Talk:Lewis Carroll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Lewis Carroll is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 5 September 2006
Peer review Lewis Carroll has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Archive: [1]

Contents


[edit] Mistakes in the Annotated Alice

I made an incorrect correction to the page the other day. Dodgson's date of death in the jacket of the new edition of Martin Gardner's "The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition" is listed as July 14th, instead of January. You'd think a mistake like that wouldn't be in the definitive edition of anything. I also seemed to remember reading somewhere that Dodgson died when he was 66 and a half years old, which he would have been in July of 1898.

[edit] Why He Did Not Proceed To The Priesthood

In more of than biography I have read, there was some speculation that Dodgson also had a theological issue with church teaching, specifically that he could not persuade himself to believe in eternal damnation. I cannot cite the source for this material, as I read it too long ago.

There is no direct source for this material. Dodgson's reasons for not taking orders can only be assumed or deduced from his available circumstances, as he made virtually no direct comment upon it in himself.--Wicked-Witch-of-the-East 13:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Is this picture (of the nude girl) really appropriate for this article?

Yes, it is; the section in which it's placed discusses Dodgson's nude photographs at some length. Septentrionalis 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone verified the authorship of Dodgson? Quoting user JayW @ 19:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) "Is this really by Lewis Carroll? Where did you get it?". With that said, I also think that the caption (rare archive by Dark111) is deeply inappropriate. Is Dark111 famous or something? If somebody verifies the authorship I will be glad to support its inclusion in the article. -- Pichote 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dark111 is just another Wikipedia user and should not be in the article at all. The photo is authentic. In fact, the girl herself has her own Wikipedia article under the name Alexandra Kitchin. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Having said the above, I'm thinking the article is better without the photo. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I think this article is a diamond in the rough. Specifically, I think we can being this article up to featured status with a little work. To get us started on this path, I've opened this article up for a peer review so we can get some feedback on ways to improve this article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination with invitation to renominate

As stated in the above peer review post, this article is a diamond in the rough. Specifically I've failed the nomination over citations: two of the most controversial matters - possible drug use and child pornography - need better documentation. Stubby one and two-line paragraphs also detract from the article. Some of the material here would probably be better covered in summary style with branching articles: more space gets devoted to his artistic hobbies than to his actual career as a mathematician or to critical receptions of his writings. On the whole, this article loses its balance over what I would call the Sally Hemmings effect: legitimate concerns over sensational topics can steal the spotlight away from other substantive issues. This man is chiefly memorable as the author of some of the most enduring and respected children's literature in English. Durova 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is some very valuable feedback. Thank you Durova! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Dodgson's work on sets and symbolic logic might be covered as well as the gossip and speculation around his private life? He was in his time, after all, a mathematician and logician. Daen 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)



At the same time. Since the current understanding of LC is in a state of flux, shouldn't Wiki reflect that current state?

I don't think it's about being sensational. It's about trying to accurately reflect current realities, so people coming here for info get a balanced idea.

I think it's crucial for the 'controversies' to be well featured as they reflect most accurately the current nature of LC and his biography. So much is unknown or in dispute. And the 'carroll Myth' has an impact on his work as much as his life, don't you think?

Maybe we could do with linked feature swctions on some of his best non-Alice work?--Wicked-Witch-of-the-East 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article To-Do

Based on the feedback from the Peer Review and the GA review, I think I can break down the things to do into a smallish bullet-list:

  • Slightly de-emphasize and summarize the controversial issues (drugs/pedophilia) - perhaps subpage?
  • Increase exposure of Carroll's academic/mathematics pursuits.
  • Give considerably more weight to Carroll as an author (for which he is best known)
  • Some general prose cleanup (stub paragraphs and the like)
  • For the stuff that remains after the above, references references references....

Feel free to add to this list as needed. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


No, I don't agree. If the article is dealing with Dodgson's biography then the controversies belong right there on the main page, because his entire biography is 'controversial' right now isn't it?

His 'pedophilia' especially. When we consider that almost everything said about his life and work has to some extent reflected the idea of his obsession with children, then I don't think we can peel off 'pedophilia' from any other aspect of his life or genius. The controversy about it is centre stage and needs to remain there.

Likewise the whole 'Carroll Myth'. It is central to what Dodgson is and what he is perceived as being. To de-emphasise it is to give a quite false image of the state of our present understanding.

What we need is sub-pages to do with his literature. This is his biography page and should reflect that fact first and foremost.

--Wicked-Witch-of-the-East 14:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


    • With regard to your "Increase exposure of Carroll's academic/mathematical pursuits" - I can't find any of it on the web, but in a book at home I have some of the mathematical problems (set theory, I think) that he gave to his students. The Carrollian wit and surrealism shows in the way they are written. I'll put some examples in the article (or here) as soon as I can get the book and a computer in the same place. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A selection from symbolic logic

Here we go. These are titled "Sets of Concrete Propositions, proposed as Premisses for Sorites. Conclusions to be found." There are several dozen of them, but I shall quote the first...

  1. Babies are illogical;
  2. Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile;
  3. Illogical persons are despised.
Univ. "persons"; a = able to manage a crocodile; b = babies; c = despised; d = logical.

...to which the conclusion is "Babies cannot manage crocodiles." The last, and most complex, of the problems is:

  1. The only animals in this house are cats;
  2. Every animal is suitable for a pet, that loves to gaze at the moon;
  3. When I detest an animal, I avoid it;
  4. No animals are carnivorous, unless they prowl at night;
  5. No cat fails to kill mice;
  6. No animals ever take to me, except what are in this house;
  7. Kangaroos are not suitable for pets;
  8. None but carnivora kill mice;
  9. I detest animals that do not take to me;
  10. Animals, that prowl at night, always love to gaze at the moon.
Univ. "animal"; a = avoided by me; b = carnivora; c = cats; d = detested by me; e = in this house; h = kangaroos; k = killing mice; l = loving to gaze at the moon; m = prowling at night; n = suitable for pets; r = taking to me.

The conclusion is "I always avoid a kangaroo". This is from "A selection from symbolic logic" in "Lewis Carroll: The complete works with Tenniel's drawings", Nonesuch Press, 1939. I think these make useful, and entertaining, examples of Dodgson's mathematical work and the fact that the Carrollian wit was present even in the lecture room. Robin Johnson (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible drug use

"There has been much speculation that Dodgson used drugs, however there is no direct evidence that he ever did" seems to me enough, if not too much, about something for which there is no evidence. The rest of that paragraph is surely pointless? Richard Pinch 21:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Of course not, the whole paragraph minimizes existing evidences and not mentions others. What's the point of talking about laudanum and marijuana when you have bugs sitting on mushroons driking tea and smoking water pipes in an immagination, for not to say hallucinogen, land? Frankly, the references in his work are quite obvius. The problem is to infer that the author, besides the characters, used drugs. --El Chemaniaco 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only "obvious" drug use in the books is the caffeine contained in the tea (and whatever the caterpillar's smoking, but is there any reason to assume it's not tobacco?). Unless you can provide direct evidence of the author's intention or direct correlations with the drug culture of the mid-19th century (not the 20th), it's supposition and doesn't belong in the article. Strephon 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guildford

He dies at his sisters' home, a house which he had bought for them with his royalties. It doesn't make sense to say that he lived in Ch:Ch: at then refer to his home in Guildford.

[edit] List of writings?

Why is there no list of his works, nor does there seem to be a link to such a page. 71.237.199.230 07:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/w/Talk%7ELewis_Carroll_ea75.html"