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

Re: [lewiscarroll] photographs/poems

Expand Messages
  • KarolineLouise@aol.com
    BOB wrote ... Hi Bob, No more or less married than before. But I do have a middle name. ... I m sorry Bob. Mr. Hummer has already given me a good talking to
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 14, 2000
      BOB wrote
      > Karolinelouise,
      > I note the name change. You used to use "Karoline Leach". Perhaps
      > you are now using a middle name or perhaps you've now married.

      Hi Bob,
      No more or less married than before.
      But I do have a middle name.

      > either case, good to hear from you. Rather imperious message, however.

      I'm sorry Bob. Mr. Hummer has already given me a good talking to about that.
      I am a totally tamed shrew and no mistake.


      >To your questions, NO, I never
      > considered him a pedophile (U.S. spelling). He seems to have had unique
      > relationships with prepubescent girls but there seems to be no sexual
      > aspects to those relationships (if that's entirely possible). This
      > discussion has not altered my views of CLD.

      I always admire certitude Bob. I find it so difficult to be that sure of
      anything myself.

      > I was not familiar with his serious poetry. "Jabberwocky" has
      > always been a part of my life and I'm glad and it will remain there. In
      > my scheme of things it IS serious.

      So, what do you think of the poems aired here? has it made you want to read
      more?
      (probably not, come to think of it - they weren't that great were they? There
      are better ones - honestly)


      > White rabbits and ravens and writing desks seem to be attractive
      > subjects for discussion.

      Okay - why is a rabbit like a writing desk?
      (be pedantic).


      > My narrow-minded idiocy is inherent but I've worked to enhance it.

      Bob,
      as someone who has shelled out hard cash for a copy of my book - consider
      yourself exempt from all suggestion of narrow-mindedness
      Though idiocy might be another matter.
      After all you could have saved your money for that legendary fifteen-foot
      member.



      Mr Hummer wrote:
      > This is absurd. First you set yourself up as an expert and then challenge
      > anyone who disagrees with you, now you set yourself up as arbiter of who
      > should or should not be on this list, and with a smart ass attitude to
      > boot. I think the answer to your question lies in there somewhere. I
      > think you can safely assume that everyone is on this list because of some
      > interest in Lewis Carroll's life and work, otherwise they wouldn't have
      > gone to the trouble of subscribing. I suspect most don't post for fear of
      > receiving smart ass replies from know-it-alls.


      Gosh.
      sorry sorry sorry for whatever i've done to upset you so much.
      (do ladies annoy you a lot?)
      I'm not surprised you felt you had to be so caustic and rude.
      manners are wasted on the likes of me and no mistake.

      But -aren't you going to do my questionaire?
      I would love to read your answers.


      Karoline
    • AnisaT@aol.com
      Sort of falling of my horse here, but reluctantly stumbling to Karoline s defence. I must admit I was amazed by the almost vitriolic nature of Karoline s
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 14, 2000
        Sort of falling of my horse here, but reluctantly stumbling to Karoline's
        defence.

        I must admit I was amazed by the almost vitriolic nature of Karoline's
        posting/questionnaire. But to be frank I'm not surprised - I have had
        similar barely suppressed feelings. It is not arrogance, it is not setting
        oneself up as an expert - far from it - it is belief. Belief that Lewis
        Carroll has been very hard done by and actual FACT. I admit to knowing
        Karoline. She is not a person who has ever set herself up as an 'expert'.
        In fact in our off list postings (and recently) she has bemoaned the fact
        that there is NOBODY who could lay claim to such status. I subscribe to the
        list to share both what expertise I may posses - which I feel is
        comparatively little and HOPE for exchanges of views which may put me right
        when I err (as people like Matt and Mike have done recently).

        It may be that contributors such as Karoline and I intimidate because of what
        seems like 'superior knowledge'. But it is just a fact that I certainly and
        Karoline, I believe, feel that we are trawling very lightly over a barely
        identified and extremely complex, deep historical topography. My interest is
        in Carroll's philosophical, theological and political views. Karoline's is
        more fundamental - and I agree with her - she just wants those who profess to
        admire or feel an empathy with Carroll to assist in identifying who Lewis
        Carroll actually is!

