
                              > > handle that last.
                              > > First, you must expect it by definition to be
                              > > inferior for the most
                              > > part to anything still in Looking-Glass, and
                              > > understand that it is a
                              > > galley and even though it may have some Carroll
                              > > corrections on it, it
                              > > may be less fine tuned than the printed book.
                              > > Second, I can only
                              > > really respond to specific points, not general,
                              > > about its quality. I
                              > > collected such published points and handled them in
                              > > my article as
                              > > best I could.
                              > >
                              > > Just for a bit of fun, for anybody who has not read
                              > > my article, how
                              > > would you defend these two accusations.
                              > >
                              > > 1) The Wasp galleys use the word "gray," the
                              > > American spelling and
                              > > not "grey," the British spelling.
                              > > 2) Carroll would never have followed one old
                              > > character (the White
                              > > Knight) with another old character (the Wasp).
                              > >
                              > > Mike, you mention that I use textual arguments to
                              > > prove the
                              > > authenticity. I never did anything on these
                              > > grounds, actually. I
                              > > was planning on testing the writing on certain
                              > > textual matters the
                              > > way Don Foster did in his book. But I thought it
                              > > was going a bit too
                              > > far. In fact, some of my Carroll friends thought I
                              > > covered too many
                              > > of the silly little points, like the two above, and
                              > > thought that I
                              > > wasted my time with the paper as a whole because no
                              > > serious scholars
                              > > today have any doubts.
                              > >
                              > > My paper does not just discuss authenticity. My
                              > > favorite part is the
                              > > third section where I discuss how Looking-Glass once
                              > > couched it.
                              > > Come on, the thing is half as long as all previous
                              > > chapters. What to
                              > > make of that?
                              > >
                              > > Personally, the reason why I believe it authentic is
                              > > not only the
                              > > time-line issue but also the bold decisions this
                              > > supposed forger
                              > > made. He did too many things that would just draw
                              > > attention to
                              > > itself. Why use the word "gray' at all, even if it
                              > > can be defended?
                              > > Why have an old character next to another, even if
                              > > it can be
                              > > defended? Why have it so short? Why risk composing
                              > > when he could
                              > > simply do 30 sheets of some known text (the Knight
                              > > Chapter itself)
                              > > and probably get nearly the same money? Why use
                              > > Carroll's hand
                              > > printed S when a cursive S would be expected? Why
                              > > place it after the
                              > > Knight chapter when others had it earlier and one
                              > > even stating it as
                              > > fact?
                              > >
                              > > The Harvard contents page shows that short chapters
                              > > are possible.
                              > > The Christ Church document shows it is after the
                              > > Knight chapter. He
                              > > could not have made these decisions unless he had
                              > > both of these docs,
                              > > not just one. He could have had a third, but what
                              > > was that?
                              > > Continue to ignore this and who is going to listen
                              > > to you?
                              > >
                              > > Subsequent finds support authenticity. How many
                              > > other such finds
                              > > will it take to begin to see the questionable
                              > > provenance as nothing
                              > > but a little error?
                              > >
                              > > You are jumping the gun with your scientific method.
                              > > One starts with
                              > > a genuine hypothesis, not a ungrounded one. For
                              > > example, I have a
                              > > letter from some one who encloses a letter that
                              > > Carroll sent to a
                              > > relative of his. He tells me the recipient was Joe
                              > > when in fact it
                              > > was Sam. He was wrong. Should I now snip the
                              > > letter and test it?
                              > > Of course not. Other facts are clear to me. The
                              > > man was just wrong,
                              > > for whatever reasons. I can't ignore those other
                              > > facts. You are
                              > > ignoring them.
                              > >
                              > > Mike wrote < For me it's always seemed fundamental
                              > > to the scientific
                              > > method that any
                              > > hypothesis should be tested in so far as this is
                              > > possible. >
                              > >
                              > > I don't think "any hypothesis should be tested."
                              > > Monkeys flew out of
                              > > Newton's ass is one that doesn't need testing. Only
                              > > sound hypothesis
                              > > need testing, ones made without the ignorance of
                              > > facts.
                              > >
                              > === message truncated ===
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              ______________________________________________________________________
                              ______________
                              > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                              > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                              http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                              >
                            • doyle6060
                              Fernando, In 1977, during the Wasp Symposium, published as a special edition of *Jabberwocky*, Selwyn Goodacre brought up the issue of the spelling of the word
                              Message 14 of 29 , Mar 3, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Fernando,
                                In 1977, during the Wasp Symposium, published as a special edition of
                                *Jabberwocky*, Selwyn Goodacre brought up the issue of the spelling
                                of the word "gray." He thought it curious because the "a"
                                spelling "did not come in until about 1889, and even then was not
                                used in the 1897 *Alice* texts."

