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

Carroll on film

Expand Messages
  • Tim
     it might not be too bad avant gard movies of the classics can become an end in themselves, almost  a new form of art eg  this Hamlet movie go here
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
       it might not be too bad
      avant gard movies of the classics can
      become an end in themselves, almost  a new form of art
      eg  this Hamlet movie
      go here
      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zZjDF9BztKU

       taking all the stuffiness out of shakespeare !


       a bit decadent perhaps, but Im sure Lewis Carroll would
      have loved the visual experience of the movie (100 years later ! )


      Marilyn Manson's film Phantasmagoria is in production.  From what I have heard, it is classified as a horror film.  In it, Lewis Carroll (played by Manson himself) lives in an old castle and is terrorized by visions of his own invention: a girl named Alice (played by 20-year-old Lily Cole).  Sounds to me like it will seek to exploit every single myth ever perpetuated about Carroll, while simultaneously taking filmmaking as a whole a good babystep backwards!
       
      -Lucy

      --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      From: Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@ yahoo.com>
      Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
      To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
      Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 4:01 AM

      Could I be enlightened on Manson's upcoming movie? Thank you.

      "When the going gets tuff, the tuff get going!"

      --- On Wed, 10/15/08, lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      From: lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com>
      Subject: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
      To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
      Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 8:39 AM

      There seem to be an abundance of cinematic interpretations of the Alice
      books, including a couple in the works. Is this all public domain, or
      is there some governing body which controls the use of Carroll's
      material, to whom filmmakers must appeal? If someone were to make
      a "loosely-based" biographical film, rather than another film based on
      Alice, what kind of permission would they have to get (if any), and who
      would they get it from?

      I started wondering about this when I was thinking of Manson's upcoming
      film; I am concerned about the liberties he will undoubtedly take, and
      was hopeful that his film had been 'approved' by someone credible. All
      just idle curiosity at any rate....

      -Lucy



    • mahendra373
      There are 3 Carroll- themed films in production at this moment: 1. The Manson extravaganza (it does boggle the mind, eh?) 2. Tim Burton s Disney-financed
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        There are 3 Carroll-"themed" films in production at this moment:
        1. The Manson extravaganza (it does boggle the mind, eh?)
        2. Tim Burton's Disney-financed version of AIWL
        3. a version of Malice in Sunderland, in the UK


        I think there's one more Carrollian film in production out there but I
        have completely forgotten the details, if anyone knows the title &
        producers, etc., I would be grateful to know more.

        Since Carroll is in the public domain, all's fair, especially where
        the making of money is concerned. His work is a marketing dream: 100%
        name recognition and no story fees need be paid.

        I have to confess I loathed the old Disney version, I fear the worst
        for their 2nd attempt.

        ƒ Mahendra



        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, lucy chew <lillienchew@...> wrote:
        >
        > Marilyn Manson's film Phantasmagoria is in production. From what I
        have heard, it is classified as a horror film. In it, Lewis Carroll
        (played by Manson himself) lives in an old castle and is terrorized by
        visions of his own invention: a girl named Alice (played by
        20-year-old Lily Cole). Sounds to me like it will seek to exploit
        every single myth ever perpetuated about Carroll, while simultaneously
        taking filmmaking as a whole a good babystep backwards!
        >
        > -Lucy
        >
        > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@...>
        > Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
        > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 4:01 AM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Could I be enlightened on Manson's upcoming movie? Thank you.
        >
        > "When the going gets tuff, the tuff get going!"
        >
        > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        >
        > From: lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com>
        > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
        > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
        > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 8:39 AM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > There seem to be an abundance of cinematic interpretations of the Alice
        > books, including a couple in the works. Is this all public domain, or
        > is there some governing body which controls the use of Carroll's
        > material, to whom filmmakers must appeal? If someone were to make
        > a "loosely-based" biographical film, rather than another film based on
        > Alice, what kind of permission would they have to get (if any), and who
        > would they get it from?
        >
        > I started wondering about this when I was thinking of Manson's upcoming
        > film; I am concerned about the liberties he will undoubtedly take, and
        > was hopeful that his film had been 'approved' by someone credible. All
        > just idle curiosity at any rate....
        >
        > -Lucy
        >
      • lucy chew
        Is this same free-for-all process true for biographical work as well? ... From: mahendra373 Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll on
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Is this same free-for-all process true for biographical work as well?