        So please do not feel intimidated by Karoline's forthright mailing - see it
        instead as a challenge. Dialectics and challenge is, after all, what Carroll
        sustained throughout his lifetime.

        John Tufail
      • Bob Spark
        John, To tell the truth, I was not offended by Karoline s message. Upon reflection I suspect that at least part of her purpose was to stimulate discussion on
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 14, 2000
          John,
          To tell the truth, I was not offended by Karoline's message. Upon
          reflection I suspect that at least part of her purpose was to stimulate
          discussion on a board that had become somehat moribund of late. An
          honorable motive, certainly.

          Bob Spark
        • AnisaT@aol.com
          Having come to your defence Karoline I rather suppose I had better answer your questionaire. Q.1. You asked if any of the recent discussion altered my view of
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 14, 2000
            Having come to your defence Karoline I rather suppose I had better answer
            your questionaire.

            Q.1. You asked if any of the recent discussion altered my view of the man at
            all.

            Answer? Frankly no! but it has altered my own views on how to approach him.
            Because so many of his papers were destroyed it is difficult to get an angle
            on him. I have relied on his diaries to a great extent - but like many of
            his contemporaries, the omissions are just as important as the text. This
            leaves it open to people like myself (and you!) to fill in the gaps. As you
            know, because of this, my approach has been to approach the subject (LC)
            through a combination of examining his writings and his relationships. There
            has been much on the list in the last few months which has led me to
            re-examine my approach.

            You asked, 'Did you previously think he was a paedeophile'.

            Answer. No definitely not. In fact the lack of evidence for paedeophilia is
            so lacking that, as the list knows, I seriously wonder about the mentality of
            those who have promoted this particular canard! As there is no evidence of
            paedeophilia in Carroll's relationships with either boys or girls the slur
            has never worried me. No diagrams are necessary.

            You asked, 'Has anything you have read here surprised you?'

            Answer. Yes. I have been surprised and heartened by the contribution of a
            few and even more surprised that some of the more connected (e.g. various LC
            society members) have failed to make even a single contribution to a list
            which has so much potential.

            You asked 'Has it caused me to rethink my views'.

            Answer. Yes! Though indirectly. Believe it or not the Vico/S&B connection
            came about (in a very convoluted way) through a combination of something Arne
            said and something Monica said (though, sorry, I can't remember what it was!).

            Yo asked, 'If not why are you such a narrow minded idiot'.

            Answer, Well, narrow mindedness and idiocy are not necessarily intimately
            connected. I am 'narrow minded' in the sensethat I am persuing a particular
            aspect (or aspects) of Carroll's life. Does this make me an idiot? (I think
            I would prefer privated mailings on this please!).

            Questions four and five - regarding Carroll's 'serious poetry'. Yes I have
            read it and it was one of the reasons I believe he has been seriously
            misrepresented. I completely disagree with those who say it is ALL slight or
            trivial. This is a myth which compares with the paediophlia fantasy. True,
            some of it is frankjly awful. But Look at a great deal of the sentimental,
            banal slush which was being published at the time to put it into context.
            And don't forget, Carroll was always keen on publication - at any level.
            There's wheat and chaff here.

            Question 6. Obviously the only surprise about reading it on the list is that
            someone, at last, has decided to take Carroll's 'serious poetry' seriously!

            Regarding the rest, Yes I have read S&B (because a) I wanted to and b) I had
            to) but still not thoroughly enough - the two books continue to fascinate,
            intrigue and puzzle me.

            I am neither intimidated nor confused, my daughter likes white rabbits - a
            point of current domestic dispute - Ravens and writing desks are wonderful
            after dinner topics (if one has the energy) but paedeophilia should be a
            banned topic on this list.

            Well, (Phew!)

            That's it, I think!

