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

Re: [lewiscarroll] Lebailly's essay

Expand Messages
  • Arne Moll
    ... I meant of course, to NOT use MS Outlook for personal emailing (use Eudora, or Pegasus, or even Lotus! No viruses! Free downloads! Good service... Oh well,
    Message 1 of 29 , Apr 30, 2001
      At 22:35 30-4-01 +0200, I wrote:
      >Keith,
      >thanks for your post. Two things:
      >1. I know it's impossible to convince people to know use MS Outlook for
      >personal emailing,

      I meant of course, to NOT use MS Outlook for personal emailing

      (use Eudora, or Pegasus, or even Lotus! No viruses! Free downloads! Good
      service... Oh well, Bill Gates will beat me anyway.)

      Arne
    • keith
      ... you ... I ve read it once again and I see nothing new there so why should we not stick to what we said and let the matter drop. If you think I have missed
      Message 2 of 29 , Apr 30, 2001
        > I'm afraid you are stuck with Outlook Express - it's the only thing I use!

        > 2. Of course old issues should not be raised again too soon, but surely
        you
        > are willing to make an exception if it concerns some completely new (part
        > of) theory?! I mean, Hugues' conclusion is quite interesting and I have
        > never read it anywhere before, so it should be explored, examined,
        > discussed in all possible ways. It's good to be restrictive, but it's much
        > worse to be too strict.

        I've read it once again and I see nothing new there so why should we not
        stick to what we said and let the matter drop.

        If you think I have missed some startling point then please enlighten me,
        but if it is merely the fact that Dodgson liked big girls as well as little
        girls then let's bury it as we agreed. It's dead! Before you jump on me
        once again, I'm not talking about speculation without evidence though, that
        needs no comment, it is simply someone's opinion.

        Hope you can read this with just the basic system on!

        Best wishes,

        Keith
      • KarolineLouise@aol.com
        Keith wrote ... Why bury it? I don t understand? As an issue it s hardly begun to be explored. And in the big wide world beyond Carrolianism hardly anyone
        Message 3 of 29 , May 1, 2001

          Keith wrote
          If you think I have missed some startling point then please enlighten me,
          but if it is merely the fact that Dodgson liked big girls as well as little
          girls then let's bury it as we agreed.  It's dead




          Why bury it?  I don't understand?  As an issue it's hardly begun to be
          explored. And in the big wide world beyond Carrolianism hardly anyone has
          even heard of it yet - as witness the witless articles appearing in US papers
          in response to the Liddell sale.

          There are so many questions raised by this new evidence, why bury them all?
          Did Mike really suggest that? I thought he just suggested an end to one
          aspect of the argument which was becoming repetitive (to wit my suggestion
          re. Mrs Liddell).

          Hugues' paper was thought-provoking why shouldn't it be commented on?

          And your suggestion that those agonised prayers of Dodgson's were a result of
          him feeling he might no be getting enough promotion prospects - well, this is
          a retrograde argument taking us back to RL Green and his idea that the guy
          was tearing himself apart because he occasionally fell asleep in the evening
          after a heavy college supper!


          I have to respect Cohen as being the first biographer to rid himself of that
          nonsensical view and to recognise that when a man starts writing things like
          "my heart is very heavy I resolve and pray but seem to beat the air", he is
          in serious trouble of some kind.  Dodgson in the 1860s is clearly in crisis,
          his life is spinning out of his grasp. He's losing his faith, turning away
          from God, repeatedly sinning in some compulsive destructive way.

          Sure, have your own opinion about  _what_  all that sin and pain and trouble
          might be - but don't try and de-pixel it into something much less than it
          really was.