          --- On Wed, 10/15/08, mahendra373 <mahendra373@...> wrote:
          From: mahendra373 <mahendra373@...>
          Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll on film
          To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 9:41 AM

          There are 3 Carroll-"themed" films in production at this moment:
          1. The Manson extravaganza (it does boggle the mind, eh?)
          2. Tim Burton's Disney-financed version of AIWL
          3. a version of Malice in Sunderland, in the UK

          I think there's one more Carrollian film in production out there but I
          have completely forgotten the details, if anyone knows the title &
          producers, etc., I would be grateful to know more.

          Since Carroll is in the public domain, all's fair, especially where
          the making of money is concerned. His work is a marketing dream: 100%
          name recognition and no story fees need be paid.

          I have to confess I loathed the old Disney version, I fear the worst
          for their 2nd attempt.

          ƒ Mahendra

          --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, lucy chew <lillienchew@ ...> wrote:
          >
          > Marilyn Manson's film Phantasmagoria is in production. From what I
          have heard, it is classified as a horror film. In it, Lewis Carroll
          (played by Manson himself) lives in an old castle and is terrorized by
          visions of his own invention: a girl named Alice (played by
          20-year-old Lily Cole). Sounds to me like it will seek to exploit
          every single myth ever perpetuated about Carroll, while simultaneously
          taking filmmaking as a whole a good babystep backwards!
          >
          > -Lucy
          >
          > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@ ...> wrote:
          >
          > From: Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@ ...>
          > Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
          > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 4:01 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Could I be enlightened on Manson's upcoming movie? Thank you.
          >
          > "When the going gets tuff, the tuff get going!"
          >
          > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com> wrote:
          >
          > From: lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com>
          > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
          > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 8:39 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > There seem to be an abundance of cinematic interpretations of the Alice
          > books, including a couple in the works. Is this all public domain, or
          > is there some governing body which controls the use of Carroll's
          > material, to whom filmmakers must appeal? If someone were to make
          > a "loosely-based" biographical film, rather than another film based on
          > Alice, what kind of permission would they have to get (if any), and who
          > would they get it from?
          >
          > I started wondering about this when I was thinking of Manson's upcoming
          > film; I am concerned about the liberties he will undoubtedly take, and
          > was hopeful that his film had been 'approved' by someone credible. All
          > just idle curiosity at any rate....
          >
          > -Lucy
          >

        • mahendra373
          My understanding is that since Carroll is dead, he cannot be libelled & therefore can be made the subject of any interpretation the modern author pleases.
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            My understanding is that since Carroll is dead, he cannot be libelled
            & therefore can be made the subject of any interpretation the modern
            author pleases. Since his literary works are public domain, the same
            applies.