            John Tufail
          • KarolineLouise@aol.com
            Hi all, John, thanks for your wonderful response, which was as eloquent a piece of writing as has ever been seen here. Yes, Bob, I suppose it was an attempt to
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 17, 2000
              Hi all,
              John, thanks for your wonderful response, which was as eloquent a piece of
              writing as has ever been seen here.
              Yes, Bob, I suppose it was an attempt to rouse a few people here into having
              something to say.
              pretty well failed though, didn't it.
              Still, never mind. There is a long and respected tradition of dymamic
              inactiviity among many many carrollians.
              Not for them the lively discussion and the new ideas that circulate around
              Austen, Thackeray or similarly distinguished literary names.
              They consider discussion to be a sign of ill-breeding. They t keep their
              opinions locked safely away in a tin box in a dark and dusty secret room,
              while they sit alone and dream of snarks; or tall and similalrly dreaming
              spires; or little girls; or maybe (if disturbingly) - all three at once.
              Not sure why.
              Is it I wonder caused by the same virus that makes so many of his
              biographers put pictures of the white rabbit on their book covers?
              These are deep waters.

              Matt: please don't look at that photo any more than you have to. It just
              might turn you to stone.
              Do another one.
              How about his picture of the skulls?
              Or the boys at Twyford School?


              Karoline
            • maewren@aol.com
              Dear Madame Karoline spelled with a K I ve been a member of this particular list for close to 2 years and since then I have witnessed many fascinating
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 17, 2000
                Dear Madame Karoline spelled with a "K"

                I've been a member of this particular list for close to 2 years and since
                then I have witnessed many fascinating conversations and taken part in a few
                myself. But my Goodness! I did not realize it was a *rule* that one must
                actively participate. (Or is that only a Ms Karoline mandate? I best check
                the guide book on One Lists Etiquette...)
                There are many reasons why one joins a list and to pretend to know why anyone
                does anything is quite presumptuous. Speaking only for myself I read AIW when
                I was very young and was more impressed by Tennial's artistic interpretations
                than LC's prose. Call me a heathen if you will, (for frankly I couldn't care
                less as opinions are all subjective anyway) but it wasnt until I was much
                older that I began to appreciate the words themselves.

                And as far as actively participating, I do *oh so truly apologize* for having
                a busy life and that I save List Postings in my inbox for several weeks
                before I can actually peruse them with care. Consequently I find my opinions
                have already been expressed by one person or another and to repeat the same
                thing for fear of being called a lurker (GASP), well, I thought that would
                be rude...but I see now that is not the case and I should in fact do the
                exact opposite! Thank you Karoline for setting me on the right path!
              • KarolineLouise@aol.com
                ... check ... same ... would ... Dear maewren, don t think me rude - but what makes you think this is a way to address someone in public with whom you have
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 17, 2000
                  maewren@... writes:
                  > Dear Madame karoline spelled with a 'K'
                  > I've been a member of this particular list for close to 2 years and since
                  > then I have witnessed many fascinating conversations and taken part in a
                  > few
                  > myself.
                  >But my Goodness! I did not realize it was a *rule* that one must
                  > actively participate. (Or is that only a Ms Karoline mandate? I best
                  check
                  > the guide book on One Lists Etiquette...)
                  > There are many reasons why one joins a list and to pretend to know why
                  > anyone
                  > does anything is quite presumptuous. Speaking only for myself I read AIW
                  > when
                  > I was very young and was more impressed by Tennial's artistic
                  > interpretations
                  > than LC's prose.
                  > Call me a heathen if you will, (for frankly I couldn't
                  > care
                  > less as opinions are all subjective anyway) but it wasnt until I was much
                  > older that I began to appreciate the words themselves.
                  >
                  > And as far as actively participating, I do *oh so truly apologize* for
                  > having
                  > a busy life and that I save List Postings in my inbox for several weeks
                  > before I can actually peruse them with care. Consequently I find my
                  > opinions
                  > have already been expressed by one person or another and to repeat the
                  same
                  > thing for fear of being called a lurker (GASP), well, I thought that
                  would
                  >
                  > be rude...but I see now that is not the case and I should in fact do the
                  > exact opposite! Thank you Karoline for setting me on the right path!
                  >


                  Dear maewren,

                  don't think me rude - but what makes you think this is a way to address
                  someone in public with whom you have never exchanged a word before?

