|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Carroll, Lewis
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Carroll, Lewis
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:05 pm |        | Eeeek! This is my fault! Ladies, pleeee-ase! (And, though less strenuously, Peter...) I promise I won't try to express any hope for peace being declared again!
Martin
(PS And I think I'm going to stay the hell RIGHT OUT of the Sound and the Fury now raging over on Maybrick's Plain of Armageddon! 48 new messages when I came back from morning town chores and lunch, and another seven while I was reading them! Can cyberspace overheat?) |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:10 pm | |
Caroline,
Hey,
You haven't been accused of being stupid blinkered and cowardly.
I have and by you.
And let's throw in "dishonest", "libellous", and "disgusting" too.
Sure, take all that back, together with your claim that I make you vomit because I mentioned Kane's name, and I will be completely ready to have a reconciliation.
It's not me that began this foul business, it's not me that keeps it going, it's you and your endless parade of insults.
Only you can end it.
And don't bother playing the 'sweet little me routine'. I am one person who has seen too much of your very unpleasant behaviour to ever be convinced by that.
Martin,
bless you, but don't worry. Just start talking about something else and it will all go away.
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:38 pm | | Hi Martin,
No more sound and fury from me on this board - I promise! 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 03:04 pm | | Thanks, Caz. (And, hopefully, thanks to you, too, Karoline).
Martin |
Author: Seth Bock
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Hi Martin,
Just returning from the coast. I am surprised to still find you all hanging out here. I want to respond to your May 15th email, at least in part. I think the Light Hearted Friend is overly emphatic at times, but even with a few errors and ideas that are poorly researched, I believe there is enough coincidence to warrant serious inquiry, (not polarity). I find The Agony of Lewis Carroll, (Wallace's first book) to be a lot more rigorous. When I put the two books together it is quite obvious that Dodgson was perverted, despite Leach's portrait of Don Juan Dodgson. The first book is a solid lead in to the second. They must be read as a pair, and Wallace's reaching taken with the proverbial salt. The Agony very convincingly paints a plausible and disturbing picture of Dodgson. In comparison, the tid bits of biography, very professionally woven together by leach, seem to highlight a longing for a fictional and quasi-macho seducer of women. Admittedly, we are all sorting through tea leaves. I am aware of the criticisms of Wallace's theory, but am just as surprised by the knee jerk reaction I get for even questioning Dodgson as the Ripper. This makes me want to look at this possibility even further. Martin, I think your critique of Wallace's impetus is in correct. Even though he suggests a 'try on' approach in the Ripper Book, his efforts are clearly the culmination of years of research (note the first and second publication date). As for the assertions that Wallace is digging, of course he is. We all are, even Leach. Leach should not hold Wallace hostage for something she herself so thoroughly practiced. Coming up with a little scrap of paper is no less tenuous a theoretical base than Wallace using the Carroll works. Of course her's is more acceptable and publish-able. I suspect Wallace had less financial motive to paint his picture than Leach. Just my guess, chuckle. We all have to please someone. I'm sorry Karoline, did I offend you? Well, signing off from the peanut gallery,
Seth |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 04:27 am | | Hi Seth,
An upsurge of 'real' (could mean payment ultimately) work is hauling me off taking time to play the boards - despite longing to urge Mr Omlor and Mr Beg, both of whom know better, to join "United Preserve the Language Pedants" and refrain from misusing the valuable word 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'.
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 10:11 am | | Hi, Martin and Seth:
Martin, first of all, good luck with your new project. Despite you naming Messrs. Begg and Omlor as the guilty parties in the misuse of "disinterested" when they really mean "uninterested," I wonder if you did not mean me, when I said "perhaps Tony Devereaux was not as disinterested in either the Ripper and the Maybrick Case or in reading as Shirley portrays him."
Seth, in regard to remark about the financial motives of Leach and Wallace, what is your point? Any author who writes a worthwhile text is entitled to whatever their labor has earned them. I am sure you are also engaged in endeavors that put bread on your table, are you not? Likewise the working writer. It is easy to make remarks about the "financial motives" of writers. It is far less easy to do all the research and writing that is entailed in putting out a book.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 10:56 am | | Hi Martin,
Who, me? It's certainly possible, even probable, that I committed such an egregious error. But I'm not sure. So I am now not uninterested in when I misused "disinterested." I trust the appropriate citation is on its way.