            I guess being dead is not such a "holiday" after all †



            --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, lucy chew <lillienchew@...> wrote:
            >
            > Is this same free-for-all process true for biographical work as well?
            >
            > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, mahendra373 <mahendra373@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: mahendra373 <mahendra373@...>
            > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll on film
            > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 9:41 AM
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > There are 3 Carroll-"themed" films in production at this moment:
            > 1. The Manson extravaganza (it does boggle the mind, eh?)
            > 2. Tim Burton's Disney-financed version of AIWL
            > 3. a version of Malice in Sunderland, in the UK
            >
            > I think there's one more Carrollian film in production out there but I
            > have completely forgotten the details, if anyone knows the title &
            > producers, etc., I would be grateful to know more.
            >
            > Since Carroll is in the public domain, all's fair, especially where
            > the making of money is concerned. His work is a marketing dream: 100%
            > name recognition and no story fees need be paid.
            >
            > I have to confess I loathed the old Disney version, I fear the worst
            > for their 2nd attempt.
            >
            > ƒ Mahendra
            >
            > --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, lucy chew <lillienchew@ ...>
            wrote:
            > >
            > > Marilyn Manson's film Phantasmagoria is in production. From what I
            > have heard, it is classified as a horror film. In it, Lewis Carroll
            > (played by Manson himself) lives in an old castle and is terrorized by
            > visions of his own invention: a girl named Alice (played by
            > 20-year-old Lily Cole). Sounds to me like it will seek to exploit
            > every single myth ever perpetuated about Carroll, while simultaneously
            > taking filmmaking as a whole a good babystep backwards!
            > >
            > > -Lucy
            > >
            > > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@ ...> wrote:
            > >
            > > From: Robert Cubinelli <dragstripfreaky@ ...>
            > > Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
            > > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
            > > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 4:01 AM
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Could I be enlightened on Manson's upcoming movie? Thank you.
            > >
            > > "When the going gets tuff, the tuff get going!"
            > >
            > > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com> wrote:
            > >
            > > From: lillienchew <lillienchew@ yahoo.com>
            > > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Carroll on film
            > > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
            > > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 8:39 AM
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > There seem to be an abundance of cinematic interpretations of the
            Alice
            > > books, including a couple in the works. Is this all public domain, or
            > > is there some governing body which controls the use of Carroll's
            > > material, to whom filmmakers must appeal? If someone were to make
            > > a "loosely-based" biographical film, rather than another film
            based on
            > > Alice, what kind of permission would they have to get (if any),
            and who
            > > would they get it from?
            > >
            > > I started wondering about this when I was thinking of Manson's
            upcoming
            > > film; I am concerned about the liberties he will undoubtedly take,
            and
            > > was hopeful that his film had been 'approved' by someone credible.
            All
            > > just idle curiosity at any rate....
            > >
            > > -Lucy
            > >
            >
          • Jim Buch
            ... There is an official source for the use of Sherlock Holmes in books, TV and movies. It is the Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate which was set up prior
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "lillienchew" <lillienchew@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > There seem to be an abundance of cinematic interpretations of the Alice
              > books, including a couple in the works. Is this all public domain, or
              > is there some governing body which controls the use of Carroll's
              > material, to whom filmmakers must appeal? If someone were to make
              > a "loosely-based" biographical film, rather than another film based on
              > Alice, what kind of permission would they have to get (if any), and who
              > would they get it from?
              >
              > I started wondering about this when I was thinking of Manson's upcoming
              > film; I am concerned about the liberties he will undoubtedly take, and
              > was hopeful that his film had been 'approved' by someone credible. All
              > just idle curiosity at any rate....
              >
              > -Lucy
              >
              There is an "official" source for the use of Sherlock Holmes in books,
              TV and movies. It is the Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate which was
              set up prior to his death.

              There is a complicated story about how the ownership of this estate
              have varied over the years at http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/

              You can make inquiries there to obtain publication rights.

              I am unsure of the basis for the ongoing monopoly, copyright has
              probably expired and perhaps the characters are trademarked, which in
              many countries has no fixed term of expiration.

              Doing all of this stuff seems contrary to the image of Charles
              Dodgson, but there may be other reasons why this was not done.
              Speculatively, he may have had no desire to leave any enduring assets
              to his family. Or, the legal situation may not have been around to
              preserve any intellectual ownership beyond copyright at that time.
            • mahendra373
              In Doyle s case, since he died in 1930, copyright protection in both Europe & North America still prevails. Since Dodgson died 1898, nothing his estate could
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                In Doyle's case, since he died in 1930, copyright protection in both
                Europe & North America still prevails.

                Since Dodgson died 1898, nothing his estate could do now (short of
                lobbying Parliament to once again extend the cut-off year) could
                secure his rights.

                The really interesting question is how much will these new Carrollian
                films permanently distort his reputation amongst the general public?
                Disney's marketing expertise & power is vast, if they decide that an
                Americanized, culturally amnesiac Lewis Carroll is the way to go, THAT
                will become LC in the eyes of the next generation.




