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

A Little More Lennon, for Balance

Expand Messages
  • Jim Buch
    First, I have never fallen asleep as much with any other book on Lewis Carroll as I have with Lennon s book. Second, Lennon has a timetable of significant
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 25, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      First, I have never fallen asleep as much with any other book on Lewis
      Carroll as I have with Lennon's book.

      Second, Lennon has a timetable of significant events and she notes
      that "Alice's Adventures Underground" was presented to Alice Christmas
      1862...... and not the 1864 date that other biographers use.

      Third, she said that there was insufficient information to tell how
      old Alice Liddell was when she was married, but that it must have been
      after she was 20.

      She did pass the mathematics chapter of her book past accomplished
      mathematicians, including Professor Bell of Cal Tech, Lee of Newcomb
      College, Veazie of Univ of Colorado and Mr. Lazzar and Schneer.

      She also managed to conclude that the answer to the question of "Where
      does the day begin?" involves "... to deal with it justly requires the
      most modern astrophysics, relativity, non-Euclidian geometry,
      semantics, syntax and logic......" ,page 272.

      In actuality, it requires a globe and the basic idea of a sun centered
      solar system. By sheer luck, the mostly unpopulated Pacific Ocean
      covers the swath of earth 180 degrees away from the Greenwich line,
      and man can lay down a dateline out there.

      In other words, she managed to fool herself into the evident
      complexity implied by the playful way in which Lewis Carroll posed his
      problem.....

      There is other interesting stuff in her writings, but these things
      above suggest that one should look at them carefully.

      "Mathematics was the bridge between Dodgson and Carroll as the two
      diverged...." Really, one ought to get a prize for that.

      Jim Buch
    • Mark Israel
      ... Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim? She had 3 editions, in 1945, 1962, and 1972. If she still said the above in the 1972 edition, I d be
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 25, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim writes:

        > Third, she said that there was
        > insufficient information to tell how
        > old Alice Liddell was when she was
        > married, but that it must have been
        > after she was 20.

        Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim?

        She had 3 editions, in 1945, 1962, and 1972.

        If she still said the above in the 1972 edition, I'd be concerned.
        If she didn't -- well, if we all forgave one another the errors of
        our youth, I'm sure the Duchess would agree it would have a
        favourable effect on earthly rotation.
      • AnisaT@aol.com
        In a message dated 25/11/2002 21:42:50 GMT Standard Time, MarkIsrael@aol.com ... Can we forget Ms Lennon? For some inexplicable reason she seems to have had a
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 25, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 25/11/2002 21:42:50 GMT Standard Time, MarkIsrael@... writes:


          Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim? 


          Can we forget Ms Lennon?  For some inexplicable reason she seems to have had a major, and detrimental affect on Carroll studies.  Her understanding of biography is marginally less than her understanding of history. As for her understanding of psychology  (or psycholanalysis), on which her whole project is based... well most of my first year students would weep.

        • Jim Buch
          ... MarkIsrael@a... ... have had ... understanding of ... for her ... whole project ... It was the 1945 edition. In it she also managed to remark that : His
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 25, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lewiscarroll@y..., AnisaT@a... wrote:
            > In a message dated 25/11/2002 21:42:50 GMT Standard Time,
            MarkIsrael@a...
            > writes:
            >
            >
            > > Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim?
            > >
            >
            > Can we forget Ms Lennon? For some inexplicable reason she seems to
            have had
            > a major, and detrimental affect on Carroll studies. Her
            understanding of
            > biography is marginally less than her understanding of history. As
            for her
            > understanding of psychology (or psycholanalysis), on which her
            whole project
            > is based... well most of my first year students would weep.

            It was the 1945 edition.

            In it she also managed to remark that :

            "His mother, a gentle, shadowy person seems to have favored Charles,
            as the eldest of her eleven children -- seven of them girls."

            -- and she cites a Mr. Falconer Maden as the source of that choice
            tidbit.

            The book is full of absolutely astounding and soaring language with no
            bearing in fact.

            I wonder if there was a contest of inventive hype, and she won.

            That probably accounts for my sleepiness, the dreamland of her words
            seeps off the page even after over 50 years.