                  None of my remarks were about you, personally, since I don't even know you.
                  They weren't even really about anyone on this list.
                  More about a certain attitude prevailing in the bastions of Carroll orthodoxy
                  , where my ideas (actually any ideas really) are anathema.

                  And actually - it was supposed to be a joke.

                  However, since you seem to have taken them personally, I apologise for
                  upsetting you.

                  But, how about leave my personal failings out of it - and instead find
                  something interesting to say about CLD?
                  Maybe tell us what you think of the discussions here about his sexuality -
                  his relationships with women, his poetry, his photography?

                  And - that's 'Tenniel', spelled without the 'a'.


                  Karoline
                  (not a Madame, if I was, i'd make more money)
                • AnisaT@aol.com
                  Dear Karoline & Maewren, Actually I think that there should be an etiquette proforma for this list. If there was, you would BOTH deserve, at the very least, a
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 17, 2000
                    Dear Karoline & Maewren,

                    Actually I think that there should be an etiquette proforma for this list.
                    If there was, you would BOTH deserve, at the very least, a slap on the wrist!

                    Karoline first. It reflects extremely badly on you and retracts from some
                    good points, that you ended up with a petty remark on a typographical (or
                    even memory) error over the spelling of Tenniel. You in particular should
                    know that the spelling of a familiar name at a particular time, especially on
                    the list, is irrelevant. What is important is the context, emotional and
                    intellectual quality of the message. I have personal experience of this when
                    I sent a long and (I thought) well argued letter to the LCSNA only to have it
                    rejected on the grounds that I had spelt Ellen Terry's name wrong. I had
                    merely forgotten that that I had left primary school many years ago and
                    thought I was talking to tolerant and interested, intellectually curious
                    peers!

                    People who take refuge in typos and misspellings should really look at either
                    their motives or emotions!

                    Maewren,

                    Your attack on Karoline, I suspect, has an element of guilt in it. It is
                    certainly very defensive! There should be a protocol that forbids and
                    deletes personal attacks of this nature. As with Karolines message, deep
                    breaths and counting to ten, I suspect, would have enabled a more coherent
                    response. Still, the one thing that does come across is that you are an
                    extremely busy person who is not, by nature rude or dismissive.

                    The one thing I will say, is that even a one sentence remark saying 'I
                    agree', 'Or I think what you are saying is in varience with the truth as I
                    know it', would add to the list.

                    I know for a fact that you have NEVER responded to any of my postings, either
                    on or off list. Not even for clarification. I'm not suggesting that that is
                    a breach of etiquet - but on a personal level I would like to know your
                    opinions.

                    Lets face it, the internet is a really positive force if used correctly, but
                    there really should be a basic list etiquette that people identify themselves
                    and their interests (this is general by the way) and at least occassionally
                    contribute. Otherwise the outcome is going to become insularity, cliqueism.
                    paranoia ..... and a virulent outbrake of plain bad manners!

                    John Tufail

                    PS forgive my typos as I forgive yours!
                  • bbreynolds@aol.com
                    In a message dated 6/17/2000 6:36:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AnisaT@aol.com ... Shame on you, it s outbreak ...a similar sequence has appeared on the
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 17, 2000
                      In a message dated 6/17/2000 6:36:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AnisaT@...
                      writes:

                      > and a virulent outbrake of plain bad manners!

                      Shame on you, it's "outbreak"...a similar sequence has appeared on the
                      "RRDIANA" group recently, when someone dared to suggest some grammer
                      tune-ups; but he did it at length, to the point of beyond exhaustion. I
                      think of list message groups as akin to post-dinner discussions in a college
                      commons; full of a lot of sound, significance level low, but sometimes
                      offering a guiding path to future enjoyment.