                                I answered, or corrected, this criticism by pointing out the "a"
                                spellings of "gray" in Dickens', Ruskin's, and John Phillips' works
                                publihsed in 1869 and 1870. Oh, how useful that electronic OED! But
                                if that didn't suit anyone, I pointed out the "a" spellings in
                                Carroll's own *Phantasmagoria* (1869)---in three poems. And if that
                                didn't satysfy someone because it is a printed work, look at the
                                spelling of "gray" in the handprinted "Father William" poem in
                                Alice's Adventures under Ground (1863). Oh, how useful Lenny's
                                Website! 'Nuf said.

                                So we agree.

                                Now, anyone, how would you respond to that other critique I listed?

                                Matt
                              • doyle6060
                                Tufail wrote:
                                Message 15 of 29 , Mar 3, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Tufail wrote:
                                  < 1. Most important, it is a comparatively slight episode that
                                  could, if true, add little to an understabding of Lewis Caroll or,
                                  indeed interpretations of Looking Glass'. >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  Matt
                                • mikeindex2001
                                  Matt, Everything I wished to contribute to this debate I said in my first post and repeated in my third - namely that it is simply good methodology not to be
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Mar 3, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Matt,

                                    Everything I wished to contribute to this debate I said in my first
                                    post and repeated in my third - namely that it is simply good
                                    methodology not to be too confident of the Wasp's authenticity
                                    pending further tests. I have no time for a lengthy debate over old
                                    ground, especiallly when the central point of my postings has been
                                    that such debate is irrelevant until the tests can be done. The
                                    provenance alone strikes me as grounds for caution, and the
                                    impression I get from my wider reading is that most experts in the
                                    field would agree. I'd really recommend you to read a bit more in
                                    the general area of document forgery and authentication to see how
                                    much store people with experience in the field set by provenance -
                                    Simon Worrall''s 'The Poet and the Murderer' is a good place to start
                                    and tells a cracking good story.

                                    I was interested to read in Mr Everson's piece of the test done on
                                    the Anne Frank diary. If tests were considered advisable - just to
                                    be on the safe side, presumably - on a document which had been kept
                                    in the creator's family from the moment of her death to the moment of
                                    its donation to the Institute, it's very hard to see how being on the
                                    safe side isn't worthwhile when dealing with a document which has
                                    been out of sight for 75 years and then emerges with a questionable
                                    provenance.

                                    I'm sorry you found my comments on the content of your postings (NOT
                                    your personality) so upsetting, but I'm afraid I do find it arrogant
                                    to be so certain of one's rightness that merely checking it is
                                    considered actively objectionable. And I will continue to do so no
                                    matter how many times you call me obnoxious, ignorant, and a
                                    lightweight scholar, or resort to cheap and silly misrepresentations
                                    of my viewpoint. For me the discussion is over.