            Maybe the book can serve as a form of inducement to dream big dreams.

            By the fact of getting this book published, one evidently needs little
            knowledge at all in order to succeed.

            And, in fact, evidently one can go on for several editions as well- as
            if the first edition was not enough to slake the appetites for this
            sort of thing.

            Jim
          • Ruth Berman
            ... how old Alice Liddell was when she was married, but that it must have been after she was 20. ... 1945, 1962, and 1972. I own a copy of the 1962
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 26, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              "Mark Israel" <MarkIsrael@...> wrote:
              > Jim writes:
              > > Third, she [Lennon] said that there was insufficient information to tell
              how old Alice Liddell was when she was married, but that it must have been
              after she was 20. >
              > Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim? She had 3 editions, in
              1945, 1962, and 1972. >

              I own a copy of the 1962 edition. It says that Alice married on September
              15, 1880, and says earlier that Alice was 4 years old when she first met
              Dodgson in 1856.

              Ruth Berman
            • keith
              Ruth, I agree - this debate is futile. Becker Lennon researched in the 30 s and her book was postponed because of the war. Despite the fact that she had
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 26, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Ruth,

                I agree - this debate is futile. Becker Lennon researched in the 30's and
                her book was postponed because of the war. Despite the fact that she had
                little information and was hampered by the war the book is a credible
                publication. We all know of faults in the biographies and in the people who
                write them but we just have to accept that each book is a stepping stone to
                better understanding. Perhaps we must be more understanding of the small
                errors we find - I'm just as guilty of this as anyone!

                Keith W


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005@...>
                To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:28 PM
                Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: A Little More Lennon, for Balance


                > "Mark Israel" <MarkIsrael@...> wrote:
                > > Jim writes:
                > > > Third, she [Lennon] said that there was insufficient information to
                tell
                > how old Alice Liddell was when she was married, but that it must have been
                > after she was 20. >
                > > Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim? She had 3 editions, in
                > 1945, 1962, and 1972. >
                >
                > I own a copy of the 1962 edition. It says that Alice married on September
                > 15, 1880, and says earlier that Alice was 4 years old when she first met
                > Dodgson in 1856.
                >
                > Ruth Berman
                >
                >
                >
                > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Bryan Talbot
                ... I m sure I ve read many times that she was four. Just went to check up in Clark s THE REAL ALICE and couldn t believe it when she doesn t give the DOB of
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 26, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  > and says earlier that Alice was 4 years old when she first met
                  > Dodgson in 1856.

                  I'm sure I've read many times that she was four. Just went to check up in
                  Clark's THE REAL ALICE and couldn't believe it when she doesn't give the DOB
                  of the subject of her biography! She does say that Alice was born 18 months
                  after brother Arthur, so that makes it ...June 1852? And Dodgeson met her in
                  April '56. Well, she was *nearly* four.

                  Bryan

                  _______________________________________________ http://www.bryan-talbot.com

                  Nice prints! Visit:

                  http://www.podgallery.com/index.cfm?page=catdetails&category=305&From=262

                  Brand new Luther Arkwright website!

                  http://www.modernvikings.com/luther-arkwright/
                • Jim Buch
                  Keith: I can t see what you are agreeing with Ruth on. She made a simple observation, and seemingly offered no opinion with which to agree. As the young
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 26, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Keith:

                    I can't see what you are agreeing with Ruth on.

                    She made a simple observation, and seemingly offered no opinion with
                    which to agree.

                    As the young Dodgson said to his father "Please explain".

                    I would very much like to see what you are agreeing with.