                      Bruce B. Reynolds, Trailing Edge Technologies, Glenside PA
                    • maewren@aol.com
                      In a message dated 06/17/2000 2:32:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, KarolineLouise@aol.com writes: Really?
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 17, 2000
                        In a message dated 06/17/2000 2:32:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                        KarolineLouise@... writes:

                        << And actually - it was supposed to be a joke.>>
                        Really? Couldn't you tell mine was as well dear?
                      • maewren@aol.com
                        In a message dated 06/17/2000 3:36:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AnisaT@aol.com writes:
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 18, 2000
                          In a message dated 06/17/2000 3:36:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                          AnisaT@... writes:

                          << Your attack on Karoline, I suspect, has an element of guilt in it. It is
                          certainly very defensive! There should be a protocol that forbids and
                          deletes personal attacks of this nature. As with Karolines message, deep
                          breaths and counting to ten, I suspect, would have enabled a more coherent
                          response. Still, the one thing that does come across is that you are an
                          extremely busy person who is not, by nature rude or dismissive.
                          >>

                          John, I concur. Deep breaths & counting to ten would have been the correct
                          thing to do but I did respond immediately on base emotion and that was my
                          error! No, I am not rude or dismissive by nature nor am I an obnoxious
                          pedantic but when I read remarks such as the one posted by The Karoline I
                          reacted to sarcasm with sarcasm. I don't believe I was the only one who felt
                          as if I were being scolded to by the "school marm" (I will forever now
                          remember that it is spelled "Tenniel'" without the "a'"...thank you again,
                          Madame!) However, if her request was to initiate and inspire more people to
                          participate I think her language has only served to alienate them even more.
                          To be clear, I have enjoyed reading the postings here. For the most part
                          the conversations were lively and eloquently debated. And as I had mentioned
                          earlier I have never been able to respond because by the time I could peruse
                          the comments the time had passed and it was no longer "topical" or I would
                          just cluttered everyone mailbox with repetitive remarks. My interest in LC
                          and the whole AIW mythos is something I put in my "extra time for hobbies and
                          interests category." It is not my utmost priority and it shall never be.
                          So, in response to the question that Ms. Karoline asks (very sweetly and
                          nicely let me add)
                          << I guess no one has anything to say about the thoughtful contributions made
                          by
                          Matt and Mike on the subjects of CLD's poetry and photography.
                          It kind of makes me wonder (very nicely and sweetly) what you 100 guys who
                          never say anything are doing here.
                          Ask yourselves - do you really have any interest in this guy's life and work
                          at all?
                          You certainly have nothing you want to say.
                          So, is a mailing list really for you?>>


                          If I have to make it something I must do rather than spend time with my
                          family then no, Karoline, maybe a list is not something for me after all.
                        • KarolineLouise@aol.com
                          ... Sorry, John, but I you failed to take the point. The lady decided to make a petty and rather nasty issue of the spelling of my name - Dear Madame
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 18, 2000
                            JOHN wrote:
                            > It reflects extremely badly on you and retracts from some
                            > good points, that you ended up with a petty remark on a typographical (or
                            > even memory) error over the spelling of Tenniel

                            Sorry, John, but I you failed to take the point.
                            The lady decided to make a petty and rather nasty issue of the spelling of
                            my name -

                            'Dear Madame Karoline spelled with a 'K''

                            I responded to her pettiness - NOT her poor spelling.

                            For the record -
                            I've been addressed more than once here with extreme rudeness, simply for
                            putting forward my considered views.
                            I have NEVER responded in kind and NEVER will.

                            Neither have I ever made fun of anyone else's typographical errors - or
                            indeed the spelling of anyone's name.

                            Do I really need a lecture in etiquette?

                            But this whole thing is just getting silly, isn't it.
                            I was invited along here to answer some questions about my work.
                            I've done that - and more.
                            I've got this list linked up to a few other web sites, which has boosted
                            membership. I even asked my fellow-biographers and/or scholars if they'd like
                            to come along and make themselves known to you.
                            A few of them did.
                            Most stayed away.
                            Maybe they were wiser than I..

                            I am just going out....I may be some time.


                            Karoline
                          • AnisaT@aol.com
                            Re: Outbreak. Shame on you! You obviously didn t read my text! First victim to me! John Tufail
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 18, 2000
                              Re: Outbreak.

                              Shame on you! You obviously didn't read my text! First victim to me!