You can always send it to me privately if you wish to spare me the public embarrassment -- omlor@tampabay.rr.com
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Seth Bock
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 04:10 pm | | Dear Chris, You're correct...
My bread and butter, during the day, is research ethics. I'm often surprised by the degree to which funders (such as pharmaceutical companies) shape, not only which answers are produced, but which questions are asked (profitable questions, that is). In relation to Leach's book, I wonder to what degree the Carroll groups influenced the production/publication (or even perhaps funded) her book? Not a crime at all, but something that might have subtly influenced the shape,scope and conclusions of her work. I'm all for full disclosure. Wallace's research obviously did not evolve out of that rich mineral vein. Correct, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Just food for thought.
Seth |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 06:39 pm | | Apologies to Chris and John. Rushing through e-mails when waking sleepless at 3.00am the error/s caught my attention; the names in the surrounding correspondence got mixed in that salad macedoine that passes for my brain.
So, Chris, you too deserve the 'You Know Better" invitation to join forces with all Pedants for Purifying Lexis.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 11:03 pm | | Hi, Martin:
Thanks for your clarification (I think  ).
Seth, I may be wrong about this, but I do not believe any Carroll society was involved in financing of Karoline Leach's research. She herself can answer on the point, of course, if she wishes.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 04:48 am | | Wooden-tit be luvverly if all publishers were disinterested in what they publish, and just let the authors get on with it?
Or else, let the author write in the small print somewhere, "They made me say that!"
(Always something to take into account before criticising authors whose working hours v. income would no doubt give those with 'normal' 9-5 jobs the screaming ab-dabs.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 06:42 am | | Dear Seth,
Could the Goulston St graffitto be the work of The Cheshire Cat?
Rosey (Pussi Galore!)
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) |
Author: Seth Bock
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 08:48 am | | Rosey,
You're a sophisticated thinker, no doubt. You're catching on! For The Cheshire Cat is indeed a Dodgson analogue.
Bravo,
Seth |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 09:21 am | | Dear Seth,
Rosey's jest...
Poussin A Boot!
:-) |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 05:39 pm | | Hey--
Is this a bad time?
Of course it is. But I'll interject anyway:
Over and over again, I've read that Dodgson's only adult companion was another bachelor, a man named Duckworth. I have also read that, at least as Lewis Carroll, he wrote in nothing but either violet or lavender ink, depending upon whose color identification skills one trusts.
Over and over, I've also heard that, at least as Carroll, he wanted his works bound in nothing but a particular deep green leather.
Now, maybe I'm being presumptuous, but maybe the fact that he preferred "girly" things, as over 80% of men who are later discovered to be gay did in childhood, and continue to do in adulthood; the fact that he used violet/lavender and that particular deep green, both of which colors were, at that time, code for "I'm a homosexual" (cf. Oscar Wilde's omnipresent green lapel-flower); and the fact that he pretty much cohabited with another bachelor for the entirety of his adult life; can all lead us to the Occam's-Razor assumption that he was a happily-"married" gay guy, not terribly different from many other gay men except that he seemed to be terribly socially inept and personally not-all-that-well-groomed("Einstein-esque," if you will), but thoroughly meticulous in his personal correspondences (he kept a sort of register of mail, very like the "tree view" of a Bulletin Board System, which just goes to show us that he was, indeed, a mathematician whose organizational style and tolerance for total and whimsical changes in his environment, such as those that happened when there were technological advances, or when Duckworth peevishly decided to organize his cluttered desk, would have left him at absolutely zero loss if confronted with a sudden time-leap to our Computer Era).
He was also "Modern" in that he felt it perfectly okay to take the three girls -- Lorina, Alice, and that one whose name I always forget (he called them Prima, Secunda, and Tertia) -- on a long boat-outing with the man who was, I suspect, his lover, just as gay uncles today might do (only their stories wouldn't be nearly so wonderful or funny, no offense meant).
So, yes, if you're the kind of "Godly" person who believes Leviticus 20:13 couldn't possibly have been Moses's transcription error, no matter that God Himself might tell you otherwise someday, then Dodgson was, indeed, a "pervert." He was about as interested in sexually molesting little girls as I am in marrying a corpse -- id est, not at all. Get it?
Love,
Sarah |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 11:23 am | | Hi, Sarah:
It looks like you need to read Karoline Leach's book on Dodgson where she clearly shows that he had normal relations with adult women and was not either the pedophile he is often painted or the closet gay that you are implying.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
