Alice

Yeah, I figured I'd like his logical puzzles.

I read some more this morning, saw some very interesting commentary about the nature of reality and dreaming. But they were in the notes as well.

Oh, I love Alice, but I definitely prefer Thru the Looking Glass. To my mind, it's just less childlike.

Anyway, as you probably know, there's also a political element to it. The critters who end up in the pool of tears are all representatives of various lords and ministers.

Yeah, when I say "Alice" I mean both of 'em.

They're different, I like different things about each. Not sure which I like better.

That's one Mother Goose parallel, btw -- there is an illustration for "ABCDEFG" (ya know, the alphabet song) that is a bunch of creatures gathered around listening to an owl (?) teacher that looks a lot like both Tenniel's and Rackham's illustrations for that section.

Anyway, definitely a lot going on. Unsurprising that Carroll is one of Salman Rushdie's favorite authors.

Alice
I agree with Sozobe - definitely don't read the annotations first. Just read the stories - employ "the willing suspension of disbelief" and relax.

About the "unsavoury" aspect of Carroll's dealings with Alice Liddell and other small girls, the fact is that there was nothing unsavoury. The attitudes of the Victorians were kind of a reverse of some of ours, and it was perfectly okay for old family friends to have a highly sentimental and surprisingly physical approach to female children, even to the point where we of today would get rather nervous and think "funny uncle".

Finally - at least for the moment - don't feel that you have to read "Alice". You've gotten along this far in life without spending time on reading something you don't enjoy, why waste time now? granted there are conversational allusions, as well as literary references, to "Alice" but you probably know them all by now, anyway. If anyone's laying a guilt trip on you for not having read these books (even if it's yourself) ignore it!

I enjoy - as I said - the Cheshire Cat bit, and the Caterpillar, and the Humpty Dumpty bits very much - although I DO get into trouble quoting them from time to time....

I also love using bits of the Alices when I am teaching - either when giving case presentations (usually about what went wrong, if I am quoting Alice!) - or when teaching about therapeutic frameworks - they are marvellous for making people laugh or disrupting their assumptions.

Craven - if there is interesting commentary about reality and dreaming in the notes, then there must, one would assume, be at least some evidence for something relating to the topic of the notes being in the text, no?

Craven - would you object if I copied some of the Abuzz Alice discussion into this one? It was quite an interesting one, although it became strangely heated - I have edited out the fighting words.

It might be fun for people to have a look at - and trigger some further thoughts.

Can you provide a link, dlowan?

I can - but most of the thread is about "The Wind in the Willows!"

The Alice stuff is towards the end.

"The things that worry me about The Wind in the Willows" ":

http://www.abuzz.com/interaction/s.221956/discussion

I thought about that yesterday. I figured if so many people reference this work, and it brings about so many interesting notes it muct be interesting right?

Well no, I think it's a bunch of over-devoted people reading between the lines and seeing stuff that wasn't there but associating it with interesting mindtrips.

The part about dreaming was interesting because of the words of Socrates, that the editor was reminded of it by the Alice book I do not credit to Carrol in any way, at least in no way I'd not credit a TV commercial for reminding someone of something profound serendipitously.

See, that's (part of) what I have against annotations. They'll find ANYTHING to annotate, (won't do to have vast chunks of non-annotated text -- why publish the annotated version, then?) and some of it might be worthwhile, some of it not.

Again, this isn't some lofty piece of Literature that was honed by a master -- it's an amusing little children's story that was recorded not for publication but for a little girl, and which happens to have many layers given to it in a spontaneous manner by its extremely intelligent and imaginitive author.

I know you've already read a lot of it, may be too late to stop, but I expect an annotation will only confirm your dislike rather than changing your mind. Not to say that a non-annotated version would, either, but I think it has a better chance.

BTW, I have to take that last part back, I have to credit the digression to Carrol but to his diary, from which the notes draw the comparison to Socrates' conversation.

As an aside, I re-read the introduction to confirm this but Carrol's obsession with girls isn't explained by his times. Alice Liddel's mother tried to curb his attentions and burnt all of his letters to her. The times were different but that doesn't change that he was a freak, even within those times.

There's no way I'm giving up on the annotations, they are more interesting than the story (which I could not yet describe as remotely amusing). Without the notes I would not read this book.

Yeah the Alice Liddell thing seems to be pretty well documented as going beyond the pale.

Hmmm. What I'm getting at with the annotations is that I think you are less likely to find the story remotely amusing if you read it in an annotated version for the first time. That's not bad, necessarily, it just kind of misses the point.