                                    Mike

                                    >
                                    > Nobody is going to test something without reason. You need good
                                    > reason. You don't supply any. You just don't take someone to
                                    court
                                    > for no reason. You just don't arrest some random person on the
                                    > street and try him for murder. You have cause, grand juries, etc.
                                    > You are jumping the gun here.
                                    >
                                    > You are also avoiding evidence. You need to address the time-line
                                    > argument. You need to admit your forger knew something scholars
                                    > didn't. And that something he knew, why didn't he sell that? I
                                    > responded to your point 3 in your last post with facts and showed
                                    > your argument to be faulty on several grounds. Well, you thought
                                    my
                                    > point good enough to respond to then, what about now? You can't
                                    > ignore it. You are doing what all conspiracy theorists do,
                                    avoiding
                                    > the evidence and "dwelling" on a minor ooh, ooh facts.
                                    >
                                    > You bring out the old your a bullheaded individual and won't change
                                    > your mind. No, I am here for a discussion.
                                    >
                                    > You pull out the old argument that other fakes were found therefore
                                    > this may be a fake. Again, that means what, exactly? "Your honor,
                                    > people have stolen therefore this person may have stolen." "Okay,
                                    > let's try him."
                                    >
                                    > No one has brought forth good cause for concern.
                                    >
                                    > The way I see it is this: There are three ways to test Wasp:
                                    >
                                    > 1) The Scholar's approach.
                                    > 2) The Detective's approach.
                                    > 3) The Scientist's approach.
                                    >
                                    > It is a matter of ethics almost that you do the other two before
                                    you
                                    > so easily jump to number 3, which does require not only money but
                                    > damaging the document. (I have no idea how much damage, to tell
                                    you
                                    > the truth, but even if minor, I still believe we should do all else
                                    > before this step otherwise we have cause to test everything.)
                                    >
                                    > The detective's approach would be to ask the auction house if they
                                    > would be willing to notify the first seller for you and have some
                                    > questions answered or if he would be willing to come out of the
                                    > woodwork. Or to, let's say, try and figure out who he was through
                                    > some other means. I never attempted this.
                                    >
                                    > I believe my paper shows that jumping to number 3 is a waste of
                                    > time. No, I didn't prove it so and no, don't listen to Mike's
                                    > obnoxious claims of my "knowing" it genuine. I can only claim that
                                    I
                                    > find it foolish to do number 3 at this time. There is nothing
                                    > suspect enough about this piece to take the damaging and costly
                                    step
                                    > of number 3.
                                    >
                                    > You only have two real contentions here: the provenance and the
                                    > quality. It is quite difficult for you and me to handle that
                                    last.
                                    > First, you must expect it by definition to be inferior for the most
                                    > part to anything still in Looking-Glass, and understand that it is
                                    a
                                    > galley and even though it may have some Carroll corrections on it,
                                    it
                                    > may be less fine tuned than the printed book. Second, I can only
                                    > really respond to specific points, not general, about its quality.
                                    I
                                    > collected such published points and handled them in my article as
                                    > best I could.
                                    >
                                    > Just for a bit of fun, for anybody who has not read my article, how
                                    > would you defend these two accusations.
                                    >
                                    > 1) The Wasp galleys use the word "gray," the American spelling and
                                    > not "grey," the British spelling.
                                    > 2) Carroll would never have followed one old character (the White
                                    > Knight) with another old character (the Wasp).
                                    >
                                    > Mike, you mention that I use textual arguments to prove the
                                    > authenticity. I never did anything on these grounds, actually. I
                                    > was planning on testing the writing on certain textual matters the
                                    > way Don Foster did in his book. But I thought it was going a bit
                                    too
                                    > far. In fact, some of my Carroll friends thought I covered too
                                    many
                                    > of the silly little points, like the two above, and thought that I
                                    > wasted my time with the paper as a whole because no serious
                                    scholars