                --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Buch" <jdbuch123@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "lillienchew" <lillienchew@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > There seem to be an abundance of cinematic interpretations of the
                Alice
                > > books, including a couple in the works. Is this all public
                domain, or
                > > is there some governing body which controls the use of Carroll's
                > > material, to whom filmmakers must appeal? If someone were to make
                > > a "loosely-based" biographical film, rather than another film
                based on
                > > Alice, what kind of permission would they have to get (if any),
                and who
                > > would they get it from?
                > >
                > > I started wondering about this when I was thinking of Manson's
                upcoming
                > > film; I am concerned about the liberties he will undoubtedly take,
                and
                > > was hopeful that his film had been 'approved' by someone credible.
                All
                > > just idle curiosity at any rate....
                > >
                > > -Lucy
                > >
                > There is an "official" source for the use of Sherlock Holmes in books,
                > TV and movies. It is the Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate which was
                > set up prior to his death.
                >
                > There is a complicated story about how the ownership of this estate
                > have varied over the years at http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/
                >
                > You can make inquiries there to obtain publication rights.
                >
                > I am unsure of the basis for the ongoing monopoly, copyright has
                > probably expired and perhaps the characters are trademarked, which in
                > many countries has no fixed term of expiration.
                >
                > Doing all of this stuff seems contrary to the image of Charles
                > Dodgson, but there may be other reasons why this was not done.
                > Speculatively, he may have had no desire to leave any enduring assets
                > to his family. Or, the legal situation may not have been around to
                > preserve any intellectual ownership beyond copyright at that time.
                >
              • Tom
                ... I don t know how the law works, but it s more likely that Sherlock Holmes would still be under copyright than Alice would, since Doyle was still writing
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                • 0 Attachment

                  > >
                  > There is an "official" source for the use of Sherlock Holmes in books,
                  > TV and movies. It is the Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate which was
                  > set up prior to his death.
                  >
                  > There is a complicated story about how the ownership of this estate
                  > have varied over the years at http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/
                  >
                  > You can make inquiries there to obtain publication rights.
                  >
                  > I am unsure of the basis for the ongoing monopoly, copyright has
                  > probably expired and perhaps the characters are trademarked, which in
                  > many countries has no fixed term of expiration.
                  >
                   
                  I don't know how the law works, but it's more likely that Sherlock Holmes would still be under copyright than Alice would, since Doyle was still writing new Holmes stories in the 1920s.
                • jenny2write
                  One of the interesting things (to me anyway) about Carroll is the way he can be what people want him to be. It is a quality that he shares with the Alice
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment


                    One of the interesting things (to me anyway) about Carroll is the way he can be what people want him to be.   It is a quality that he shares with the "Alice" books.  All the time I've been writing my book,   I've been struggling not to create a portrait of an alternative "me."

                    I've wondered what that says about the private selves of other biographers of Carroll? ;-)

                    Trying to tear my eyes away from the mirror that Carroll holds up has been the hardest thing about writing my biography, and why I wanted it to be an anti-biography (but my agent insisted it couldn't be). (But don't get me going on that.)

                    At any rate, I am sure that the present popular view is a reflection of our culture, so I don't really see why he shouldn't turn into a reflection of American culture next. Maybe one day he'll be a reflection of contemporary Chinese culture.....

                    Jenny
                    Read my Lewis Carroll blog! www.jabberwock.co.uk

                  • Ralph Sims
                    The first film of Alice was done by Cecil Wentworth and Percy Stow in 1903 (17 October was the release date--within the copyright?). Historically, this is
                    Message 9 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The first film of "Alice" was done by Cecil Wentworth and Percy Stow in 1903
                      (17 October was the release date--within the copyright?). Historically,
                      this is an important film on its own, content notwithstanding. Some
                      information can be found at www.imdb.com/title/tt0000420. For those wanting
                      to view the film, it is on YouTube--search for "alice in wonderland 1903".
                      It is also on a 1966 DVD by Jonathan Miller.
                    • Keith
                      Tom, it s even more mysterious than most people know. The recognised authority on Doyle and Holmes was Richard Lancelyn Green until his murder in 2004. He was
                      Message 10 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tom,
                         
                        it's even more mysterious than most people know. The recognised authority on Doyle and Holmes was Richard Lancelyn Green until his murder in 2004. He was the son of Roger Lancelyn Green who wrote a biography of Lewis Carroll and who edited the diaries in the 1950's and is also co-author of the two volume 'Letters.'
                         
                        Richard LG left his collection to the Portsmouth Library service because of Doyle's connection with that town.
                         
