Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll Letter: December 5, 1885
- Hi Mike,
It seems you think I have not read Karoline's book!
It also seems you think Keenan's opinion that he
has formed so far counts for nothing because he
has not yet finished the book.
I did not realize this group was "Shadow of The
> Kennan wrote:
> > >>>As for Leach, I would be
> > interested in reading the rest of her book. It seems, from what I've
> > read, that she is attempting to rescue Carroll from this
> > mistreatment. I'm glad. Would it not be wise, though, to do so by
> > simply placing the author back in his historical and societal
> > context, rather than by questioning the validity of evidence and
> > drawing his biography into question? Not that these things can't and
> > shouldn't be questioned, but this type of argument poses more
> > questions than it answers.
> Jenifer wrote:
> > This is pretty much my feeling, too.
> So you both think this, and neither of you have read her book.
> to unsubscribe send a blank email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Keenan wrote:
>As a student, I have encountered many books that I feel I have someYeah but you're not going to enter a discussion with the author when you do
>knowledge of without actually having read them from cover to cover.
>It's almost necessary to read this way sometimes, and a valuableIt's also a pretty lazy and arrong way I think. As if the details in a book
>skill to learn if one plans to go to grad school.
are of no importance. On the contrary, it's the details given in the book
which, to me, are most important evidence, not the 'red line' that runs
across it and that everybody knows by now. You can only discuss things if
you know what the other wrote about it, and you obviously didn't know what
Karoline wrote about the testimonies of Dodgson's childhood friends and
about Alice's memories. Now, you can start giving your opinion on that
before you've finished the book, but why not finish it first and see what
your conclusions are then?
> I feel I understandYou feel wrong, since you point out the same things that she is discussing
>Leech's thesis well enough to comment on it.
in her book.
I don't ask you to be a professional expert on this, but it's a bit lazy,
not to say arrogant, to pretend you know the thesis without knowing what is
discussed in it and what not.
I myself think that superficial reading of the material will bring only
confusion and repetition of the same questions over and over again. I do
think we need to do much more CLOSE READING, both in the biographies and in
the diaries and the letters. Now, I know basically what 'Alice in
Wonderland' is about, but a little line like 'Still, she haunts me,
phantomwise' makes quite a bit of difference, don't you think?
Not knowing everything is OK, this newsgroup is not the same for everyone,
but don't think it's easy to form a well-based opinion on this just because
you know the gist - don't pretend to know what you're talking about and
start the serious discussion if you don't even know what all the points of
view are yet.
- Jenifer wrote:
>It also seems you think Keenan's opinion that heIf that opinion is about, or discussed in, the book, and he doesn't know
>has formed so far counts for nothing because he
>has not yet finished the book.
about it yet, then yes, it's not worth much.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll Letter: December 5, 1885
The students were in conflict with the governing body led by Liddell - I
only suggest that an encounter with Liddell in the deanery when he was by
himself might have been enough of a possibility to keep Dodgson out of the
way of him and hence Alice. However, Alice was not big in his world by then
in any case, as you say, and the idea that CLD would not visit the seven
year old Alice is not what actrually occurred. Also visiting a fourteen
year old in bed is a little different from visiting a seven year old in bed
and Dodgson would know that also even if he had the urge to visit her which
I very much doubt.
The date of her accident I took from Anne Clark's book 'The Real Alice' page
111, she says it was Boxing Day 1866.
> Hi Keith
> I've read the entry for Feb 6 as you said, and I'm now wondering - what
> it got to do with Alice's leg?
> But be that as it may, what's your evidence for the scenario you present
> above of Carroll waiting to see Alice once she got better? I thought the
> consensus was that he'd stopped seeing the Liddell childrern years
> previously. He doesn't record any meetings with them after 1863.
> his only mention of the Liddells involve a few meetings with mrs L.
> the Dean, and one evening encounter with grown-up Ina in 1866 when he
> 'takes her in' to dine (weird to let him do that if her mother had
> him of courting her a few years previously).
> So what's your evidence? and can you give me a ref for that date when
> broke her leg?
> to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
- Arne, not everyone needs to read books in the
same way, any more than anyone writes books
in the same way. There are no hard and fast rules
in this area--some people are able to do more with less
and vice versa. To label Keenan "lazy" and "arrogant"
because he dares to state his viewpoints without
having read the book cover to cover is to imply that
your way is the only way.
> Jenifer wrote:
> >It also seems you think Keenan's opinion that he
> >has formed so far counts for nothing because he
> >has not yet finished the book.
> If that opinion is about, or discussed in, the book, and he doesn't know
> about it yet, then yes, it's not worth much.
> to unsubscribe send a blank email to: email@example.com
> Yeah but you're not going to enter a discussion with the author whenyou do
> that.If I feel comfortable doing so, yes I will! The things I am
discussing are general points about her thesis. If I was going in and
questioning specific supporting points about that thesis without
having examined them, that would be innappropriate. But I'm having a
discussion with the author about HER THESIS. That I understand well
enough from what I've read in her book and in this forum.
> It's also a pretty lazy and arrong way I think. As if the details ina book
> are of no importance. On the contrary, it's the details given in thebook
> which, to me, are most important evidence, not the 'red line' thatruns
> across it and that everybody knows by now. You can only discussthings if
> you know what the other wrote about it, and you obviously didn'tknow what
> Karoline wrote about the testimonies of Dodgson's childhood friendsand
> about Alice's memories. Now, you can start giving your opinion onthat
> before you've finished the book, but why not finish it first and seewhat
> your conclusions are then?First, my Alice Liddell references were not addressed to Ms. Leech and
had nothing, directly, to do with her book. Can't I share what I
consider to be evidence about something with another member of this
forum without it being assumed that I'm also addressing the author?
