01-01-2015, 09:50 AM
Ray, instead of " uncorrectable," shouldn't that be "non-correctable?" 
Ah, I love when people try and pick the fly shit out of the pepper. endless hours of excremental entertainment that.
The thing is that Dodgson's nonsense verse was not only done extremely well, and in the context of the book, but was basically a one off. It was funny when he did it, but generally becomes less so when others attempt it. This is especially true when in the hands of those who have no idea of its purpose to begin with. The genius of Dodgson's poem is that, although complete nonsense, it sounds close enough to making sense that the reader is fooled into thinking it does have meaning, and mistaking it for a conundrum rather than pure nonsense.
In terms of the topic Dodgson never meant to communicate anymore than what he does. That there is a "Jabberwock". That a boy leaves home to kill it. That the boy does in fact kill it with his "vorpal" blade. That the boy is praised by his father when he returns, and that the word "Mimsy" would much later become the title to a SciFi film, that was loosely based on the character of Alice and erroneously making a connection to Dodgson's attack on the "New Mathematics" as a mathematical statement to be used as a premiss in the movie; poetic license I suppose. Dodgson's fiction is as it is somewhat to the extent as Gulliver's Travels, they both hide a negative commentary against an entity that could hurt them or in Dodgson's case, keep him from ever seeing the printing press. While Swift's work can be correctly call satire, Dodgson's is harder to label the same as, as it is buried much deeper. This is seen in the fact that Swift's work is nearly immediately seen by any educated reader for what it is, it simply retains plausible deniable. In Dodgson's case the same reader as the above would never suspect that there was a deeper and darker story unfolding beneath the surface one. Thus "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" has never been refereed to as a satire.
There are at least two reasons why Ray may have brought this up in connection to the original topic, I have no way to know what the intent might be so I will not comment on that. However, it is a good poem to juxtapose against the poems we were originally discussing.
Certainly Dodgson's poem does not fall into the same category as those we have been discussing. One of the primary differences is no one will mistake the poem, due to the use of nonsense words, as being other than what it is, nor will they accept the blame of non-understanding as a failure within themselves. I look forward to Ray's exposition.
Dale
Ah, I love when people try and pick the fly shit out of the pepper. endless hours of excremental entertainment that.
The thing is that Dodgson's nonsense verse was not only done extremely well, and in the context of the book, but was basically a one off. It was funny when he did it, but generally becomes less so when others attempt it. This is especially true when in the hands of those who have no idea of its purpose to begin with. The genius of Dodgson's poem is that, although complete nonsense, it sounds close enough to making sense that the reader is fooled into thinking it does have meaning, and mistaking it for a conundrum rather than pure nonsense.
In terms of the topic Dodgson never meant to communicate anymore than what he does. That there is a "Jabberwock". That a boy leaves home to kill it. That the boy does in fact kill it with his "vorpal" blade. That the boy is praised by his father when he returns, and that the word "Mimsy" would much later become the title to a SciFi film, that was loosely based on the character of Alice and erroneously making a connection to Dodgson's attack on the "New Mathematics" as a mathematical statement to be used as a premiss in the movie; poetic license I suppose. Dodgson's fiction is as it is somewhat to the extent as Gulliver's Travels, they both hide a negative commentary against an entity that could hurt them or in Dodgson's case, keep him from ever seeing the printing press. While Swift's work can be correctly call satire, Dodgson's is harder to label the same as, as it is buried much deeper. This is seen in the fact that Swift's work is nearly immediately seen by any educated reader for what it is, it simply retains plausible deniable. In Dodgson's case the same reader as the above would never suspect that there was a deeper and darker story unfolding beneath the surface one. Thus "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" has never been refereed to as a satire.
There are at least two reasons why Ray may have brought this up in connection to the original topic, I have no way to know what the intent might be so I will not comment on that. However, it is a good poem to juxtapose against the poems we were originally discussing.
Certainly Dodgson's poem does not fall into the same category as those we have been discussing. One of the primary differences is no one will mistake the poem, due to the use of nonsense words, as being other than what it is, nor will they accept the blame of non-understanding as a failure within themselves. I look forward to Ray's exposition.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.