I think that Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether Matthias Grünewald hid a face in his painting having fun with the idea that people see it and then have a debate about whether …
Category: uncategorized
Laws of Propriety
The Butcher in the 5th fit of The Hunting of the Snark:
“The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain —
But much yet remains to be said.“In one moment I’ve seen what has hitherto been
Enveloped in absolute mystery,
And without extra charge I will give you at large
A Lesson in Natural History.”In his genial way he proceeded to say
(Forgetting all laws of propriety ,
And that giving instruction, without introduction,
Would have caused quite a thrill in Society).
Comic Arithmetic, Rule III, Subtraction
Subtraction teaches to “take from” or to find the difference of two numbers; having taken too much in, and slept out; to find the difference in sovereigns and shillings between that and sleeping at home according to the “
conventional laws of virtuous propriety .” (Vide Miss Martineau.)
2023-11-23
ChatGPT understands the Bellman’s rule
Embedded Mastodon toot:
2023-04-16
Charles Darwin and the Snark
This is an excerpt from an email with which I responded to an enquiry related to Charles Darwin and the Snark.
=== Darwin ===
As a deacon and as a scientist Carroll surely was inspired by Charles Darwin and the naval expedition with the HMS Beagle. Probably Carroll also struggled with some of Darwin’s findings quite a bit. In {https://snrk.de/snark-hunting-with-charles-darwin/} you find links to my blog posts related to Darwin.
=== Tuning forks and lace needles ===
I think that in “The Hunting of the Snark” there might be references to two tools used by Charles Darwin: Tuning forks {https://snrk.de/snarks-have-five-unmistakable-marks/#tuningforks} for experiments with spiders (it’s still done today) and lace-needles (you see them in an illustration by Holiday) for dissection {https://snrk.de/page_vivisection/}.
=== The Banker ===
In “The Hunting of the Snark”, the characters could be references to more than one real life person. In 2013 I posted some musings about a “Snark Matrix”, but I didn’t follow up on that as it might be too speculative: {https://snrk.de/snark-matrix-2013/} and {https://snrk.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The_Snark_Matrix.pdf}. In Carroll and Holiday’s tragicomedy, several characters might be associated with Charles Darwin, with the Banker being among them: {https://snrk.de/tree-of-life/#Banker}.
=== Tree of life ===
I am struggeling with this one: {https://snrk.de/tree-of-life/}. There might be a reference to a drawing by Darwin in one of Holiday’s illustrations which later became popular as Darwin “Tree of Life”. “Later” means: After a facsimile of the Darwin’s sketch was published. But to my knowledge, that didn’t happen during Carroll’s lifetime. Also another source of inspiration could be possible: An eagle riding on a boar: {https://snrk.de/tree-of-life/#EagleOnBoar}.
2023-04-16
Detour to Буджум
Please go to snrk.de/буджум/
De Morgan’s Snark
The tweet below has a link to https://www.demorgan.org.uk/which-snark-came-first-the-tiles-or-the-poem/.
This week, we're celebrating De Morgan's tiles.
Our volunteer, Vanessa, has spent this week painstakingly researching the archives to prove which Snark came first, the De Morgan tile or the Lewis Carroll poem!
Find out on our bloghttps://t.co/MZxlUaQt2F pic.twitter.com/M4S4rR2C6u
— De Morgan Collection (@DeMorganF) September 1, 2020
Dernière sortie pour wonderland
À propos du Dernière sortie pour wonderland par Ghislain Gilberti :
Paroles d’un mégalomane: « C’est sans concession que Dernière Sortie pour Wonderland referme pour toujours la porte du Pays des Merveilles et met un point final à la pudibonderie hypocrite que même Tim Burton n’a pas pu briser avec ses dernières adaptations cinématographiques. » Hypocrite ? Ne pourrait-il pas être simplement que Burton ne considère pas les preuves existantes suffisantes pour des jugements moraux ?
Le roman est présenté comme une analyse révélant le « vrai visage » de Carroll. Le sujet nécessite une recherche minutieuse, vérifiable et discutable (sur la base de preuves) et une présentation scientifiquement propre. Mais ce livre a reçu la forme du roman « ré-écrit ». Il s’agit d’une tentative d’échapper aux critiques.
Blog Tea Time in Bloomsbury (2017-10-20) :
[…] Bon, maintenant que vous et moi avons une vision plus honnête de ce pavé de 500 pages, est-ce que ça vaut le coup de le lire ?
Oui, parce que c’est une adaptation fascinante et bien écrite. Vous ne vous rendrez pas compte que vous lisez un pavé (sauf au poids). Vous rentrerez dans un monde plein de couleurs (même si parfois, il y a un peu trop d’hémoglobine, un peu comme dans une série B ou un Tarantino), un univers connu qui continue à alimenter votre curiosité. Néanmoins, plus vous avancerez dans le livre et moins vous aurez envie de lire les passages dits parasites. Ces passages sont des traversées dans le temps pour une Alice adulte du futur qui voit des scènes de vie glauques/puantes de Lewis Carroll imaginée par l’auteur. Plus vous avancerez et plus ces passages deviennent puants, borderline de la fiction érotique pour pédophile.
[…]
Non […]
Dernière Sortie pour Wonderland fait croire aux lecteurs qui ne comprennent pas les exigences d’une analyse qu’ils comprennent Carroll après avoir lu le livre. Que Gilberti, de l’avis de ses admirateurs, est un excellent écrivain ne fait qu’empirer les choses. Cependant, ce que le roman réalise, c’est qu’il rend les fantasmes de l’auteur plus clairs que les fantasmes de Carroll. Gilberti est un maître de l’écriture de fiction : Il pourrait également réécrire les instructions d’utilisation d’une machine à laver comme un roman adapté fascinant sur les appareils électroménagers pervers.
(1) Pages 463~485 : Une sélection (par Séverine Clément, auteur de matériel) de plus de 80 photos en noir et blanc sans spécification suffisamment précise des sources. Au moins pour une photo (en haut à gauche à la page 485) ne fait pas partie de la collection de Carroll. Les commentaires de Clément en disent plus sur sa propre imagination que sur les intentions de Dodgson/Carroll.
(2) Qui est Norah Spencer (ou Nora Spencer, CBS) ? J’ai posé cette question à Gilbert sur Facebook. Mais après cela, il a supprimé cet article Facebook.
(4) Babelio
There seems to be more “imaginative” fiction: the “novel” O fotógrafo e a rapariga by Mario Cláudio, 2015
2019-12-09, update: 2019-12-29
Where Gardner went too far
In the introduction to The Hunting of the Snark (Penguin Classics edition, 1962, 1974,p. 17), Martin Gardner wrote:
How well the academician Holiday succeeded in producing grotesques for the Snark (it is the only work of Carroll’s that he illustrated) is open to debate. Ruskin was certainly right in thinking him inferior to Tenniel. His drawings are, of course, thoroughly realistic except for the overzize heads and the slightly surrealist quality that derives less from the artist’s imagination than from the fact that he was illustrating a surrealist poem.
How well the academician Holiday succeeded in producing grotesques for the Snark (it is the only work of Carroll’s that he illustrated) is open to debate. Ruskin was certainly right in thinking him inferior to Tenniel. His drawings are, of course, thoroughly realistic except for the overzize heads and the slightly surrealist quality that derives less from the artist’s imagination than from the fact that he was illustrating a surrealist poem.I think that Gardner certainly was wrong. And Ruskin certainly was wrong as well. But, of course, that is open to debate.