|
Post by bettyboop on May 31, 2008 5:33:00 GMT -5
Of course I agree . My was thinking that if I didn't refute Betty, then it may look like I haven't got any response to make to a genuine criticism. . But... well, who cares at the end of the day. Today I've been thinking it may be better to ignore posts that don't seem to make too much sense to me and get on with writing. It is quite time consuming to respond here and this certainly won't be the last comment that I don't agree with... Betty sounds a nice person from other posts, and is entitled to his or her opinion. (This has got way off topic by the way. ) Jenny You don't need to refute me Jenny. I'm not making a big point, only saying that both you and Cohen are in your different ways making assumptions. No big deal, every biographer does it, I just feel a little pissed that the old assumptions are 'myths' and the new ones are 'truth'. All I see is much of a muchness.
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on May 31, 2008 5:50:52 GMT -5
Hi Bettyboop,
I think that all Jenny has been saying is please look at the evidence. A very great deal of the old biographical material including the Stuart Collingwood bio (in fact especially the Collingwood bio( is in flagrant opposotion to the eidence. This includes Carroll's own biographical evidence. Examples. Hugues Lebailly, a respected french scholar, did a detailed study of all the correspondents who Cohen in his published 'Selected Letters' called (based on Collingwood's assertions no doubt) 'child friends'. The evidence conclusively demonstrated that a majority of these'children' were, in fact female adults.
Kaoline Leach's research also proided further hard and irrefutable evidence along these lines.
Collingwood, in his biography, constantly refes to Carroll as being both Conservative and conservative ('in all things'. This is in one respect (conservative) just plain wrong (again as oth hard eidence and Caroll's own words show and disingenuous (Conservative).
Yes, Carroll was a Tory. But you have to remember that the Tory party in the 19th century was the party that produced the 'New England Movement AND the Christian Socialist Movement. The vast majority of Broad Church supporters were Tory. Carroll, of course was Broad Church.
I could reel of a huge list of specific examples where opinions stated as 'Fact' in a whole raft of biographies are just plain wrong.
The movement that began in the late 80's ('New Carroll;) has only one aim. That is to ensure that all carroll studies is based on rigorous research. It ias a very loose group, some of whom have never even corresponded. There is (healthily I believe) often differences on how facts are interpreted. However, at least the various debates are founded on poeable factual evidence.
Regards
JT
|
|
|
Post by bettyboop on May 31, 2008 6:19:22 GMT -5
Hi Bettyboop, I think that all Jenny has been saying is please look at the evidence. A very great deal of the old biographical material including the Stuart Collingwood bio (in fact especially the Collingwood bio( is in flagrant opposotion to the eidence. Don't get me wrong John, I'm all for looking at evidence, and I am pretty d**n sure the early biographies got some things wrong. What annoys me is when anything new is automatically right and anything old automatically wrong. There's no evidence to clearly show what Carroll's pop was, whether kind daddy or stern and controlling. Either is possible, so for Cohen's view to be termed a 'myth' and Jenny's view to be termed 'truth' is simply not right IMO. Do you have a link to that? It sounds interesting indeed. I like hard facts of this kind. Something to get your teeth in. Yeah, well, she's the Queen of the Myth, but I didn't much like her book. I'd like to ask Jenny how much her work is based on Leach's? And John, truly much thanks for taking the trouble to give me the background there.
|
|
Jules
Rook
The trombone frightens me
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jules on Jun 3, 2008 12:39:23 GMT -5
Hi Bettyboop, I think that all Jenny has been saying is please look at the evidence. A very great deal of the old biographical material including the Stuart Collingwood bio (in fact especially the Collingwood bio( is in flagrant opposotion to the eidence. Don't get me wrong John, I'm all for looking at evidence, and I am pretty d**n sure the early biographies got some things wrong. What annoys me is when anything new is automatically right and anything old automatically wrong. There's no evidence to clearly show what Carroll's pop was, whether kind daddy or stern and controlling. Either is possible, so for Cohen's view to be termed a 'myth' and Jenny's view to be termed 'truth' is simply not right IMO. Do you have a link to that? It sounds interesting indeed. I like hard facts of this kind. Something to get your teeth in. Yeah, well, she's the Queen of the Myth, but I didn't much like her book. I'd like to ask Jenny how much her work is based on Leach's? KL's book follows Cohen's in the way it handles the relationship between father and son, so far as I remember. It's def not taking the same line as Jenny in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by jenny2write on Jun 3, 2008 16:40:52 GMT -5
Sigh - I have never claimed my idea of Dodgson Senior (or anything else about that family) was "the truth" about them. I just don't say things like that. I don't know the truth. Nobody does. Nobody can. He died 150 years ago. I say what I think based as carefully as I can on the written sources, that's all.
Actually I truly would be grateful if you could stop criticising me for things I don't think and never said.
INow I really am going to remove the site from my computer for a bit, not because I don't like discussions and not because it's not full of good things - but - well, I just am. When I have more time I'll start reading it again, of course. Until then, anything said about me and any opinions attributed to me will just have to stand....!