                                    > today have any doubts.
                                    >
                                    > My paper does not just discuss authenticity. My favorite part is
                                    the
                                    > third section where I discuss how Looking-Glass once couched it.
                                    > Come on, the thing is half as long as all previous chapters. What
                                    to
                                    > make of that?
                                    >
                                    > Personally, the reason why I believe it authentic is not only the
                                    > time-line issue but also the bold decisions this supposed forger
                                    > made. He did too many things that would just draw attention to
                                    > itself. Why use the word "gray' at all, even if it can be
                                    defended?
                                    > Why have an old character next to another, even if it can be
                                    > defended? Why have it so short? Why risk composing when he could
                                    > simply do 30 sheets of some known text (the Knight Chapter itself)
                                    > and probably get nearly the same money? Why use Carroll's hand
                                    > printed S when a cursive S would be expected? Why place it after
                                    the
                                    > Knight chapter when others had it earlier and one even stating it
                                    as
                                    > fact?
                                    >
                                    > The Harvard contents page shows that short chapters are possible.
                                    > The Christ Church document shows it is after the Knight chapter.
                                    He
                                    > could not have made these decisions unless he had both of these
                                    docs,
                                    > not just one. He could have had a third, but what was that?
                                    > Continue to ignore this and who is going to listen to you?
                                    >
                                    > Subsequent finds support authenticity. How many other such finds
                                    > will it take to begin to see the questionable provenance as nothing
                                    > but a little error?
                                    >
                                    > You are jumping the gun with your scientific method. One starts
                                    with
                                    > a genuine hypothesis, not a ungrounded one. For example, I have a
                                    > letter from some one who encloses a letter that Carroll sent to a
                                    > relative of his. He tells me the recipient was Joe when in fact it
                                    > was Sam. He was wrong. Should I now snip the letter and test it?
                                    > Of course not. Other facts are clear to me. The man was just
                                    wrong,
                                    > for whatever reasons. I can't ignore those other facts. You are
                                    > ignoring them.
                                    >
                                    > Mike wrote < For me it's always seemed fundamental to the
                                    scientific
                                    > method that any
                                    > hypothesis should be tested in so far as this is possible. >
                                    >
                                    > I don't think "any hypothesis should be tested." Monkeys flew out
                                    of
                                    > Newton's ass is one that doesn't need testing. Only sound
                                    hypothesis
                                    > need testing, ones made without the ignorance of facts.
                                    >
                                    > < It also seems pure common sense that if one is confident of the
                                    > accuracy of
                                    > one's hypothesis one should be quite willing to see it tested,
                                    and 'my
                                    > hypothesis is too right to need testing' to me bespeaks outrageous
                                    > arrogance and/or underlying insecurity. >
                                    >
                                    > The old I'm a bullhead argument. Wonderful. Let's turn it around,
                                    > shall we? I'd rather not. I didn't write a paper to show how
                                    > needless it would be to test a document to have it proven by
                                    actually
                                    > testing the document. Anyway, I'm not scared or insecure in the
                                    > least. This is a laugh. I bet fewer people here find that I
                                    > have "outrageous arrogance" than you have outrageous ignorance.
                                    For
                                    > you must ignore a lot to argue that this thing needs scientific
                                    > testing. I'm not opposed to any safe scientific testing though I
                                    do
                                    > feel it a waste of time. At this time, I certainly am opposed to
                                    any
                                    > testing that would damage the goods.
                                    >
                                    > I'm just arguing concepts and ideas. My personality does not have
                                    to
                                    > come into play. You brought it into play, what, three times now?
                                    >
                                    > (Excuse me for the repetition but I do not have time to fine tune
                                    > this post and cut it down. I'll do so when I get the galleys.)
                                    >
                                    > Matt
                                    >
                                  • doyle6060
                                    Mike, just two questions before you leave if you don t mind. 1) What is your hypothesis? With nothing but sincerity, I am actually not sure what it is. 2) Did
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Mar 3, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mike, just two questions before you leave if you don't mind.

