yrs
Pawn
Posts: 3
|
Post by yrs on May 6, 2008 8:22:43 GMT -5
I am having some difficulty in understanding the conclusion of the Hunting of the Snark: Is the author implying that it was not a Snark that the Baker had found, but rather a different species i.e a Boojum, or is the author stating that it was in fact a Snark, but instead of being a common Snark it was that subtype of Snark known as a Boojum?
Can someone help me out on this? Thanks.
|
|
Jules
Rook
The trombone frightens me
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jules on May 6, 2008 9:44:16 GMT -5
Well, as I understand it - some snarks are boojums, but all boojums are snarks!
I trust I make it clear! ;D
|
|
yrs
Pawn
Posts: 3
|
Post by yrs on May 7, 2008 0:26:47 GMT -5
I would tend to agree with your statement- but In the third fit the Baker seems to present a dichotomy: On the one hand:
'If your Snark be a Snark, that is right: Fetch it home by all means--you may serve it with greens, And it's handy for striking a light."
While on the other hand:
" 'But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day, If your Snark be a Boojum! For then You will softly and suddenly vanish away, And never be met with again!'"
That is to say that if the Snark is NOT a Snark, only then is it a Boojum, thus clearly implying that Boojums are NOT Snarks at all.
I remain confused
|
|
|
Post by ermete22 on May 7, 2008 8:01:11 GMT -5
Hi Carroll states that some Snark exists and that some Boojum exists Then he states "Some S are B" This case is confirmed by the end of the story. That "Some S are not B" is just what an hypothesis you automatically make when Carroll writes what you shoul do if you find a S who is not a B. Here there is a problem: if you know what to do if you meet a S who is not B does not imply that there exist such S who are not B. Logically it does not. So it is not necessary that exist S who are not B. This is a trick: Imagine the rule: If you meet a Unicorn you should tell him “Hallo darling This sentence does not imply that unicorns exists So we cannot conclude that there are for sure S who are not B. We reach the conclusions:
X = something There exists some x such that S(x) is true There exists some x such that B(x) is true There exists some x such that [S(x) AND B(x)] is true as they find one at the end
We know what to do if we meet an x such that S(x) is true and B(x) is false.
From the above, you cannot decide if
There exists some x such that S(x) is true and B(x) is false or that: There exists some x such that S(x) is false and B(x) is true.
So Carroll does not state the existence of pure B (x such that S(x) is false and B(x) is true) and pure S (x such that S(x) is true and B(x) is false) So by so doing, talking just about names, Carroll talks about concepts A and B but does not declares that there exists something that corresponds to just one of such concepts A and B. I am aware the above is boring, but it's not my fault, rather is Carroll's fault who liked inventing logical tricks. Carlo
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on May 7, 2008 11:30:51 GMT -5
Well,
The Bellman (who, i accept is a most unreliable narrator) does aver that the Boojum is a dangerous sub-species of the Snark family.
'For although common Snarks do no manner of harm, Yet I feel it my duty to say, Some are Boojums - The Bellman broke off in alarm, For the Baker had fainted away.
So at least the Idea of a Snark that is not a Boojum exists - and in fact this Idea asserts that this harmless Snark is the more common.
But of course, in logical terms an Idea of a harmless Snark has no more existential import than the idea of a mermaid (once genuinely thought to exist and even been observed), a yeti (similarly)- or a unicorn
Regards
JT
|
|
|
Post by mahendra on May 7, 2008 12:49:28 GMT -5
Perhaps the Boojum is the Reader since the latter's finishing of the poem triggers the cessation of the entire Fellowship of the Snark's existence? In which case, we are be reading a poem about what will happen when we are not reading that poem …
|
|
yrs
Pawn
Posts: 3
|
Post by yrs on May 7, 2008 14:22:04 GMT -5
The Bellman does in fact contrast "common Snarks" with "Boojums" - but this does not necessarily imply that a Boojum is an uncommon Snark. Were I to say that you should be wary of stray dogs since some are in fact Martians in disguise, it would be clear that I am stating that some creatures that appear to be dogs are in fact not dogs. Thus the Bellman may be stating that while the common Snark is friendly, one should nonetheless take care, as some Snarks are in fact not Snarks, but something else entirely, i.e. Boojums. This interpretation would be consistent with the Baker's implication that not every "Snark be a Snark." There is thus no clear evidence of the existence of an "x" that is both an S and a B. Does such evidence exist? yrs
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on May 7, 2008 15:35:33 GMT -5
It appears to me that the grammatical stucture of this verse does imply that there are common Snarks and those less common. If the term 'common snark' were to be used to define a particular spec ies of Snark (as fo example in Common Gull) the C would be capitalised...?