Reading it quickly and without too high of expectations first, THEN reading the annotations, would convey more of the layers IMO. But it sounds like reading it twice is not particularly appealing to you.

It's not the annotations that are boring me. And I have no expectations. And the annotations are not in any way getting in the way of enjoying the book (that would be the fault of the content thus far).

It's simply not entertaining to me. And won't be unless it changes soon (just met the hatter, let's see how it goes).

What I don't like is that the absurdity is not in any way interesting (it comes across as "forced", I'm a big fan of absurdity and this just comes across as someone trying way too hard and not in any way clever), Alice is one dimentional, and the wit is the type that I can only find funny when considering the caricature of the person who used it.

I really like absurdity, I like children's books. The annotations don't ruin this for me, I simply don't find it interesting (yet, it may change).

The trying too hard part is exacerbated by annotations IMO, but I'm getting into postmortem equine thrashing there.

On a more general note, I disagree with the notion that some works of literature are so intrinsically great that everyone who reads them must, by definition, enjoy and appreciate them. There are too many subjective components. So I'll argue specifics (that, what, "Lolita" has an unreliable narrator) but don't wish to tell anyone that they SHOULD like any given book.

I've read some things from girls who Carrol lavsished attention on and one of them said that he was boring, she also said that though he was interested in kids he didn't seem to understand them.

That's the impression I get from the book.

In any case I'm at the very beginning, the mad tea party is about to start and all could change soon.

LOL! I doubt it - but I do think it unfair of you to ascibe any interesting ideas to Martin Gardner - or Socrates - alone. Afterall, the thing is the workings of an oddly warped little consciousness, full of learning and maths and such, gone underground - and mixing stuff in its own li'l cocktail shaker.

I have always found it interesting that Carroll - whose insomnia was well known, and a number of whose published works were games and puzzles to wile away sleepless hours - should write most famously about "dreams".

Craven,

You may remember the conversations that we had in which I recommended that you read "Alice". You alerted me to this thread.

I am wondering (this thread isn't clear) whether you have finished the book. IMO Acquiunk has the idea but personally I suspect that the allusions Carroll makes are aimed more at his contemporary British society rather than the rather more practical world of theoretical physics.

Cheshire Cat-->Remarking on political promises-- When all is said and done the substance of a politicians promise is gone but the illusion remains. This may also have been an allusion to a British statesman by the name of William Gladstone. Smile->Glad.

Alice running as fast as she can merely to stand still. Allusion to the phenomenen known today as "keeping up with the Joneses". Another allusion to the bureaucratic class as being continually desirous to increase the size of their fiefdoms and the executive class the size of their compensations.

Tea Party, He's remarking on the often silly debates indulged in by people who are unable to separate fact from fancy, who often confuse desires with needs, and are perfectly willing to attempt to confuse any issue
with extraneous and unrelated topics. In the US this is called "pork barrelling". The US Senate recently went through a spasm of it whilst attempting to pay for the "Iraq Adventure". I suspect that Parliament is also subject to a similar malady.

Alice, as with the "Bible" can be read on several levels. First as a childrens entertainment, Second as socio-political commentary, and third as remarks on the human condition generally.

I have never read a footnoted edition. I am afraid that one would confine the imagination somewhat. I see no reason to use the author of the footnotes imagination rather than the one with which I am already excessively well equipped .

Hope you learn to enjoy it. I still find it fun

aka,

I have not finished it. But as I have in the past I caution against hoping people "learn" to like something.

"Taste is like an ass, everyone has their own."

I might not "learn" to like Alice. It happens.

As it stands I don't think many of the meanings derived from Alice were intentional, and as such have more fun with said interpretations than the book itself.

Since I've heard allusions to Alice all along, reading it now has been disappointing. The allusions and interpretations were far more interesting than the book itself has been.

This was not the case for satire like Animal Farm or Gulliver's Travels for me. WIth both those famous reads I'd heard all the interpretations of the satire beforehand as well but they themselves were very entertaining.

I know that Alice is supposed to be a banquet of imagination for some. But it is not for me, and I have an active imagination.

Thus far it just doesn't cut it for me, and it's bored me and is thus not able to "draw me in".

I can appreciate the exploration of its interpretations but the book itself bores me. That's why I haven't finished it.

I agree about suspending belief and enjoy...

I loved the Alice books as a child but was blissfully unaware of undertones etc

Unlike you Soz I liked the Jaberwock.. 'with eyes of flame' ... who came ... 'whiffling through the tulgey wood'


I absolutely hated Animal Farm and didn't like Gullivers Travels, it was so laboured and leaden.

just personal taste I think - so Craven - I think you'll never enjoy Alice.