                                      1) What is your hypothesis? With nothing but sincerity, I am actually
                                      not sure what it is.

                                      2) Did you read my article?

                                      Matt
                                    • tufail45
                                      Matt, Please forgive me. My mail really had nothing to do with your contribution. It was aimed generally at those who are less interested in the Wasp s
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Mar 3, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Matt,

                                        Please forgive me. My mail really had nothing to do with your
                                        contribution. It was aimed generally at those who are less
                                        interested in the 'Wasp's' content or relevamce rather than
                                        it's 'value' to the contributor in terms of either prestige or
                                        lucre. I emphatically do not include you in these categories.

                                        You raise a number of very pertinent issues that I would prefer to
                                        discuss with you privately.

                                        You can contact me on johntufail@gmail .com

                                        Regards

                                        JT



                                        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "doyle6060" <DOYLE60@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Tufail wrote:
                                        > < 1. Most important, it is a comparatively slight episode that
                                        > could, if true, add little to an understabding of Lewis Caroll or,
                                        > indeed interpretations of Looking Glass'. >
                                        >
                                        > I disagree. The third part of my essay, my favorite part, is not
                                        > about the authenticity at all. It examines what Looking-Glass was
                                        > when it was part of the whole book. How did it couch the episode?
                                        I
                                        > don't see how this would "add little to an understanding" of
                                        Looking-
                                        > Glass. Certainly the creative process is up for discussion. This
                                        is
                                        > done all the time. And it isn't as easy as you think to place Wasp
                                        > in Looking-Glass. I show that Collingwood did not mean that there
                                        > was once thirteen chapters. I show that Carroll did have an
                                        affinity
                                        > for twelve and was not going to settle for 11 or 13. When he
                                        cleaved
                                        > two chapters together, "Living Backwards" and "Scented Rushes" to
                                        > get "Wool and Water" was it this or the excise of Wasp that
                                        > necessitated making another one sentence chapter, "Shaking"---you
                                        > see, he at one point only had "Waking." This is not in Gardner's
                                        > Annotated, and there is plenty here to put into Annotated. He
                                        > completely avoided Wakeling's printing of the Illustration Plan in
                                        > his Definitive and what it tells us about the creation of Looking-
                                        > Glass, and of course, did not know about the details of the Chapter
                                        > content page I printed for the first time.
                                        >
                                        > No John, these ideas and many others are certainly up your alley.
                                        > Please take the time to read my paper. But you are a bad, bad boy
                                        > and I'm not offering a free copy to you---you've been around too
                                        long.
                                        >
                                        > < 2. The whole debate been less about understanding Caroll than
                                        > money and prestige >
                                        >
                                        > If this refers to me, I am only defending my paper as any scholar
                                        > should do. It IS all about understanding Carroll.
                                        >
                                        > > 3. Carroll. as we know, was a very visual writer. He has a
                                        > > wonderful understanding of the relationship between text and
                                        > > illustration. He was always clearly able to illustrate, in
                                        > primitive but clear forms how he wished images to be portrayed. He
                                        > was also VERY clear about what he didn't want portrayed.
                                        >
                                        > > We have no such guidance here from Carroll, so, even if the
                                        episode
                                        > > is genuine it is unlikely that he himself would have much regard
                                        > for it.
                                        > >
                                        > > In terms of Carroll scholarship it can add little. >
                                        >
                                        > I honestly don't know what to make of this. Just because there is
                                        no
                                        > illustration I shouldn't have studied it? Well, he tried to get
                                        > one. I don't know. Actually, I'll pass on this. I don't think
                                        you
                                        > would read my last part and think the same here.
                                        >
                                        > < I doubt Carroll would much like the idea of people scrabbling
                                        over
                                        > the bones of this in order to establish their pace in the pack
                                        > heirarchy. >
                                        >
                                        > I don't care in the least what Carroll would think, and you
                                        certainly
                                        > don't know what he would think. I don't try to emulate him or try
                                        to
                                        > make him proud of me. I am only defending my piece.
                                        >
                                        > Matt
                                        >
                                      • mikeindex2001
                                        1) I don t have a hypothesis. My standpoint is that the Wasp should be tested a) on the general principle that more information is better than less and b)
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Mar 4, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          1) I don't have a hypothesis. My standpoint is that the Wasp should
                                          be tested a) on the general principle that more information is better
                                          than less and b) because the provenance is questionable to say the
                                          least.

                                          2) No, I'm afraid I haven't, but unless you can produce a genuine
                                          provenance (and an explanation of why Sotheby's didn't) nothing in it
                                          would affect my position.

                                          Mike

                                          > Mike, just two questions before you leave if you don't mind.
                                          >
                                          > 1) What is your hypothesis? With nothing but sincerity, I am
                                          actually
                                          > not sure what it is.
                                          >
                                          > 2) Did you read my article?
                                          >
                                          > Matt
                                          >
                                        • doyle6060
                                          Well, let me make my last post than. ... should be tested a) on the general principle that more information is better than less and b) because the provenance
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Mar 6, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Well, let me make my last post than.

                                            Mike wrote:
                                            > 1) I don't have a hypothesis. My standpoint is that the Wasp
                                            should be tested a) on the general principle that more information is
                                            better than less and b) because the provenance is questionable to say
                                            the least. >

                                            > 2) No, I'm afraid I haven't [read my article], but unless you can
                                            produce a genuine provenance (and an explanation of why Sotheby's
                                            didn't) nothing in it would affect my position. >

                                            I reply:
                                            So all that about the scientific method was just blather. You have
                                            no idea if "more information is better" because you haven't even
                                            bothered to collect all the available information. My article
                                            contains new information regardless of my own interpretation and
                                            conclusions. I allow the readers to make up their own minds as
                                            well. Your answer to number 2 contradicts your own position in
                                            number 1.