          Karoline

        • HLebailly@aol.com
          Dear Mike, thank you for your concerns about the various misspellings of my first name : so long as no-one calls me Uggug, I don t mind at all ! What I did
          Message 4 of 29 , May 1, 2001
            Dear Mike,
            thank you for your concerns about the various misspellings of my first name :
            so long as no-one calls me Uggug, I don't mind at all !
            What I did feel necessary to set right was someone's alluding to me as Mr
            Hugues, whereas my surname is Lebailly indeed.
            The keys I use at Reims University (where I teach English to a group of BA
            students in contemporary history preparing competitive exams that would grant
            them admission to various schools of political science, on top of my main job
            at Paris I University) are on a 'Hughes' coat of arms key-ring I bought
            somewhere in Britain (Wales, maybe ?) - and Arthur Hughes was one of C. L.
            Dodgson's (and my own) favourite Pre-Raphaelite painters.
            With best wishes to all - and a thousand thanks for your almost unanymously
            appreciative reception of my New York talk - which makes me blush to the tip
            of my ears (in a Pigletty way).
            Love to all
            Hugues
          • HLebailly@aol.com
            I am very sorry, Keith, but when, about six years ago, I spent about a week at the (old) British Library s Manuscript Students Room feeding into my lap-top
            Message 5 of 29 , May 1, 2001
              I am very sorry, Keith, but when, about six years ago, I spent about a week
              at the (old) British Library's Manuscript Students Room feeding into my
              lap-top computer all the entries or bits of entries edited out of Green's
              edition, I only had time to copy what was directly relevant to my doctoral
              dissertation topic : meetings with artists, actors and actresses, and
              literary people, opinions on works of visual and performing arts. But Edward
              Wakeling is currently working on vol. 6, which will cover 1870, so, as he is
              not a member of this list, you could try and get in touch with him directly.
              With best wishes
              Hugues
            • keith
              ... From: KarolineLouise@aol.com To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Lebailly s essay Keith wrote
              Message 6 of 29 , May 1, 2001
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:51 AM
                Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Lebailly's essay


                Keith wrote
                If you think I have missed some startling point then please enlighten me,
                but if it is merely the fact that Dodgson liked big girls as well as little
                girls then let's bury it as we agreed.  It's dead
                Why bury it?  I don't understand?  As an issue it's hardly begun to be
                explored. And in the big wide world beyond Carrolianism hardly anyone has
                even heard of it yet - as witness the witless articles appearing in US papers
                in response to the Liddell sale.
                We agreed to stop arguing about it as nobody had any new facts and the situation was getting heated.  It wasn't my idea to stop. The USA is hardly the place where you will find any balanced view of CLD, hence the articles in their papers.  I can imagine what they are saying and that's why, of course, it's being publicised over there.  More of our heritage swanning off to the big bucks. 

                There are so many questions raised by this new evidence, why bury them all?
                Did Mike really suggest that? I thought he just suggested an end to one
                aspect of the argument which was becoming repetitive (to wit my suggestion
                re. Mrs Liddell).
                 
                Yes he did and it wasn't just about Mrs.L.  What new evidence?

                Hugues' paper was thought-provoking why shouldn't it be commented on?
                 
                Because we were told not to raise the matter again and it didn't say anything we had not heard before! 

                And your suggestion that those agonised prayers of Dodgson's were a result of
                him feeling he might no be getting enough promotion prospects - well, this is
                a retrograde argument taking us back to RL Green and his idea that the guy
                was tearing himself apart because he occasionally fell asleep in the evening
                after a heavy college supper!
                 
                I was merely putting a view based upon my own experiences at the same age.  I cannot see why Green would be so stupid as to put that argument but it hardly compares with the agony of being stuck in a dead end job in a monastry type environement with only academics to talk to.  No wonder Alice looked so good to him!

                I have to respect Cohen as being the first biographer to rid himself of that
                nonsensical view and to recognise that when a man starts writing things like
                "my heart is very heavy I resolve and pray but seem to beat the air", he is
                in serious trouble of some kind.  Dodgson in the 1860s is clearly in crisis,
                his life is spinning out of his grasp. He's losing his faith, turning away
                from God, repeatedly sinning in some compulsive destructive way.
                 
