Alice

Did I say I didn't like the Jabberwock? I love the Jabberwock! I have painted it a few times, can recite the entire thing from memory at the drop of the hat. (... "and burbled as it came!/ One two, one two and through and through/ the vorpal blade went snicker-snack..." etc.)

Craven - if you wanna debate whether Carroll "meant" things or not, it would help if you said what bits you are reading.....

Well take for example some of aka's comments about the Cheshire Cat and politics. It has absolutely nothing to do with the books and he's just parroting those who read too much into the book.

The vashinshing cat has had so many meanings attached to it and meanings so diverse that 90% of the amateur shrinks have to be wrong.

Or you can take for example what aka said about Gladstone, he's confusing the cat and the hatter but even without the confusion he's wrong. The mad hatter was the character most commonly associated with gladstone and it's bogus.

The mad hatter is based on Theophilus Carter.

So basically what I'm saying is that for every paragraph of the book I see a plethora of completely bogus (though entertaining) interpretations, which while interesting have nothing to do with Carrol's intent.

It's fun to watch people projecting so much but most of the time it's just a mind trip and when they ascribe intent to the author they do so in error.


Vivien,

You are the first person I know of who hated Animal Farm. Just more positive confirmation that taste doesn't have to be uniform.

When I FIND my damn Gardner, I will prolly run you an argument, dammit!

As it is, I think you are being too far over on one side, just as the really wild meaning finders are too far over the other.

Mind you - I agree that the multiple meanings cannot be right - and I do disagree with all the interpretations that aka has made - however, I do think that Dodgson, as a highly educated man, and a mathematician, was riffing on a body of knowledge and theory that was much more a COMMON body of knowledge than we can imagine today, within the educated classes - there being now much more specialization and separation of bodies of knowledge and less of a common pool.

I also enjoy Gulliver's Travels, both as a childs adventure novel and as social comment.

I suspect that "Treasure Island" also can be read a couple of ways.

British politics never interested me enough to make me pursue Carrolls allusions to their "logical" foundations. A little imagination never hurts ones personal pleasures unless one becomes confused betwixt fact and fancy.

On the note of personal tastes, I have never been able to get more than a few pages into "Lord of the Rings" but I have known some otherwise reasonable people who love it. Big Deal

dlowan, Your statement that multiple meanings cannot be correct. As in some other literature one can recognize whatever meanings happen to "float your boat". This allows you to essentially allows you to "write your own story" as your own imagination dictates.
You may note that this technique is widely used in the Abrahamic "Bible. From all appearances it is a successful technique.

Dlowan,

I don't deny that Caroll riffed on many things, in fact I was pleasantly surrised to see how much he did parody.

Thing is, thus far everyone who is trying to tell me how good this book is cites the projections and not a single person has ever mentioned to me one of the real, intended riffs.

So what I'm saying is that the prople projecting was more fun than any intended meaning of the book.

Did I cite any projections? I'm coming down rather on the other side, that it is amusing in and of itself (get rid of the annotations) and that the riffing can be amusing, as well. But not too much Deep Meaning... that it was written quickly, off-the-cuff, and not necessarily for posterity.

I mentioned some specific parody in terms of the Mother Goose book. Later, I'll find the book and some of the specifics. ("You are old, father William" was one, I think. When I look through it I'll remember the rest.)

I don't remember you projecting.

So - how are what you call projections different from what I call riffing?

The difference to me is that Caroll was the author and others the readers. What the readers read into the book might be entirely sourced in the reader's mind.

When readers riff they project, when Caroll riffed it is part of the book.

What the readers come up with is their interpretation of the book but not necessarily a part of the book itself.

LOL! What I meant was - how can you tell the difference? I know what the definitional difference is!

Happy new year and such, by the way!

Mech - are you specifically discussing "surreal" literature?

Soz - I have forgotten why you are so anti-annotation.

Have you read the Gardner ones in "The Annotated Alice"?

They are delightful and a work of art, in their own way, themselves. They do not seek to make Alice into something it is not - rather they elucidate the cultural allusions (like the originals which so many of the songs parody), the history of things like the Tenniel illustrations and Alice Liddell and her sisters, (it is a delight to know which creatures represent her sisters, for instance)and discuss the meanings which have been attributed over the years to this little Rorschach. (At least, that is what they do from memory - I cannot find my copy! And - Craven has a much more recent edition than I do - so it is somewhat different in its annotations.) They really are a most fascinating read. Gardner, himself, is very aware of the possibilities of over gilding the Liddel, and over-analysingl...

Depends on what's being asserted. That question is like saying "How do we know what is the truth?".

Hmm - gotta go - for starters, though, do you think that seeing some of the Cheshire Cat's utterances as having to do with the difficulties of distinguishing dream from reality as being projecting, or riffing?

What are you asking? No, I don't think Caroll had any of that in mind. Yes, I do think readers are both "riffing" and "projecting" meanings about the dream/reality issue.

dlowan, I'm not really anti-annotations, per se... I just don't think the annotations are what MAKE it a good book. What I like is the silliness, the whimsey-with-an-edge (not TOO cutesy), the flights of fancy, and especially the wordplay. I enjoyed it on that level for several years before I got to the annotations.

However, I DID like the annotations once I got there. Oh, really? Oh, that makes sense. Cool, I didn't catch that. Etc.

What I am trying to get at is that I don't think the meaning is what makes the book interesting, and if you go at it from that perspective, it will be disappointing.

dlowan,

Probably, but mostly I found it fun.

IF Carroll was writing for the child in all of us he succeeded admirably.
IF he was writing social commentary most of the parents would find cause to chuckle occasionally and shake their head.
IF he was writing to needle the "ruling classes" I am reasonably sure that several Members of Parliament recognized their adversaries, and perhaps some of their peers.
IF he was writing simply for the fun of it I am reasonably sure that he found the experience enjoyable.

Since I have personally found that watching other people have a good time is the best "spectator sport" when I read "Alice" I have the feeling that Carroll is having a blast. And I enjoy watching him have it

He most certainly did not. He might have been able to write to some people's inner child but not others.

Some here describe it as a fun fanciful romp. Others (like myself) find it witless and dull.

Such is life, it's the proverbial ass.