|
Post by mikeindex on Apr 9, 2008 9:21:05 GMT -5
Mike, I am sure I can recall reading somewhere that there is strong and direct evidence that as Alice Liddle reached puperty he became increasingly repulsed by her. There was some incident when Alice had an accident and he recorded his feelings about he at that time? 'Repulsed' would be an overstatement - as indeed would 'strong and direct evidence'. The entry you're thinking of dates from 21 April 1863 (when Alice was still not yet eleven) and reads: '...I went to see Alice, who is laid up with a sprained leg... Alice was in an unusually imperious and ungentle mood, by no means improved by being an invalid'. The puberty-related entry dates from a couple of years later, 11 May 1865 when Alice had just turned thirteen, and reads 'Alice seems changed a good deal, and hardly for the better - probably going through the usual awkward stage of transition'. This is the sum of the evidence - not much, but then again, at least as much as the sum of the nice things he says about Alice in the same period. He just didn't say much about her as a person at all. In answer to one or two points/queries in other posts - Alice's eyes were brown, on the evidence of her sister Violet's portrait in oils, reproduced in Colin Gordon's 'Beyond the Looking-Glass'. Yes, love objects in CLD's poetry are all adult women. They tend to have dark hair where they are physically described at all. (Carlo, I have checked and eye colour is not mentioned - blue eyes and golden hair occur in celebrations of childhood innocence, not poems of romantic love. And they were all written in 1859-62, unless you count the weird and wonderful 'The Three Voices' as a love poem!). For those who haven't sampled the serious poetry I'd really recommend reading one or two, especially 'Stolen Waters', which is both his best and his most surprising. Betty, I'm afraid that however large the image of Alice looms in popular culture there is absolutely no primary evidence that CLD ever fell in love with her, wanted to marry her or saw her as anything but a beautiful photographic model and one of a three-sister unit whose company he much enjoyed. I'm afraid I really don't have time right now to go into all the flaws in the popular image; for a really good deconstruction you could read Chapter 5 of Karoline Leach's 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild'.
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Apr 9, 2008 17:51:04 GMT -5
Hi Mike/Betty,
Yes, those were the entries that I was trying to recall, thanks. Given what we know of both 19th century maners, and Carroll's own aversion to direct criticism (he preferred irony and satire'), these are, for Carroll, quite strong criticisms - thought tinged with hope that the unpleasantness may be transitional.
Ae there any other diary entries that may be helpful egarding Alice from, say, the age of 11 yrs on. I'm afraid that I was obliged to leave my set of diaries in New Zealand so i can't refer myself.
Regards
JT
|
|
|
Post by mikeindex on Apr 10, 2008 7:31:42 GMT -5
Hi Mike/Betty, Ae there any other diary entries that may be helpful egarding Alice from, say, the age of 11 yrs on. I'm afraid that I was obliged to leave my set of diaries in New Zealand so i can't refer myself. JT None whatsoever.
|
|
Jules
Rook
The trombone frightens me
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jules on Apr 10, 2008 22:09:03 GMT -5
Thing is though as i see it LC tended not to write so much in his diaries. It all becomes about inferring from absence. Did he say effusive things about other people more than about Alice Liddell? If not then the absence of it in her case is not really evidential either way.
|
|
|
Post by mikeindex on Apr 12, 2008 4:06:32 GMT -5
Thing is though as i see it LC tended not to write so much in his diaries. It all becomes about inferring from absence. Did he say effusive things about other people more than about Alice Liddell? If not then the absence of it in her case is not really evidential either way. Good point. You're quite right, the diaries tend very much to avoid personal comment - even in the early, comparatively chatty years of the 1850s he tends to get more expansive about books he's read or places he's visited than people he's met. So the absence of direct comment about Alice is not really significant in itself, except in so far as it contradicts the popular expectation that there would - indeed, should - be all sorts of outpourings about her (and indeed one explicit but mistaken statement by Morton Cohen that there actually were). The one actually pernicious - as distinct from just damned silly - thing about Katie Roiphe's book a couple of years ago was the way she made up a whole load of diary entries to this effect and tried to give the impression they were genuine. Mike
|
|
|
Post by bettyboop on Apr 13, 2008 4:09:26 GMT -5
I hate Katie Roiphe's book, I hate it so bad I started a thread about it. I hope I don't offend anyone who loves it, because each to his own, but oooh...I wanna give her a piece of my mind for the way she messed with the facts.
