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

Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll Letter: December 5, 1885

Expand Messages
  • Jenifer Ransom
    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
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      Dreamchild 101."

      Jenifer


      mikeindex@... wrote:

      > 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.
      > Hmmm...
      >
      > cheers
      > Mike
      >
      >
      > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
    • arnemail@dds.nl
      ... Yeah but you re not going to enter a discussion with the author when you do that. ... It s also a pretty lazy and arrong way I think. As if the details in
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Keenan wrote:

        >As a student, I have encountered many books that I feel I have some
        >knowledge of without actually having read them from cover to cover.

        Yeah but you're not going to enter a discussion with the author when you do
        that.

        >It's almost necessary to read this way sometimes, and a valuable
        >skill to learn if one plans to go to grad school.

        It's also a pretty lazy and arrong way I think. As if the details in a book
        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 understand
        >Leech's thesis well enough to comment on it.

        You feel wrong, since you point out the same things that she is discussing
        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.

        Arne
      • arnemail@dds.nl
        ... 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. Arne
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 3, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          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.

          Arne
        • Keith
          ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll Letter: December
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 3, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <mikeindex@...>
            To: <lewiscarroll@egroups.com>
            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.

            Keith

            > Hi Keith
            > I've read the entry for Feb 6 as you said, and I'm now wondering - what
            has
            > 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.
            Thereafter
            > his only mention of the Liddells involve a few meetings with mrs L.
            and/or
            > 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
            suspected
            > him of courting her a few years previously).
            > So what's your evidence? and can you give me a ref for that date when
            Alice
            > broke her leg?
            >
            > cheers
            > Mike
            >
            >
            > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
            lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            >
            >
          • Jenifer Ransom
            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
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              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


              arnemail@... wrote:

              > 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.
              >
              > Arne
              >
              >
              > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            • kwindel@yahoo.com
              ... you do ... 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
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 3, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                > Yeah but you're not going to enter a discussion with the author when
                you 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 in
                a book
                > 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?

                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
                them.

                > You feel wrong, since you point out the same things that she is
                discussing
                > 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 bit
                lazy,
                > not to say arrogant, to pretend you know the thesis without knowing
                what 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
                are you?

                > 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.
                >
                > Arne

                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!
              • arnemail@dds.nl
                ... Jenifer, 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
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 3, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  >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,

                  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?

                  Arne



                  >
                  >Jenifer
                  >
                  >
                  >arnemail@... wrote:
                  >
                  >> 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.
                  >>
                  >> Arne
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  >
                • AnisaT@aol.com
                  In a message dated Thu, 2 Nov 2000 5:01:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, Adele Cammarata writes:
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 18, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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
                    know it?

                    Adele

                    Adele,

                    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
                    I've done.

                    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).

                    John Tufail

                    Apologies for the delay - I've been off line for a while
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.