                    Jim


                    --- In lewiscarroll@y..., "keith" <keith@c...> wrote:
                    > Ruth,
                    >
                    > I agree - this debate is futile. Becker Lennon researched in the
                    30's and
                    > her book was postponed because of the war. Despite the fact that
                    she had
                    > little information and was hampered by the war the book is a
                    credible
                    > publication. We all know of faults in the biographies and in the
                    people who
                    > write them but we just have to accept that each book is a stepping
                    stone to
                    > better understanding. Perhaps we must be more understanding of the
                    small
                    > errors we find - I'm just as guilty of this as anyone!
                    >
                    > Keith W
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005@m...>
                    > To: <lewiscarroll@y...>
                    > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:28 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: A Little More Lennon, for Balance
                    >
                    >
                    > > "Mark Israel" <MarkIsrael@a...> wrote:
                    > > > Jim writes:
                    > > > > Third, she [Lennon] said that there was insufficient
                    information to
                    > tell
                    > > how old Alice Liddell was when she was married, but that it must
                    have been
                    > > after she was 20. >
                    > > > Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim? She had 3
                    editions, in
                    > > 1945, 1962, and 1972. >
                    > >
                    > > I own a copy of the 1962 edition. It says that Alice married on
                    September
                    > > 15, 1880, and says earlier that Alice was 4 years old when she
                    first met
                    > > Dodgson in 1856.
                    > >
                    > > Ruth Berman
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                    > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@y...
                    > >
                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                  • keith
                    Jim, Kate has said it for me so I ll leave it at that! Keith ... From: Jim Buch To: Sent: Wednesday,
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 26, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jim,

                      Kate has said it for me so I'll leave it at that!

                      Keith


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Jim Buch" <jbuch@...>
                      To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:04 AM
                      Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: A Little More Lennon, for Balance


                      Keith:

                      I can't see what you are agreeing with Ruth on.

                      She made a simple observation, and seemingly offered no opinion with
                      which to agree.

                      As the young Dodgson said to his father "Please explain".

                      I would very much like to see what you are agreeing with.

                      Jim


                      --- In lewiscarroll@y..., "keith" <keith@c...> wrote:
                      > Ruth,
                      >
                      > I agree - this debate is futile. Becker Lennon researched in the
                      30's and
                      > her book was postponed because of the war. Despite the fact that
                      she had
                      > little information and was hampered by the war the book is a
                      credible
                      > publication. We all know of faults in the biographies and in the
                      people who
                      > write them but we just have to accept that each book is a stepping
                      stone to
                      > better understanding. Perhaps we must be more understanding of the
                      small
                      > errors we find - I'm just as guilty of this as anyone!
                      >
                      > Keith W
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005@m...>
                      > To: <lewiscarroll@y...>
                      > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:28 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: A Little More Lennon, for Balance
                      >
                      >
                      > > "Mark Israel" <MarkIsrael@a...> wrote:
                      > > > Jim writes:
                      > > > > Third, she [Lennon] said that there was insufficient
                      information to
                      > tell
                      > > how old Alice Liddell was when she was married, but that it must
                      have been
                      > > after she was 20. >
                      > > > Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim? She had 3
                      editions, in
                      > > 1945, 1962, and 1972. >
                      > >
                      > > I own a copy of the 1962 edition. It says that Alice married on
                      September
                      > > 15, 1880, and says earlier that Alice was 4 years old when she
                      first met
                      > > Dodgson in 1856.
                      > >
                      > > Ruth Berman
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                      > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@y...
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >



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

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • Jim Buch
                      Nevertheless, my question of what you agreed on (in the writing of the pair) was still not answered. Thanks, Jim ... the ... http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 27, 2002
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Nevertheless, my question of what you agreed on (in the writing of
                        the pair) was still not answered.