                Agreed their is a crisis but not that it is necesarily of a religious nature.  Cohen never proved his case as you know.

                Sure, have your own opinion about  _what_  all that sin and pain and trouble
                might be - but don't try and de-pixel it into something much less than it really was.
                 
                Read what I said again. I was not trying to minimise it just to point out that none of the 'explanations' have ever been proved.  In that case my opinion is as good as anyone else's.  I assure you that once someone comes up with some credible proof then I'll be only too happy to accept it.
                 
                Best wishes,
                 
                Keith
                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                www.debticated.com

                to unsubscribe  send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@egroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • keith
                ... From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Lebailly s essay ... week ...
                Message 7 of 29 , May 1, 2001
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <HLebailly@...>
                  To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:16 AM
                  Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Lebailly's essay


                  > I am very sorry, Keith, but when, about six years ago, I spent about a
                  week
                  > at the (old) British Library's Manuscript Students Room feeding into my
                  > lap-top computer all the entries or bits of entries edited out of Green's
                  > edition, I only had time to copy what was directly relevant to my doctoral
                  > dissertation topic : meetings with artists, actors and actresses, and
                  > literary people, opinions on works of visual and performing arts. But
                  Edward
                  > Wakeling is currently working on vol. 6, which will cover 1870, so, as he
                  is
                  > not a member of this list, you could try and get in touch with him
                  directly.
                  > With best wishes
                  > Hugues
                  >
                  Thanks in any case - I'll have to wait for the next diary whenever it comes!

                  Keith
                • Arne Moll
                  At 12:52 1-5-01 +0100, Keith (who hasn t put his HTML-sending off, thanks dude) wrote: (etc.etc.) I assure you that once someone comes up with ... Proof for
                  Message 8 of 29 , May 1, 2001
                    At 12:52 1-5-01 +0100, Keith (who hasn't put his HTML-sending off, thanks
                    dude) wrote:

                    (etc.etc.) I assure you that once someone comes up with
                    >some credible proof then I'll be only too happy to accept it.

                    Proof for WHAT? In order to find proof, let alone accept it, one first
                    needs to postulate a theory. And theories are usually discovered through
                    speculation, guessing, intuition, a hunch, whatever.
                    If we can't speculate anymore, if we can't suggest anything without
                    definite proof YET, we'll never get closer to the truth. And besides, it's
                    FUN to speculate, if it's done with serious facts and quotes, as Hugues was
                    trying to do.
                    For the record, in my first mail I was just saying that I would like some
                    further anaylsis of Hugues' theory, I wasn't saying we shouldn't
                    investigate it in the first place, as you seem to be doing.
                    Anyway, to be honest I'm getting rather tired of your demolishing every
                    possible way of discussing the topic of Dogdsons relgion, sexuality, or
                    whatever. It's interesting to some of us, okay? We want to know what the
                    deal was with this weird guy. Maybe you don't.
                    If you don't want to discuss it, just don't say anything, but don't spoil
                    the fun for us either.

                    Arne
                  • keith
                    Arne, I m sorry if you are upset but I don t regard it fun, as you apparently do, to speculate that CLD was Jack the Ripper or a paedophile who was intent on
                    Message 9 of 29 , May 1, 2001
                      Arne,

                      I'm sorry if you are upset but I don't regard it fun, as you apparently do,
                      to speculate that CLD was Jack the Ripper or a paedophile who was intent on
                      abusing little girls - if he was alive it would be libellous.

                      I am naturally sorry that you are upset but I don't reply to abuse - there's
                      just no point in doing so.

                      Keith
                    • Arne Moll
                      ... Keith, I am really getting tired of this discussion and this is the last thing I ll say about it. You do not seem to realise that Carroll is not only
                      Message 10 of 29 , May 2, 2001
                        At 06:55 2-5-01 +0100, Keith wrote:
                        >Arne,
                        >
                        >I'm sorry if you are upset but I don't regard it fun, as you apparently do,
                        >to speculate that CLD was Jack the Ripper or a paedophile who was intent on
                        >abusing little girls - if he was alive it would be libellous.