                        Keith
                         
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Tom
                        Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:27 PM
                        Subject: RE: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll on film


                        > >
                        > There is an "official" source for the use of Sherlock Holmes in books,
                        > TV and movies. It is the Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate which was
                        > set up prior to his death.
                        >
                        > There is a complicated story about how the ownership of this estate
                        > have varied over the years at http://www.sherlock holmesonline. org/
                        >
                        > You can make inquiries there to obtain publication rights.
                        >
                        > I am unsure of the basis for the ongoing monopoly, copyright has
                        > probably expired and perhaps the characters are trademarked, which in
                        > many countries has no fixed term of expiration.
                        >
                         
                        I don't know how the law works, but it's more likely that Sherlock Holmes would still be under copyright than Alice would, since Doyle was still writing new Holmes stories in the 1920s.

                      • mikeindex2001
                        Cecil Hepworth (not Wentworth). I m not sure how copyright applied to films in the early years of the last century - as the cinematograph was so new, probably
                        Message 11 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Cecil Hepworth (not Wentworth).

                          I'm not sure how copyright applied to films in the early years of the
                          last century - as the cinematograph was so new, probably no laws had
                          yet been made about it, so Hepworth, Mitchell & Kenyon et al didn't
                          have anything to worry about.

                          The rule for literary copyright was that a work was in copyright until
                          seven years after the author's death or (appropriately enough) 42 years
                          from the date of publication, whichever was the later - hence the vast
                          proliferation of new editions of Alice in 1907, 42 years after first
                          publication. I believe the law was changed shortly after this so that
                          Looking-Glass had to wait longer, but I don't know the details.

                          The rule for copyright now in the UK is death + 70, i.e. 70 years after
                          the author's death (the last surviving author in the case of
                          collaborations; was death + 50 until 1988.) By this count Doyle's work
                          should have come out of copyright in 2000 but perhaps special
                          provisions can be made.

                          At all events I find it hard to believe that all the abysmal Homes
                          adaptations since 1930 have been made with the blessing of the Doyle
                          estate!

                          Mike
                          >
                          > The first film of "Alice" was done by Cecil Wentworth and Percy Stow
                          in 1903
                          > (17 October was the release date--within the copyright?).
                          Historically,
                          > this is an important film on its own, content notwithstanding. Some
                          > information can be found at www.imdb.com/title/tt0000420. For those
                          wanting
                          > to view the film, it is on YouTube--search for "alice in wonderland
                          1903".
                          > It is also on a 1966 DVD by Jonathan Miller.
                          >
                        • Ralph Sims
                          They say memory s the second thing to lose. I can t remember what the first was. :)
                          Message 12 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            They say memory's the second thing to lose. I can't remember what the first
                            was. :)

                            > Cecil Hepworth (not Wentworth).
                          • jenny2write
                            I didn t know RLG was murdered. I thought he killed himself - but there was something very strange about it, he thought people were trying to get him? I can t
                            Message 13 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment

                              I didn't know RLG was murdered. I thought he killed himself - but there was something very strange about it, he thought people were trying to get him?
                              I can't remember much about it so I may be wrong.
                              Jenny

                              Jenny Woolf

                              Read my Lewis Carroll blog! www.jabberwock.co.uk/blog

                            • Keith
                              Jenny, the circumstances would indicate murder but an open verdict was recorded. On the evidence the probability is foul play. Keith ... From: jenny2write To:
                              Message 14 of 19 , Oct 15, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Jenny,
                                 
                                the circumstances would indicate murder but an open verdict was recorded. On the evidence the probability is foul play.
                                 
                                Keith
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:43 PM
                                Subject: [lewiscarroll] Lancelyn Green

                                I didn't know RLG was murdered. I thought he killed himself - but there was something very strange about it, he thought people were trying to get him?
                                I can't remember much about it so I may be wrong.
                                Jenny

                                Jenny Woolf

                                Read my Lewis Carroll blog! www.jabberwock. co.uk/blog

                              • Karoline Leach
                                According to this article another possibility mooted was auto- erotic asphyxiation.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/may/23/books.booksnews His
                                Message 15 of 19 , Oct 17, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  According to this article another possibility mooted was auto-
                                  erotic asphyxiation....

                                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/may/23/books.booksnews

                                  His ex-boyfriend denied it apparently. But RLG does seem to have
                                  been delusional and paranoid at the time of his death, and some
                                  kind of suicide or accidental death looks probable. Poor guy.

                                  k

                                  ------------------------------------------

                                  www.wild-reality.net

                                  "Fabulous Design"
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.