                        Thanks,

                        Jim


                        --- In lewiscarroll@y..., "keith" <keith@c...> wrote:
                        > Jim,
                        >
                        > Kate has said it for me so I'll leave it at that!
                        >
                        > Keith
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "Jim Buch" <jbuch@r...>
                        > To: <lewiscarroll@y...>
                        > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:04 AM
                        > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: A Little More Lennon, for Balance
                        >
                        >
                        > Keith:
                        >
                        > I can't see what you are agreeing with Ruth on.
                        >
                        > She made a simple observation, and seemingly offered no opinion with
                        > which to agree.
                        >
                        > As the young Dodgson said to his father "Please explain".
                        >
                        > I would very much like to see what you are agreeing with.
                        >
                        > Jim
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In lewiscarroll@y..., "keith" <keith@c...> wrote:
                        > > Ruth,
                        > >
                        > > I agree - this debate is futile. Becker Lennon researched in the
                        > 30's and
                        > > her book was postponed because of the war. Despite the fact that
                        > she had
                        > > little information and was hampered by the war the book is a
                        > credible
                        > > publication. We all know of faults in the biographies and in the
                        > people who
                        > > write them but we just have to accept that each book is a stepping
                        > stone to
                        > > better understanding. Perhaps we must be more understanding of
                        the
                        > small
                        > > errors we find - I'm just as guilty of this as anyone!
                        > >
                        > > Keith W
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005@m...>
                        > > To: <lewiscarroll@y...>
                        > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:28 PM
                        > > Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: A Little More Lennon, for Balance
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > "Mark Israel" <MarkIsrael@a...> wrote:
                        > > > > Jim writes:
                        > > > > > Third, she [Lennon] said that there was insufficient
                        > information to
                        > > tell
                        > > > how old Alice Liddell was when she was married, but that it must
                        > have been
                        > > > after she was 20. >
                        > > > > Which edition of Lennon are you reading, Jim? She had 3
                        > editions, in
                        > > > 1945, 1962, and 1972. >
                        > > >
                        > > > I own a copy of the 1962 edition. It says that Alice married on
                        > September
                        > > > 15, 1880, and says earlier that Alice was 4 years old when she
                        > first met
                        > > > Dodgson in 1856.
                        > > >
                        > > > Ruth Berman
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                        > > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@y...
                        > > >
                        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                        > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@y...
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • Ruth Berman
                        ... pair) was still not answered. This isn t exactly what Keith said we agreed on, but it works out to something similar -- when a writer has revised a book
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 27, 2002
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > Nevertheless, my question of what you agreed on (in the writing of the
                          pair) was still not answered. >

                          This isn't exactly what Keith said we agreed on, but it works out to
                          something similar -- when a writer has revised a book (non-fiction,
                          anyway -- fiction/poetry presents rather different sets of problems in
                          judging authors' second-thoughting), the later version should be checked
                          before criticizing mistakes. Mistakes or missing data may be things that the
                          author already corrected.

                          Ruth Berman
                        • Jim Buch
                          Ruth, I agree..... ** And this reminds me of something important about the use of I Agree.. in sales and writing. One of my teenage
                          Message 12 of 13 , Nov 28, 2002
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ruth, I agree..... **

                            And this reminds me of something important about the use of "I
                            Agree.." in sales and writing.

                            One of my teenage career failures was selling encyclopedias door to
                            door. I was able to memorize the 5 page sales pitch with no problem,
                            and to believe that we were "placing these in qualified homes".

                            What I couldn't do was to use the "tricky sales techniques" that the
                            older salesmen would brag about. Not me. I was straight arrow.

                            FALSE AGREEMENT

                            The false agreement sales technique was to be sure to tell the
                            prospect (sucker) that you agreed with him or her on almost any
                            pretext. The reason was the power of the phrase "I Agree.....".

                            It produced a nice feeling to be agreed with, even though it might not
                            be too clear what was being agreed upon. And it produced a nice
                            feeling toward the salesman. And it produced a greater willingness to
                            agree with the salesman... as a return of the nice favor of agreeing.

                            I couldn't do this. It was against my ethics. I couldn't do that kind
                            of sales manipulation.

                            I know it works, and it may well account for your having read this far
                            into my words.

                            One of the things that raises the hairs on the back of my neck is the
                            phrase "I Agree....." and I always look to see if there really was a
                            valid agreement..... And there often was not.

                            So, when I see "FALSE AGREEMENT" today, I sometimes ask "Hey, What was
                            it that was agreed upon?"

                            And there is often evasion, or no answer.

                            You found yourself agreeing with what was said AFTER the "I Agree...."
                            clause by Keith, but that is the normal outcome of the salesman's
                            trick.

                            There was nothing there in your words to be "agreed upon". You made
                            just a factual statement about what was in a later edition of the book
                            under discussion. No "Agreement" was meaningful with what you said.

                            Those things catch my eye.