|
|
|
Post by jenny2write on Apr 13, 2008 7:12:26 GMT -5
I don't think the drawings CLD had of Mrs Rossetti were his own - I think they were photos of existing drawings. It was quite common for photographers to take pictures of works of art.
|
|
Jules
Rook
The trombone frightens me
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jules on Apr 14, 2008 7:48:12 GMT -5
What about the cut pages? Did they cut the pages out to conceal his relationship with a woman? Or some of them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jenny2write on Apr 16, 2008 16:10:17 GMT -5
"What about the cut pages? Did they cut the pages out to conceal his relationship with a woman? Or some of them anyway. "
Well, who knows. Could be any reason.
|
|
|
Post by ermete22 on Apr 18, 2008 5:33:09 GMT -5
Maybe there is another love poem written in 1855. Consider the following.
Consider first the poem about stolen cakes in Alice and the 1855 poem “She is all my fancy painted him.” The second is already cited in the diaries in 1855. Both poems are quite mysterious. In Alice, the King intervenes by saying: "Why, there they are!" one imagines he is talking about cakes, even if is not so automatic. What if the King means : Why, there” they” are! Referring to the pronoun “they”. It is quite evident the pronoun appear sometimes arbitrary mixed when passing from one poem to the other.
They gave her one, they gave me two, They gave us three or more; They all returned from him to you, Though they were mine before.
I gave her one, they gave him two, You gave us three or more; They all returned from him to you, Though they were mine before.
They turns into I, me becomes him two times They turns into us three times
They all returned from him to you, Though they were mine before
Seems to underline the process of pronoun exchange. This is what you get:
She's All My Fancy Painted Her She's all my fancy painted her (I make no idle boast); If she or you had lost a limb, Which would have suffered most? She said that you had been to her, And seen me here before; But, in another character, She was the same of yore. There was not one that spoke to us, Of all that thronged the street: So she sadly got into a 'bus, And pattered with her feet. They sent her word I had not gone (We know it to be true); If she should push the matter on, What would become of you? They gave her one, they gave me two, They gave us three or more; They all returned from her to you, Though they were mine before. If I or she should chance to be Involved in this affair, She trusts to you to set them free, Exactly as we were. It seemed to me that you had been (Before she had this fit) An obstacle, that came between Her, and ourselves, and it. Don't let her know she liked them best, For this must ever be A secret, kept from all the rest, Between yourself and me.
Some sense seems to emerge. Anyhow, we can take the king more seriously. A possible interpretation is that “they” is something like a free variable, which can be substituted by I, You and He. Let’s see what you get out from the 1855 poem by applying this free key transformation:
She's All My Fancy Painted Her She's all my fancy painted her (I make no idle boast); If she or you had lost a limb, Which would have suffered most? She said that you had been to her, And seen me here before; But, in another character, She was the same of yore. There was not one that spoke to us, Of all that thronged the street: So she sadly got into a 'bus, And pattered with her feet. I sent her word I had not gone (We know it to be true); If she should push the matter on, What would become of you? . If I or she should chance to be Involved in this affair, She trusts to you to set them free, Exactly as we were. It seemed to me that you had been (Before she had this fit) An obstacle, that came between Her, and ourselves, and it. Don't let her know she liked them best, For this must ever be A secret, kept from all the rest, Between yourself and me.
If you add the fact that the title comes from the Old Curiosity Shop where an absurd pronoun exchange has been inserted, you can reasonably suspect that the 1855 poem is a love poem, which describes the end of a love. Of course this is a synthesis; I should write much more. I think I am right, but could also be wrong. Carlo
|
|