                        Keith, I am really getting tired of this discussion and this is the last
                        thing I'll say about it.
                        You do not seem to realise that Carroll is not only fascinating because of
                        the brilliant books he wrote. Your problem, but if you deny it, you're
                        missing out on something.
                        There has always been the riddle and even mystery of his relationship to
                        the real Alice, other little girls, indeed his sexuality and the way he
                        looked at society. He provoked it himself! Even when he was alive people
                        were talking about him. How can you expect people let these strange things
                        pass just because of politeness or respect?

                        Face reality, it's part of Carroll-research as much as anything, whether
                        you like it or not.

                        The evidence that was at hand has until now been interpreted in a very
                        dubious way, to say the least. I think Karoline and Hugues have pointed
                        this out quite enough by now.
                        But we still have the riddles, which he created himself. Why are you trying
                        to deny that? What's wrong with trying to find out what really happened? We
                        wanna know what went on in his head! That's what biographers want! If I
                        read a biography on Marilyn Monroe, I also want to know about her
                        sexuality. Sure, her movies are interesting, but why was she such a big
                        phenomenon. It's just human nature to want to know about these things.
                        And well, if you want to compare a scientific biographical analysis with
                        speculation about Jack The Ripper, that's not only unfair to the people who
                        try to do serious research (indeed it is quite an insult I would think) but
                        it also shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of the variety and
                        complexity of the whole concept 'Lewis Carroll'.
                        I mean, have you ever talked to people about Carroll without discussing his
                        sexuality? I haven't, they always bring it up themselves.
                        Even if you don't think that Dodgson would have liked it, it's just part of
                        the whole 'Carroll-thing'. Why deny that? Why be so politically correct?
                        The man has been dead for over 100 years, we really do not have to show any
                        respect for his family or whatever, you know. We are doing research here.
                        Come on.

                        Arne
                      • AnisaT@aol.com
                        In a message dated 02/05/2001 23:18:15 GMT Daylight Time, keith@cheshire46.freeserve.co.uk writes:
                        Message 11 of 29 , May 3, 2001
                          In a message dated 02/05/2001 23:18:15 GMT Daylight Time,
                          keith@... writes:

                          << Agreed their is a crisis but not that it is necesarily of a religious
                          nature. Cohen never proved his case as you know. >>


                          Sorry Keith, have I missed something here? I'm very unclear about what case
                          this is that Cohen was trying to prove.

                          John
                        • mikeindex@aol.com
                          Keith, Arne s posting to you was not abusive. Rest assured that if he or anyone else writes one that is, I shall firmly request them to stop. It was perhaps
                          Message 12 of 29 , May 5, 2001
                            Keith,

                            Arne's posting to you was not abusive.  Rest assured that if he or anyone
                            else writes one that is, I shall firmly request them to stop.

                            It was perhaps abrasive in tone.  I think it's fair to point out that while
                            it's quite unusual for Arne to take this tone, it is perfectly habitual for
                            you, and if you think it's unacceptable you should really moderate your own
                            style.

                            By the way, I have been all through the archive and I can't find any post of
                            mine which could be understood as prohibiting any further discussion of CLD's
                            sexuality or taste in female company.  If anyone else misunderstood something
                            I said in this way, please understand the 'ban' is now lifted!  

                            However, if anyone raises a specific point which has been thoroughly dealt
                            with before, I shall continue to point them gently in the direction of the
                            archive.  And if a discussion becomes overheated or hopelessly bogged down, I
                            shall suggest putting a stop to it.  This should _not_ be taken to mean that
                            the subject is never to be raised again!

                            Hope this makes things clear.

                            Cheers

                            Mike
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.