Do I really need to know what Karoline Leech said about every quote
from every source that I post here in order to share it? Give me a
break! I just got here, and I registered to discuss Lewis Carroll,
not Karoline Leech's book!
As for my method of reading, I don't usually read that way. But when
I do, I have found that by getting a handle on the thesis and
examining a few supporting details, I really do have a grasp on what
the author is trying to say. If you think my comments suggest that
I'm ignorant, you should look carefully at what I'm commenting about.
If you still think I'm ignorant, then go on thinking it! I don't give
a flying f***!! Most of the time, I've agreed with the author or taken
her word for it, and most of the time my comments have been about
general points made in her thesis. I haven't contended with the
little evidences and supporting details, so don't accuse me of
laziness for not having examined them. I haven't said anything about
> You feel wrong, since you point out the same things that she isdiscussing
> in her book.Pardon me for making a point that Ms. Leech made in her book. But is
it not possible that we just happen to agree on something if we feel
the same way about something? You must have it in your mind that I'm
the sworn enemy of Karoline Leech? I'm not. I agree with much of
what she's said, and I'm humbled by the opportunity to discuss Alice
with her. I've already told her so. But I'm a free-thinking
individual and I form my own opinions. I might not know as much about
Carroll or Alice Liddell or In The Shadow of the Dreamchild as some
other people here, but I'm entitled to share my opinions about what I
know -- and when I know it.
> I don't ask you to be a professional expert on this, but it's a bitlazy,
> not to say arrogant, to pretend you know the thesis without knowingwhat is
> discussed in it and what not.We obviously differ in our opinions about what a thesis is and how
much significance should be placed on it. I generally spend more time
thinking about the thesis than the details, because I feel that the
overall thrust of the suthor's argument is far more important to your
average lay-reader than the supporting details. I soon forget little
details, even when I have read every word on every page of a book.
But if I've thought about the thesis, I remember that, and in most
cases it's enough to do well on a test, write a good paper, or even
have general discussions with an author about general points in his or
her work. And I don't care what you ask me to be, by the way. Who
> I myself think that superficial reading of the material will bringonly
> confusion and repetition of the same questions over and over again.I do
> think we need to do much more CLOSE READING, both in the biographiesand in
> the diaries and the letters. Now, I know basically what 'Alice ineveryone,
> Wonderland' is about, but a little line like 'Still, she haunts me,
> phantomwise' makes quite a bit of difference, don't you think?
> Not knowing everything is OK, this newsgroup is not the same for
> but don't think it's easy to form a well-based opinion on this justbecause
> you know the gist - don't pretend to know what you're talking aboutand
> start the serious discussion if you don't even know what all thepoints of
> view are yet.I agree that close details in a work of literature are important.
Aren't we talking about a work of literary criticism, though? They
are quite different things. Look at a bibliography at the end of
someone's book. Do you suppose the author has read every one of those
books and articles from cover to cover? You're naive if you do. You
see, you don't necessarily have to read every word of a text to
understand what you think you need to understand. An author will
criticise another author, perhaps without having read the work they're
criticising from start to finish. YOU choose to care more about the
evidence! I care more about the thesis! I imagine even Ms. Leech has
done this sort of quick reading? And if I don't know what I'm talking
about because I've only looked at her thesis, then you should be
careful to examine whether I've actually been critical of her
supporting details. I don't believe I have. Oh, and why the
hostility? I was trying to have a friendly discussion, and I haven't
pretended to be an expert. I can play this game too: you're
patronizing, cocky, intolerant, and much too concerned about what I
think and what I've read!
>Arne, not everyone needs to read books in theJenifer,
>same way, any more than anyone writes books
>in the same way. There are no hard and fast rules
>in this area--some people are able to do more with less
>and vice versa. To label Keenan "lazy" and "arrogant"
>because he dares to state his viewpoints without
>having read the book cover to cover is to imply that
>your way is the only way.
I am sorry, but I do think it's arrogant to enter a discussion with the
author of a book about some parts of that book and admitting at the same
time you haven't read the whole book. Is that so stupid of me? Come on... My
way apparently isn't the only way, but another way just doesn't seem very
clever to me.
You know, when I first heard of Karoline's book, and heard what it was
about, and even when I read parts of it, I also felt like she must have been
wrong, well I felt like I should react immediately, anyway! But I didn't
write about it yet - because I wasn't sure whether I had understood
everything. I thought that to write about it without having read it all was
pretty damn arrogant, and I still think it is. Read the book if you want to
discuss it! Sure, you can discuss other things, but not the book. And you
have to agree with me, it *is* rather boring to read some opinion by someone
which is already stated in the book. That could have been avoided if the
person wasn't so eager to respond without knowing what's written in it!
You can't discuss Tolstoy's book "War and Peace" if you've only seen the
movie, can you?
>> Jenifer wrote:
>> >It also seems you think Keenan's opinion that he
>> >has formed so far counts for nothing because he
>> >has not yet finished the book.
>> If that opinion is about, or discussed in, the book, and he doesn't know
>> about it yet, then yes, it's not worth much.
>> to unsubscribe send a blank email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
>to unsubscribe send a blank email to: email@example.com
- In a message dated Thu, 2 Nov 2000 5:01:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Adele
Cammarata" <adelecammarata@...> writes:
Hi to you all!
I've found a delicious booklet: "Alice in Letterland", written and
illustrated in French by Roland Topor. (Obviously I've found it in Italian).
It's a revolution of the letters against the Grammar and the Syntax. Do you
This sounds extremely interesting. I had not heard of it and (not
surprisingly) it isn't in British Books in Print or other quick book searches
Could I prevail upon you to give my a rapid synopsis? off or on site - as
you feel comfortable (though I think
on site would be more stimulating).
Apologies for the delay - I've been off line for a while