I agree there is some ambiguity introduced by the Uncle's comments. However the uncle's comments can surely be seen as referring to the subspecies of Snark that is a Boojum. As for example, in an area where there are many species of spiders, only one of which is venomous one would say if that particular spider turns out to be a funnel web, beware.
Still, such ambiguities are part of the fun of the Snark.
To some extent, Mahendra, I think you are probably right in your comment about the Snark being the reader. At the very least the Snark does appear to be a manifestation of the reader's moral and spiritual being or a metaphor for a person's jouney through life, the Crown of Olives.
Regards
JT
|
|
|
Post by ermete22 on May 8, 2008 18:13:29 GMT -5
I apologise for insisting. Taking into account that Carroll was a logician He wrote a significant amount of puzzles The interpretations of the snark are many and sometimes different. one must take into account that SOME SNARKS ARE BOOJUMS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AL BOOJUMS ARE SNARKS This interpretatioon that boojums are a sub-species of snarks could automatically be the case if Carroll was not Carroll. Carlo
|
|
frockmaker
Rook
"I'm forty, unmarried and I work in musiclal theatre - you do the math"
Posts: 22
|
Post by frockmaker on May 12, 2008 2:02:40 GMT -5
I'm not a logician (not by a loooooong way), but if some are snarks are boojums, then doesn't it follow all boojums are snarks?
There was a musical called Boojum wasn't there? Anyone ever see it?
|
|
|
Post by hermionethestork on May 12, 2008 5:13:47 GMT -5
Huh? ?
|
|
pleasance1
Bishop
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards" the Queen remarked.
Posts: 11
|
Post by pleasance1 on May 18, 2008 8:45:48 GMT -5
There IS a musical called 'Boojum' written by Peter Wesley-Smith. I have not seen a production of it, but I was kindly sent CDs of the musical by the composer. It is a very interesting composition, well worth a listen if you get the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on May 18, 2008 18:17:14 GMT -5
Hi Pleasance,
I must admit I haven't seen the Wssley-Smith musical. However, I have seen a number of theatrical adaptations of the Snark. To me they hae all missed the point. They have all, in their own way limited themselves to the text of the Snark, and tried to dramatise a text that actually does not lend itself to dramatisation in any sense other than a sort od music-hall comedy with often pretencious, but limited overtones.
The Snark is a VERY linguistic poem - even in its illustrations. In order to espress this, a scriptwriter or director really has to have the courage to interpret the language of the Snark - the metaphors, allusions and myth.
This may mean going outside the literal Snark itself and using the Individual fits as a way of expressing the ery many interpretations of the Snark (and each fit) in a way that is both historically satisfying and relevant to our own experiences and exisitence.
To me the Snark has more importance than to be the vehicle for an amusing collage of music and dance.
Omigod! Hoe arrogant does that sound!
I don't mean I might not enjoy The Wesley-Smith production as an entertainment. Just that I think the Snark deserves more.
Regards
JT
|
|
|
Post by mahendra on May 19, 2008 8:51:33 GMT -5
This Boojum inquiry is starting to smell of Jungian synchronicity! There is an interesting, brief discussion of the provenance of the Boojum here: www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/snarkiana/Mr. Roberts thesis could be expanded into a crypto-Hindu provenance of the Boojum with genuinely hilarious consequences! This all ties nicely into John's remarks about the deeply linguistic essence of the Snark … talking about the meaning of talking … drawing about the appearance of being … the plot thickens!
|
|
|
Post by joelbirenbaum on May 19, 2008 13:01:36 GMT -5
I like the idea of the Boojum being the reader. Most people have a view of themselves that is totally dissociated from reality and if they ever were to come face to face with their true selves (boojums), then they would disappear. I like it. This isn't what Carroll meant when he wrote it, this is what I meant when he wrote it.
|
|