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Jun 3, 2008 18:11:04 GMT -5
Jules (and maybe others)
I totally empathise with Jenny's response. Your last e-mail was really over the top. OK, you told us what gets you angry! But nothing that Jenny has said should have got you angry! You seem to think that anything people like Jenny and I say are said as absolutes. They are not. At best, and if you have been reading the breadth of posts you should realise this, all anyone has ever done on this list, Jenny especially, is to say opinion is one thing, fact is another. When someone says something is fact, and it turns out to be opinion, then rightly, they should be challenged.
It is ironic that you should be attacking Jenny (and yes you have been attacking not entering in reasoned debate) because, of all people, she is the most vulnrable because she is in the middle of writing a book that she has had the courage to share with this group. I can tell you frankly (as a writer myself), that takes both courage and faith.
I have re-read this correspondence, and all I see is that various people have asked you to have the courtesy of validating for yourself the information they have provided.
I am at loss to know what else anyone on this forum can provide!
Jules, so far, we have all been open, frank and very, very honest on this list. people have been willing to accede, frankly there mistakes and failings. It is what a forum should be. But as you now know, this is an extremely volatile and fragile organism that depends on the integrity, honesty and humanity of each member.
Regards
JT
Regards
JT
|
|
|
Post by bettyboop on Jun 3, 2008 18:40:04 GMT -5
Jules (and maybe others) I totally empathise with Jenny's response. Your last e-mail was really over the top. OK, you told us what gets you angry! But nothing that Jenny has said should have got you angry! You seem to think that anything people like Jenny and I say are said as absolutes. They are not. At best, and if you have been reading the breadth of posts you should realise this, all anyone has ever done on this list, Jenny especially, is to say opinion is one thing, fact is another. When someone says something is fact, and it turns out to be opinion, then rightly, they should be challenged. It is ironic that you should be attacking Jenny (and yes you have been attacking not entering in reasoned debate) because, of all people, she is the most vulnrable because she is in the middle of writing a book that she has had the courage to share with this group. I can tell you frankly (as a writer myself), that takes both courage and faith. I have re-read this correspondence, and all I see is that various people have asked you to have the courtesy of validating for yourself the information they have provided. I am at loss to know what else anyone on this forum can provide! Jules, so far, we have all been open, frank and very, very honest on this list. people have been willing to accede, frankly there mistakes and failings. It is what a forum should be. But as you now know, this is an extremely volatile and fragile organism that depends on the integrity, honesty and humanity of each member. Regards JT Regards JT Woaaaaah...back up there a bit John!! Read the posts before jumping in! Poor Jules has only posted a single line in this whole discussion, she for sure hasn't attacked anyone! I think you should say sorry to the poor girl, before she just ups and leaves. It's me Jenny was replying to, and, well just take a look at my last post - please - and copy and paste anything you think is an attack on any living soul and I'll take it back.
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Jun 3, 2008 20:05:05 GMT -5
Hi Bettyboop,
I DID read the posts, before mailing, and, I'm afraid that my mail was directed at both you and jules, You being the other. I'm NOT accusing you or Jules of deliberately 'attacking' anyone. 'I'm sure that was the last thing on you mind'. All I'm saying is (and it goes for both you and Jules) is please have enough respect for people like Jenny to check out for yourself what she is saying. (BY the way, Jules has made a number of interventions, not just one, check it out)
Neither Jenny, myself or anyone else on this list have any personal vendetta against Cohen or anyone else. I am completely certain that Jenny (nor I,) are likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
However, there are certain points of fact that HAVE been raised that are irrefutable, that do conradict published biogaphies (Cohen's included.
Let me put it this way, I love the Hudson Biography. However, I love it even thought I know, and can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he has made statements of FACT that are completely wrong. For example, he states that in the debate on the endowment for the Greek Professorship, Carroll was opposed to Jowett and supportive of Pusey. This is proveably wrong, and you can determine this yourself by going to the source (Carrol's 'squib, 'The new Evaluation
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Jun 3, 2008 20:24:36 GMT -5
Sorry, Don't know howthat happened! I wa talking about the New Method of Ealuation as applied to PI. This is Carroll's own writing and clearly demonstates that he is OPPOSED to Pusey.
There are inumerable such instances. If either you or Jules want point-to-point refutations or eidences, follow the tails offered, check the sources, go offline to check with the poster. In fact just be as sceptical as you wish - but please, at least, go through the motions of checking this stuff out for yourself!
That is al I am saying. I'm not criticing you for questioning. I am criticising those who constantly say it is all opinion and there is no way of checking out the fact when, in fact, People like Jenny have provided 'The Facts' You just chose not to believe them or paid the courtesy of checking the data presnted.
What oher options can you suugest?