                            ** I apologize for the use of the above "FALSE AGREEMENT" statement
                            with you... I am illustrating a point, and hope that I never use this
                            form of expression in respectful correspondence. It was probably an
                            effective trick, nevertheless.




                            --- In lewiscarroll@y..., "Ruth Berman" <berma005@m...> wrote:
                            > > Nevertheless, my question of what you agreed on (in the writing of
                            the
                            > pair) was still not answered. >
                            >
                            > This isn't exactly what Keith said we agreed on, but it works out to
                            > something similar -- when a writer has revised a book (non-fiction,
                            > anyway -- fiction/poetry presents rather different sets of problems
                            in
                            > judging authors' second-thoughting), the later version should be
                            checked
                            > before criticizing mistakes. Mistakes or missing data may be things
                            that the
                            > author already corrected.
                            >
                            > Ruth Berman
                          • keith
                            Jim, I object to this line of argument. This has nothing to do with CLD and is simply an insult. Keith W ... From: Jim Buch To:
                            Message 13 of 13 , Nov 28, 2002
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim,

                              I object to this line of argument. This has nothing to do with CLD and is
                              simply an insult.

                              Keith W


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Jim Buch" <jbuch@...>
                              To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 5:41 PM
                              Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: A Little More Lennon, for Balance


                              > Ruth, I agree..... **
                              >
                              > And this reminds me of something important about the use of "I
                              > Agree.." in sales and writing.
                              >
                              > One of my teenage career failures was selling encyclopedias door to
                              > door. I was able to memorize the 5 page sales pitch with no problem,
                              > and to believe that we were "placing these in qualified homes".
                              >
                              > What I couldn't do was to use the "tricky sales techniques" that the
                              > older salesmen would brag about. Not me. I was straight arrow.
                              >
                              > FALSE AGREEMENT
                              >
                              > The false agreement sales technique was to be sure to tell the
                              > prospect (sucker) that you agreed with him or her on almost any
                              > pretext. The reason was the power of the phrase "I Agree.....".
                              >
                              > It produced a nice feeling to be agreed with, even though it might not
                              > be too clear what was being agreed upon. And it produced a nice
                              > feeling toward the salesman. And it produced a greater willingness to
                              > agree with the salesman... as a return of the nice favor of agreeing.
                              >
                              > I couldn't do this. It was against my ethics. I couldn't do that kind
                              > of sales manipulation.
                              >
                              > I know it works, and it may well account for your having read this far
                              > into my words.
                              >
                              > One of the things that raises the hairs on the back of my neck is the
                              > phrase "I Agree....." and I always look to see if there really was a
                              > valid agreement..... And there often was not.
                              >
                              > So, when I see "FALSE AGREEMENT" today, I sometimes ask "Hey, What was
                              > it that was agreed upon?"
                              >
                              > And there is often evasion, or no answer.
                              >
                              > You found yourself agreeing with what was said AFTER the "I Agree...."
                              > clause by Keith, but that is the normal outcome of the salesman's
                              > trick.
                              >
                              > There was nothing there in your words to be "agreed upon". You made
                              > just a factual statement about what was in a later edition of the book
                              > under discussion. No "Agreement" was meaningful with what you said.
                              >
                              > Those things catch my eye.
                              >
                              > ** I apologize for the use of the above "FALSE AGREEMENT" statement
                              > with you... I am illustrating a point, and hope that I never use this
                              > form of expression in respectful correspondence. It was probably an
                              > effective trick, nevertheless.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In lewiscarroll@y..., "Ruth Berman" <berma005@m...> wrote:
                              > > > Nevertheless, my question of what you agreed on (in the writing of
                              > the
                              > > pair) was still not answered. >
                              > >
                              > > This isn't exactly what Keith said we agreed on, but it works out to
                              > > something similar -- when a writer has revised a book (non-fiction,
                              > > anyway -- fiction/poetry presents rather different sets of problems
                              > in
                              > > judging authors' second-thoughting), the later version should be
                              > checked
                              > > before criticizing mistakes. Mistakes or missing data may be things
                              > that the
                              > > author already corrected.
                              > >
                              > > Ruth Berman
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                              lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.