Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Sheep and Boxes
- 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
- On 9 Jan 2010, at 19:10, GoetzK wrote:
>> Deb's approach sounds very sensible. So why don't we go by it?Oh, drat. And here I was hoping this could be the end.
> Yes. It is a good start.
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
> Good question. And why would he display a mirror view of the mouthDoes anybody care? I sure don't. I'd really like to see this list talk
> only (http://holiday.snrk.de/img/PriestInMouth2.jpg) without
> mirroring the whole head? Do we talk about shape and form or already
> about meaning?
about something interesting for a change.
>> On the other hand, when you are provided with much more probableYes, but you're spoiling our enjoyment of the Snark and indeed of
>> 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.
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 notFernando, I think your use of metaphor is falling on deaf ears.
>> 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.
> Gaussian bluring helps to focus on the forest without gettingNo it doesn't; nor does it have any relevance to the clarity which
> distracted by the trees.
Carroll and Holiday sought.
> People who knew and know that, used that trick in old times byI know how to squint to see something. I also know that I am little
> 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".
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
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),