Re: Carroll's sexuality
- Hi all,
>>>But it's a contentious issue John. Okay you think the argument about hissexuality is over, but I doubt if Cohen or Anne Clark, or our own Jenifer
would agree. Realistically, whether we like it or not the issue is at the top
of the agenda, here and elsewhere It will keep coming up for discussion.
In case anyone wonders where I have been, my computer has been out of
commission for the last month, and I am now dealing with a deluge
of email Am sure you can imagine what it is like!
Just wanted to respond to this one from Mike which was posted in early
Sept. I want to go on record as saying that as far as I ("our own Jenifer")
am concerned, the argument about Carroll's sexuality is over. There is a limit
to how interested I can continue to be in something that cannot be proven one
way or another. In any case, I am much more interested in LC's work than in his
whatever they may have been.
However, if others wish to continue the debate, that is their choice and
their privilege. I do think it is a good idea to follow Hugue's suggestion
and modify the subject line (as I did for this post) to allow people to delete
> John wrote
> > I have NEVER put the either or argument - not even in the above. Of
> > there's a place for discussing a person's sexuality - but not, surely, to
> > the
> > obsessive extent that Carroll's sexuality is discussed and minutely pawed
> > over.
> But it's a contentious issue John. Okay you think the argument about his
> sexuality is over, but I doubt if Cohen or Anne Clark, or our own Jenifer
> would agree. Realistically, whether we like it or not the issue is at the top
> of the agenda, here and elsewhere It will keep coming up for discussion.
> I do try to avoid as much needless rehashing of old material as possible, but
> I can't tell people to stop posting and I wouldn't try!
> it doesn't mean other issues have to be ignored.
> > Even on the very few ocasions that
> > people
> > like MacDonald, Maurice, the Rossettis, Kingsley, Robertson, Coleridge,
> > Tennyson etc (and I'm talking here about provable influences as well as
> > friendships and alliances) were mentioned, absolutely NO research had gone
> > into exploring these relationships beyond the most trivial. NOBODY, for
> > example had bothered to find out anything about what made Carroll's
> > and influences tick - whether there were any common threads that could be
> > discerned that may have bearings on Carroll's development as a writer and
> > person.
> Right we know he knew these people. But how much can this tell us about him
> unless we also know what he thought about them?
> At the moment there is no published evidence of his opinions about any of the
> people you mention; whether he agreed or disagreed with their philosophy,
> religion etc.
> I'm assuming you have some additional evidence and this is what you are
> basing your work on, right? Yet you don't seem willing to share that
> evidence with us here.
> That's not a problem per se, but we can't discuss your ideas with you unless
> we have some idea of what evidence they are based on. So it makes it hard to
> know how to respond.
> I want to support you, and I'm encouraging you. You seem to feel you've been
> let down or dismissed. I don't think this is true. You've had a fair range of
> responses, and I think people are interested to know more. I apologise for
> the word diatribe if it offended you. You did seem pretty excited and angry,
> but maybe you have cause.
> How about this for a next step:
> You said in your first post that Cohen was most guilty in what he left out
> about Carroll's philosophical associations with Jowett and others.
> Right - tell us what it is that he left out.
> to unsubscribe send a blank email to: firstname.lastname@example.org