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

Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Sheep and Boxes

Expand Messages
  • fernando soto
    Hi Goetz, I AM encouraging you to not waste your nor other members time with your crackpot theories and cloak and dagger, mystery stuff. Frankly the innuendo
    Message 1 of 77 , Oct 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Goetz,

      I AM encouraging you to not waste your nor other members' time with your crackpot theories and cloak and dagger, mystery stuff.  Frankly the innuendo about having some hidden group of people in this list that "understand" or can "see" what you are doing is problematic at best and ridiculous/paranoid at worst.  Why don't you concentrate on questions which require answers, as opposed to stuff which seems to be so far removed that you have to "hard sell" it to the rest of us? 

       So, by all means I am encouraging you, and anyone else interested, to help solve a real problem, not one that is merely in your head.  As far as I can tell you - with all of the circling of parts, fudging with faces, removing pieces, beating around the bush with bits, and trying to convince with your "evidence" and "arguments" - have not got anywhere close to the obvious evidence for Tenniel's, Furniss' and Carroll's use of Rosa's 'The Temptation of St. Anthony!  Doesn't this tell you something?  This is what's called "borrowing," and it is up to us to figure out the reason for Carroll's borrowing.  In my opinion all you provide is stuff that Goetz thinks is related, without any backup other than your own opinions and more stuff that Goetz thinks s related.  So the question become not "why did Carroll borrow from X," but "why does Goetz think Carroll borrowed from X."  If you want to continue to deal with this type of question, maybe it shouldn't be done within a list devoted to the study of Carroll and not Goetz.

      So, just to humour me, why don't you try and deal with the Carroll-Rosa problem and see where this gets us?

      All best,

      Fernando


      From: GoetzK <goetzkluge.0001@...>
      To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 2:48:19 PM
      Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Sheep and Boxes

       



      --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi All,
      >
      > Had I known that people at this site were such art experts ...

      Rudolf Arnheim: Arts and Visual Perception, 1954/1974, Chapter 2

      Compare that with Fernado's encoraging utterances.


    • Michael Everson
      ... Oh, drat. And here I was hoping this could be the end. Goetz, you have been showing us and wanting us to talk about your pictures and your theory for
      Message 77 of 77 , Jan 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9 Jan 2010, at 19:10, GoetzK wrote:

        >> Deb's approach sounds very sensible. So why don't we go by it?
        >
        > Yes. It is a good start.

        Oh, drat. And here I was hoping this could be the end.

        Goetz, you have been showing us and wanting us to talk about your
        pictures and your theory for months now.

        For my part, I don't *care* about these illustrations any more; in
        fact, this over analysis has put me off caring about the Snark *at all*.

        Your incessantly regular re-posting of links to your genius site has
        pretty much squelched all other discussion on this list. Nobody much
        had a chance to talk about Keith's new book, or my new edition of
        Richards. Because it's alllllll about Goetz and his Rorschach readings
        of some Holiday's drawings.

        What a bore.

        You go on and on explaining to us how you blow up badly pixellated
        images and blur them, as though this had any merit at all. Holiday and
        Carroll never ever considered pixels, unless perhaps in gazing at a
        Persian carpet.

        > Good question. And why would he display a mirror view of the mouth
        > only (http://holiday.snrk.de/img/PriestInMouth2.jpg) without
        > mirroring the whole head? Do we talk about shape and form or already
        > about meaning?

        Does anybody care? I sure don't. I'd really like to see this list talk
        about something interesting for a change.

        Fernando said:

        >> On the other hand, when you are provided with much more probable
        >> connections - Huxley's, Hancher's and my own work on Tenniel's use
        >> of Salvador Rosa's picture, found in a book owned by CARROLL - you
        >> are not interested. There we have a real probable connection to
        >> Carroll, and we can give a lot of context and a theory for the
        >> reason the borrowing took place.
        >
        > Yes. That makes research easier and safer. What you found is pretty
        > clear. There are lots of interesting things. And I don't question
        > your findings. But I simply like Carroll's "Snark" a lot. And
        > seemingly the cooperation between Carroll and Holiday went very well.

        Yes, but you're spoiling our enjoyment of the Snark and indeed of
        Holiday. Give it a rest! Take your theory over to http://thecarrollforum.proboards.com/
        where you can start a thread, and if people are interested in the
        thread they can talk with you about it there. But I (as moderator) am
        really tired of getting the same old posts from you with the same old
        links to the same old images week after week.

        Maybe your ideas have some merit, but they've ceased to be
        interesting, or fresh.

        >> This why I keep telling you that your project reminds me of not
        >> seeing the forest for the trees, or looking so intently at the
        >> stars that one falls into a Wonderland well, to one's own peril.

        Fernando, I think your use of metaphor is falling on deaf ears.

        > Gaussian bluring helps to focus on the forest without getting
        > distracted by the trees.

        No it doesn't; nor does it have any relevance to the clarity which
        Carroll and Holiday sought.

        > People who knew and know that, used that trick in old times by
        > watching the scene through bird feathers. Today GIMP helps (http://holiday.snrk.de/SnarkSearch.cgi
        > ). People, who do not know that when comparing images, call the
        > result "blurry crap".

        I know how to squint to see something. I also know that I am little
        interested in looking and your blurry crap any longer.

        I'd like to consider this topic closed for AT LEAST six months. Goetz,
        take it to the other forum. Anybody else, you want to talk about it,
        please do it on the other forum. The topic is smothering all other
        discussion here.

        If you won't take this advice, I may choose to exercise my powers as
        moderator. Not out of animosity toward you or toward your work, but
        out of a concern for the welfare of the discussions on this forum.

        Respectfully (whether you believe me or not),
        Michael Everson
        Moderator
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.