Nohow?

A recent commenter asked for info on Morton Cohen’s  article dismissing the Guildford paper as a ‘joke’,  and another commenter pointed her to the old Nohow section on our website, which hosted a collection of articles by Cohen, the late Martin Gardner and others offering their various rebuttals of the  idea of a ‘Carroll Myth’ . Unfortunately, as we’ve said before elsewhere, the Nohow section is defunct, and  we don’t know of any other place the material can currently be found online, (we’re happy to be corrected??) .

It was, if you think about it, awfully generous of us to give over valuable and costly webspace to people critical of us,  but at the same time it probably wasn’t in the best interests of anyone for the stuff to be where it was.  Still, we think it really is only right for the responses of Cohen, Gardner et al to ‘the Myth’ to be available for researchers, and  – as we’ve also said before –  we’re  keen to see the material find another home.

The obvious place for it is on either the Lewis Carroll Society site, or its sister – the LCS of North America. It would – we think – be a very good idea for either or both these sites to have a ‘Carroll Myth’ section, and having both Contrariwise and Nohow represented there would seem an obviously balanced approach.

So, any takers? Or any links to already existing outlets for the Nohow POV?

And should it really be up to us to be doing this?

Shame on all you Cohen and Gardner fans out there.  😉

13 thoughts on “Nohow?

  1. Has blog page will travel… Have a look at http//:pleasance-theravenswritingdesk.blogspot.com
    The blog site is ready to roll- nothing much written as yet but that will change in time.

    I am trying to work out how to get the graphic I want onto the page. It’s going to be one of Furniss’s “little birds” from Sylvie and Bruno Concluded.

  2. Oh, see the last comment on that blog you have a link to at the side there. Here’s a link if I can make it work (I’m pasting optimistically, but it looks terribly wrong). Apparently your chappie was so solitary and so repressed he might have been gay. I thought you’d appreciate that on so many levels. It’s made me so annoyed and is a lesson not to click about idly on this cursed internet.

    http://www.lewiscarroll.org/2010/03/17/special-report-was-lewis-carroll-a-gay-mormon-and-were-the-alice-books-written-by-j-d-salinger/#comments

  3. I think it isn’t so much that there are some crazy ideas about who Lewis Carroll, there are crazy theories about all sorts of people, it’s that it is sometimes the reputed serious researchers and scholars that give credence to the crazy ideas. This can be done by overt agreement or by not presenting the known facts or by omitting vital facts or by using half truths.

  4. What has homosexuality got to do with anything and why is ChocChipCookie (oh please!) bringing that up? Can we not have this particular arena infected with the current craze for ultra-PCism? Or do we now have to say Carroll was homosexual (nothing ‘gay’ about it so far as I can see, so I refuse to use that word) in case we get accused of homophobia? Was Dickens homosexual too, then? And Tennyson?

    Contrariwise Reply:

    What has homosexuality got to do with anything and why is ChocChipCookie (oh please!) bringing that up? Can we not have this particular arena infected with the current craze for ultra-PCism? Or do we now have to say Carroll was homosexual (nothing ‘gay’ about it so far as I can see, so I refuse to use that word) in case we get accused of homophobia? Was Dickens homosexual too, then? And Tennyson?”

    I have literally no idea what you are talking about, but I won’t trash you because that will just make you feel as if you’re free speech is being suppressed.

  5. God, the creeps that are infesting this site lately – first the child-feelers and now this bigoted thug.

    Getting back to the actual subject of this posting (is that OK?), let me get this straight. There’s all this material which undermines your own work – so you put it all on your website where it can undermine it at close range.
    But when you take it down, all the people who really hate your work won’t host the stuff that makes their case for them.
    Makes sense to me.
    I’d be interested to read this stuff and see how much of a rebuttal it really offers – is the new scholarship not as well founded as it seems? I can’t find anything by Cohen or Gardner
    online – I did read Rackin’s review of Karoline Leach’s book, but didn’t get anything out of it except that the guy needed his medication changed. I’m sure I once read an article about Leach criticism which had quite a bit to say about Rackin and some other reviewer, but I can’t find that now either. If someone has any idea what I’m talking about and can point me in the right direction that’d be great.

  6. This illustrates my point exactly. I was not attempting to be in the least homophobic, merely pointing out that ChocChipCookie was playing a very tired game by dragging the spectre of homophobia in to stifle reasonable debate. I don’t believe Lewis Carroll was a homosexual and would like to be free to say so without casual indictment. Is ChocChip the author of this site and di he/she by any chance author that startling example of homosexual pornography that was on this site a year or so back? Can we look forward to more of same with Carroll as hero?

  7. I have often wondered why it is Lewis Carroll who attracts more than his fair share of nutty theories. Do the gaps in his known history give licence to others to fill them in with, at best implausible theories and at worst nonsensical rubbish?
    Do people confuse the author of Wonderland with the characters he created? It seems that way to me sometimes.

  8. @Damien – nonsense, of course it was homophobic. You’re the one dragging homosexuality in – ChocChipCookie just commented on something stupid someone had written elsewhere on the web and you were in such a hurry to start queer-bashing that you couldn’t even be bothered to read his post properly (or you’d have seen that he was saying the exact opposite of what you think). And you want to deny gays the right to choose their own terminology. You’re as much ‘not a homophobe’ as PoorOldDad was ‘not a danger to children’.
    And what is this nonsense about gay porn on the site a year ago? This site’s only been open since March.

  9. I beg to differ with Justin, this site used to carry (I see on inspection it no longer does) a very long and dreary narrative devoted to homosexual relations, which was in my opinion bordering on the pornographic, so, given the predilection of those who run it I think my question was jusrified. And it has not been answered.

  10. Damien (cue Carmina Burana) –
    This site opened in March, check the date of the first blog. Your ‘gay porn’ site must have been one of the n billion others on the web – so not THIS site, but a DIFFERENT one – you see how it works now? (Though given your current rate of accuracy and clearly fevered imagination, I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t there at all, or was really about gardening or car maintenance).

    And CCC’s first post wasn’t saying Carroll was gay, it was saying the exact opposite, i.e. what a ridculous notion it is. No-one here said anything about Carroll being gay except you. Why not go and indulge your bigotry somewhere it has, not a point, which it obviously never could have, but at least a context?
    Then maybe we could discuss the actual subject of the post.

  11. I think some people are mistaking this blog site for http://www.weirdos.com... But as Alice remarked as she left her own cyberspace “they’re nothing but a lot of bytes” before she deleted the offending posts.

Comments are closed.