                              John Tufail
                            • Arne Moll
                              It is a shame that this discussion has turned so immature. I think Karoline had a good point when she wrote that it s a pity that most people that are on this
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 18, 2000
                                It is a shame that this discussion has turned so immature.
                                I think Karoline had a good point when she wrote that it's a pity that most
                                people that are on this list are not contributing actively. And I think
                                it's even more idiotic that some people only start contributing when
                                someone's complaining that they're not contributing.
                                Why don't you all just focus on the relevant subjects on this list, instead
                                of acting like a bunch of children on a playground? A bit of arguing is
                                good for the discussion, but starting to insult each other is really below
                                every acceptable level. Geez.
                                I really regret it that Karoline has left this mailing list,- especially
                                because I recall that only when she arrived here, the discussion (which had
                                been dead for months) became alive again. Now I'm afraid this list will die
                                a silent dead again. Please let's not allow that!!

                                Arne




                                At 01:28 PM 18-6-00 EDT, you wrote:
                                >Re: Outbreak.
                                >
                                >Shame on you! You obviously didn't read my text! First victim to me!
                                >
                                >John Tufail
                                >
                                >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
                                >http://click.egroups.com/1/5534/6/_/485719/_/961349338/
                                >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                >
                                >
                              • J. Thomas Hummer
                                ... Ok, let me see if I understand this: We re not to insult one another, but somehow it s ok for you to insult us by calling us childish and idiotic. To quote
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 18, 2000
                                  on 6/18/2000 13:30 Arne Moll wrote:

                                  >It is a shame that this discussion has turned so immature.
                                  >I think Karoline had a good point when she wrote that it's a pity that most
                                  >people that are on this list are not contributing actively. And I think
                                  >it's even more idiotic that some people only start contributing when
                                  >someone's complaining that they're not contributing.
                                  >Why don't you all just focus on the relevant subjects on this list, instead
                                  >of acting like a bunch of children on a playground? A bit of arguing is
                                  >good for the discussion, but starting to insult each other is really below
                                  >every acceptable level.

                                  Ok, let me see if I understand this: We're not to insult one another, but
                                  somehow it's ok for you to insult us by calling us childish and idiotic.
                                  To quote Arne Moll, "Geez."

                                  For every person on this list there is probably a different reason for
                                  being here. Most of us, I would bet, are students of Carroll, not
                                  scholars or pseudo-scholars. We acknowledge our ignorance to ourselves
                                  and are here to learn. Some of us are like those who sit in the back row
                                  of the classroom, preferring anonymity and taking whatever tidbits of
                                  information come along from those more knowledgeable than us to further
                                  our study and our understanding of the subject. Some of us really have
                                  nothing to add, nothing to say, we just to want to learn. That's why I'm
                                  here. What's so wrong with that? I once or twice poked a thought onto the
                                  list and got ignored, invalidated. That's supposed to encourage me to
                                  post more? I don't think so. I've seen enough insults and putdowns and
                                  sarcastic remarks (disguised as humor) of others' thoughts to understand
                                  why some have chosen not to post, why some have chosen to unsubscribe
                                  altogether (there is at least one, to my knowledge, who unsubscribed for
                                  that reason).

                                  If the powers that be insist that everyone contribute to the discussion,
                                  then the list should be closed, not open. Perhaps a moderator would then
                                  want to conduct auditions, to test potential subscribers' erudition on
                                  the subject. But last time I checked, it is an open list, anyone may
                                  join. If, and until, that changes, no one deserves criticism for sitting
                                  back and just taking it all in.

                                  And hey, the list, and, if I dare say, the world, will go on without
                                  Karoline. Contrary to what she and some others may think, she is not the
                                  center of the universe (egocentrism being the ultimate hallmark of
                                  childishness, by the way). Not everyone sees and experiences the world
                                  (and mailing lists) as she does, not everyone sees and experiences the
                                  world (and mailing lists) as Arne Moll does. If anyone's personal
                                  predilections are not to your liking, just let it be, because that person
                                  is actually having a different view and experience of the world than you
                                  are. Deal with it.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.