                                            You fail to collect "more information." If you had, you wouldn't
                                            have made the most terrible and embarrassing blunder in your second
                                            post, that bit about Wasp coming in BEFORE Knight (your point number
                                            3).

                                            One has to wonder what other strange beliefs you hold in this case.
                                            Surely if you believed that bit above, you would have added it to
                                            your provenance argument. More information is better, right? So
                                            what other beliefs do you hold that my article could help you with,
                                            strengthen or weaken? Well, you don't care to know as you don't care
                                            to read my article. But wait, more information is better. Hang on.
                                            This must be difficult for you, this contradiction.

                                            You spoke of arrogance, a door you opened. What could possibly be
                                            more arrogant than your position shown in these posts?

                                            Let me pull out my old Ben Johnson quotation, in 1775, he
                                            wrote: "When we enquire into any subject, the first thing we have to
                                            do is know what books have treated of it."

                                            People, especially the owners of the Wasp galleys, don't want to
                                            hear "more information is better than less" from someone who hasn't
                                            studied the case. It may be a fine principle but only when applied
                                            by the informed.

                                            Matt
                                          • mikeindex2001
                                            By information I meant information. Primary data. What your article supplies is not data but analysis. My view remains that more primary data is required so
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Mar 6, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              By information I meant information. Primary data. What your article
                                              supplies is not data but analysis. My view remains that more primary
                                              data is required so that fully informed analyses can then be
                                              undertaken.

                                              I don't propose to dignify the rest of your mouth-frothing rant with
                                              a reply. You might do well to consider what this kind of behaviour
                                              does for your scholastic credibility (not helped by your confusing
                                              Ben Jonson with Dr Samuel Johnson) before hitting Send.

                                              This correspondence is now closed.


                                              >
                                              > Well, let me make my last post than.
                                              >
                                              > Mike wrote:
                                              > > 1) I don't have a hypothesis. My standpoint is that the Wasp
                                              > should be tested a) on the general principle that more information
                                              is
                                              > better than less and b) because the provenance is questionable to
                                              say
                                              > the least. >
                                              >
                                              > > 2) No, I'm afraid I haven't [read my article], but unless you can
                                              > produce a genuine provenance (and an explanation of why Sotheby's
                                              > didn't) nothing in it would affect my position. >
                                              >
                                              > I reply:
                                              > So all that about the scientific method was just blather. You have
                                              > no idea if "more information is better" because you haven't even
                                              > bothered to collect all the available information. My article
                                              > contains new information regardless of my own interpretation and
                                              > conclusions. I allow the readers to make up their own minds as
                                              > well. Your answer to number 2 contradicts your own position in
                                              > number 1.
                                              >
                                              > You fail to collect "more information." If you had, you wouldn't
                                              > have made the most terrible and embarrassing blunder in your second
                                              > post, that bit about Wasp coming in BEFORE Knight (your point
                                              number
                                              > 3).
                                              >
                                              > One has to wonder what other strange beliefs you hold in this
                                              case.
                                              > Surely if you believed that bit above, you would have added it to
                                              > your provenance argument. More information is better, right? So
                                              > what other beliefs do you hold that my article could help you with,
                                              > strengthen or weaken? Well, you don't care to know as you don't
                                              care
                                              > to read my article. But wait, more information is better. Hang
                                              on.
                                              > This must be difficult for you, this contradiction.
                                              >
                                              > You spoke of arrogance, a door you opened. What could possibly be
                                              > more arrogant than your position shown in these posts?
                                              >
                                              > Let me pull out my old Ben Johnson quotation, in 1775, he
                                              > wrote: "When we enquire into any subject, the first thing we have
                                              to
                                              > do is know what books have treated of it."
                                              >
                                              > People, especially the owners of the Wasp galleys, don't want to
                                              > hear "more information is better than less" from someone who hasn't
                                              > studied the case. It may be a fine principle but only when applied
                                              > by the informed.
                                              >
                                              > Matt
                                              >
                                            • doyle6060
                                              Just to set the record straight, my article *does*
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Mar 7, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                < By information I meant information. Primary data. What your article
                                                supplies is not data but analysis. >

                                                Just to set the record straight, my article *does* supply new primary
                                                data relevant to the study of the Wasp galleys, as only one who has
                                                read it and studied it would know.

                                                Matt
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.