I
|
|
Jules
Rook
The trombone frightens me
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jules on Jun 4, 2008 12:08:13 GMT -5
Excuse me Mr Tufail, but I have not been involved in this argument with you and Betty in any way and I totally have not been attacking anyone, least of all you or Jenny or Karoline Leach! I'm not a Carroll scholar, but I read KL's book and I really loved it and thought she did a great job. I am a huge fan of her work and I'm looking forward to Jenny's book! So, I totally do not get why you're lumping me with Betty, because we don't think the same things at all! : But btw - even though i don't really agree with her, Betty hasn't been rude or attacked anyone, so it's not really fair to say she has.
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Jun 4, 2008 15:37:30 GMT -5
Jules,
I know that you have not 'attacked' anyone. Neither indeed has Bettyboop. I sincerely apologise if I let my frustration show through (which i did!). But please do not mistake my frustration for anger, animosity or even lack of regard. I think, on looking back, it is the generalised nature of the debate that got to me.
I think my empathy with Jenny's position rather affected my response, and the fact that her withdrawal will be a huge loss.
There are clearly issues when, as is the case here, there are completely conflicting interpretations of a persons life. And these are not just minor variances! I can also understand why Carroll afficionados also get bemused, puzzled and angry when any person, or group of people, appear to 'take possession' of Carroll. It certainly infuriates me!
Can I suggest that you, Bettyboop and anyone else interested, identify specific elements of Carroll's life that require open debate. We can then look at the evidence in depth on each variation of intepretation.
I do think that this would be a very civilised and constructive way to proceed.
Regards
JT
|
|
Jules
Rook
The trombone frightens me
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jules on Jun 5, 2008 4:03:02 GMT -5
Jules, I know that you have not 'attacked' anyone. Neither indeed has Bettyboop. I sincerely apologise if I let my frustration show through (which i did!). But please do not mistake my frustration for anger, animosity or even lack of regard. I think, on looking back, it is the generalised nature of the debate that got to me. I think my empathy with Jenny's position rather affected my response, and the fact that her withdrawal will be a huge loss. There are clearly issues when, as is the case here, there are completely conflicting interpretations of a persons life. And these are not just minor variances! I can also understand why Carroll afficionados also get bemused, puzzled and angry when any person, or group of people, appear to 'take possession' of Carroll. It certainly infuriates me! Can I suggest that you, Bettyboop and anyone else interested, identify specific elements of Carroll's life that require open debate. We can then look at the evidence in depth on each variation of intepretation. I do think that this would be a very civilised and constructive way to proceed. Regards JT Okay, well the apology's welcome! The idea of debating areas of Carroll's life is interesting, but I don't know all that much and what I do know i gleaned mostly from reading Karoline Leach's book. I'm pretty much a convert to the 'Myth', anyhow. My personal view is it's simply obvious, when you read the progression of errors and weird reasoning that went into creating the 'official' biography, that the 'myth' is painfully real and alive. My own personal experience underlines that too in a small way. When I was studing 'Alice' at uni my tutor wouldn't even read KL's book, just dismissed it out of hand. I asked him to read the introductory chapter that traces the whole way the Carroll image evolved and he said "I don't need to do that, he was a latent paedophile and anyone who says different is just refusing to face facts - watch Dreamchild!" That actually shocked me a lot and was the beginning of my feeling of disllusionment with academe.
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Jun 5, 2008 4:55:09 GMT -5
That's odd Jules (or maybe not!).
You're the third person in a little under two weeks to recount a similar experience. I also know that Kate Lyon was 'challenged' by her tutor when she wrote a Carroll essay - on similar grounds. The touble is, that undergraduate teaching is little different to school. The theoy is usually at least 10 years out of date and if you challenge it, you either get a starred first or fail dismally. Not many get starred firsts!
It really isn't until after a person reaches post-doctoral levels that the 'benefits' of academia really kick in in most cases. Thee are exceptions, but usually this is down to the integrity, commitment and genius of indidual tutors/lecturers rather than anything inherent in the system.
Things have become particularly bad since the beginning of the 80s when universities were 'encouraged' to emulate Ford and become knowledge factories with students being so many parts on an assembly line.
Regards
JT
|
|
|
Post by bettyboop on Jun 13, 2008 4:31:06 GMT -5
My word, I am so saddened I have come off as attacking people. All I wanted to do was make the point that we can all be prejudiced.
Jenny darling, I didn't mean to say you were actually saying you are all right and Cohen is all wrong, just that this can be the effect of the whole 'myth' argument. But maybe I am getting you wrong. Are you following Karoline Leach in saying he didn't give a d**n about Alice and just used children to get at their mothers?
- If you are, that is purrty extreeeme wouldn't ya say?
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Jun 13, 2008 6:56:14 GMT -5
Betty,
I take it you have read Karoline's book? Surely Karoline nowhere states - or even intimates that Carroll 'didn't give a d**n about Alice.' She certainly doesn't suggest at all that Carroll 'uses children to get at their mothers.' I have heard these charges levelled at Karoline by some of her moe intemerate critics. I think that even one reviewer intimated this. But I hate to see such charges aired on this forum.
Regards
JT
|
|