What do we know about this character?

[Mayerling]

Hello Mr. Wallace,

I have read the two Alice books, but not recently. I thought that Dodgson was considered an expert on logic or symbolic logic, which was his field at the university/college he was attached to.

To be honest I have not read either of your books on Dodgson, and therefore have restrained myself from replying. Curiously I had a copy of "You're Lighthearted Friend" once, but gave it to an acquaintance who saw it. I'm not really into anagrams as proof because (as mentioned somewhere on this thread) it reminds me too much of Ignatius Donnelly and "The Great Cryptogram" wherein he thought he proved that Bacon wrote Shakespeare.

Hope you had a good holiday.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

To Pcdunn

Just a couple of points. My sense is that all of your knowledge of my books comes from the Casebook and not from having read the books themselves. Dodgson was not a professor. In fact he was far from it, having spent his work life as a don, which is essentially a tutor for low level courses.. So the enormous creativity of which you write was not to benefit Oxford. In fact he may have earned more money on his books than on his salary there. Oxford of the day, and even today, would likely consider him an underachiever as an Oxford instructor. Given the disparity there was likely great internal conflict, pointed out by others as brought out in my books. Did that conflict ever come out beyond writing?

Regarding the anagrams many have claimed that letters are conveniently omitted but no one has ever pointed them out. One person (God bless him) pointed out that I left out three letters in Jabberwocky which in fact made a useful word. Other than that error I'm not aware of any anagrams that aren't complete.

In any case, I still consider LC a suspect although I did not prove he did it.

Thank you for your post, and my apologies if my posts offended you in any way. It is true that Casebook was the first place I've read more than a passing mention of Lewis Carroll as a Ripper suspect, and that I haven't read your books (though perhaps I will sometime).

Anagrams and Shakespeare are discussed in a very fine book on the authorship controversy called "Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" by James Sharpiro.

[lynn cates]

alibi

Hello RW.

"I still consider LC a suspect although I did not prove he did it."

I most certainly did NOT. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[R Wallace]

To Mayerling/Jeff

Thank for your post and for your acknowledgment up front you hadn't read my books. Nowhere in all the biographies of LC that I read did I ever read that a his field at Oxford was logic. The books that he wrote, which are considered quite good, but they were produced purely out of his interest in the subject and a wish to make a contribution to the field. They had nothing to do with his duties at the university. They're another example of the breadth of his creativity.

I'm always reluctant to quote too much from my books for people who haven't read them. But there is some time spent in The Agony on a work of his (I can't identify it right now) in which he encouraged writers to rearrange the letters of written stories until one created a new story with the greatest "intensity." Ah! An extended anagram! See "A Conundrum" in Lighthearted Friend to see a considerably more intense re-arrangement. One reader was able to solve the conundrum by finding the original material.

LC wrote a paean to his mother. Rearranging the letters to get a more intense feeling toward his mother we get (in part) "...I came to resent every word from her lips. So, a horrid freak -- a timid phony -- sneered, revolted, and showed how vile filth vanishes in foolish nonsense." More intense than the original? You betcha. No one wants to believe that a penultimate game player was playing a game with his adult readers, never mind that he was using the children to accomplish it.

Based on the lack of interest in the other thread about whether anagrams can ever be evidence, it appears that no one believes that when one finds too many anagrams in a work that perhaps there's more there than meets the eye and that they are not there by accident.

On a personal note, at age 76 and not in good health, I may soon retire from the Casebook blog. In the meantime I encourage bloggers to do their homework before they comment and read the only book that suggests LC to be JTR.

[jmenges]

On a personal note, at age 76 and not in good health, I may soon retire from the Casebook blog. In the meantime I encourage bloggers to do their homework before they comment and read the only book that suggests LC to be JTR.

Hi Richard,

I didn't even realize you were here posting at casebook until now.

I wish you a Happy New Year, improved health and all the best in 2015.

JM

[Mayerling]

To Mayerling/Jeff

Thank for your post and for your acknowledgment up front you hadn't read my books. Nowhere in all the biographies of LC that I read did I ever read that a his field at Oxford was logic. The books that he wrote, which are considered quite good, but they were produced purely out of his interest in the subject and a wish to make a contribution to the field. They had nothing to do with his duties at the university. They're another example of the breadth of his creativity.

I'm always reluctant to quote too much from my books for people who haven't read them. But there is some time spent in The Agony on a work of his (I can't identify it right now) in which he encouraged writers to rearrange the letters of written stories until one created a new story with the greatest "intensity." Ah! An extended anagram! See "A Conundrum" in Lighthearted Friend to see a considerably more intense re-arrangement. One reader was able to solve the conundrum by finding the original material.

LC wrote a paean to his mother. Rearranging the letters to get a more intense feeling toward his mother we get (in part) "...I came to resent every word from her lips. So, a horrid freak -- a timid phony -- sneered, revolted, and showed how vile filth vanishes in foolish nonsense." More intense than the original? You betcha. No one wants to believe that a penultimate game player was playing a game with his adult readers, never mind that he was using the children to accomplish it.

Based on the lack of interest in the other thread about whether anagrams can ever be evidence, it appears that no one believes that when one finds too many anagrams in a work that perhaps there's more there than meets the eye and that they are not there by accident.

On a personal note, at age 76 and not in good health, I may soon retire from the Casebook blog. In the meantime I encourage bloggers to do their homework before they comment and read the only book that suggests LC to be JTR.

I do hope your health improves in the coming year, and you reconsider the possible exiting from the Casebook. We always actually do welcome many opinions. Besides, I actually found in your response a slight stimulation regarding your research concerning language terminology. The word "phony" appeared in the rearrangement of the paean Dodgson wrote for his mother, and I was surprised at that. I'm not a linguist by any means, but I was always under the impression that "phony" was a 20th century term, not one from the 19th century. Of course, Dodgson died in 1898, close to the conclusion of his century, but it did surprise me a bit there.

Take care of yourself and have a good year.

Jeff

[R Wallace]

To Mayerling/Jeff

Thanks for your post and I hope I piqued your interest. In preparing the books I used the Oxford English Dictionary for questionable words along with a couple of slang dictionaries of the day. They are available at the moment. But "late" 19th century (whenever that starts) is probably okay. I don't know when LC wrote the paean to his mother, but I got the sense that it was found among his things by his family after he died. It wasn't anything he published. He died in 1898 and was writing until the end. Fair question.

[dag]

A New Year anagram especially for Richard Wallace:

Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There

=

Ah! Richard Wallace reasons the virulent killer haunting East End of London was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson



Best wishes

David Green

[R Wallace]

To Dag:

Very clever anagram; they're not easy to do. It's good to see another person trying to accomplish Carroll's encouragement to rearrange the letters of what one has written. The real question is whether Carroll actually did what he encouraged others to do. I think Yes; I'm guessing you think No.

Re the lack of an Index, I agree with you that it's a crime. It's clear you read the e-book version of the work. Perhaps there are e-book publishers now who retain the original page numbers; but I didn't find one at the time. The original hard copies of the works are indexed. I don't have the e-books here, but I believe the Notes were included in both e-books.