Talk:The Hunting of the Snark

Another nonsense word

The article claims 8 nonsense words from "Jabberwocky" are used in Snark, but "beamish" is not listed among them. Is this an accidental omission? Deco 23:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• You are correct, "beamish" should be listed. Also, "borogoves" isn't in the poem (only the preface). But "mimsiest" (which appeared as "mimsy" in Jaberwocky) is in the Snark, so there are actually 8.

Endeavored

It seems that all online sources spell "endeavored" rather than "endeavoured". Dbenbenn, did you check a written source before correcting? Gady 19:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hobbit?

I'm not sure what the Tolkien reference has to do with anything. (One may compare J. R. R. Tolkien's composition of The Hobbit from its first line.) I'm not familiar with the composition of the Hobbit, but it doesn't seem in any way unusual to compose a book starting with the first line. --JW1805 02:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree. Have you ever written a book? Or a short story, or the like? The opening can be the toughest thing. To start with your first line and make no changes or minor ones only during the story's evolution is quite something. In addition, I think the reference relates to the notion of a line - first, last, or otherwise - occuring to an author with no other context, and a story being constructed on that basis. 24.91.43.225 17:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien actually did come up with the line, "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit" while in the trenches of WWI, I believe. The rest of the book only came to him after that. Torgo (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Characters

Care and Hope, Religion and Liberty: This picture compares two illustrations from Henry Holiday (for L. Carrolls 'Snark', 1876) and from anonymous (1674) depicting "Religion" and "Liberty". I added markings to the two old illustrations in order to help comparing the illustrations. The animals in that 1674 illustration by an anonymous artist are based on an illustration (British Museum registration number: 1868,0808.3286) for Aesops fables by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder. So Holiday quoted from an illustration which quoted from an illusration made by Gheeraerts. --DL5MDA (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Such is Human Perversity." Is Such a character? Or is that a NPOV insert?

It is a quote from Carroll's preface to the "Snark". --DL5MDA (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC):

• Just a Carolinian way of saying that most people don't dispute the "Hope" and "Care" characters in the illustration (whose identities are confirmed in letters from Carroll to the illustrator, and also since these are the standard representation of these allegorical figures, i.e. Hope with an anchor). Although it is still open to dispute whether Care is also the ship's figurehead. JW1805 18:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are Hope and Care real people? I still didn't get why hope and care can't be just words... I see nothing saying it is someone... Do they actually do something? It just makes no sense to me saying that they were people... Not like nonsense stuff... You know.. Why hope is someone and soap isn't? Bruno 20:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's because Holiday drew them as real people in the illustrations. --JW1805 20:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I see, that image is just illustrating people hunting something with forks and hope, not necessarily the story's crew... Espcially because in no part of the story is said anything about anyone called Hope or Care (with capital letters for people). Bruno 23:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm....the people in the illustrations are clearly the crew. Do you mean to imply that it's just some random group of people that happens to include a beaver and a guy ringing a bell? In the "Illustrations" section it mentions that Carroll originally may not have intended for "Hope" and "Care" to be considered characters, but that when Holiday drew them as such, he didn't object. --JW1805 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hope" and "Care" are NOT meant to be interpreted as actual people. If they were people named "Hope" and "Care", Carroll would have capitalized their names in the poem. There is a tradition in Western art of portraying abstract qualities as people, often as beautiful women. One example is the "Statue of Liberty" in New York harbor. This is not a statue of a woman named "Liberty", this is a visual representation of the abstract concept of "Liberty" which is an important value in the United States. The picture with "Hope" and "Care" is the illustration of the repeated stanza "They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;/They pursued it with forks and hope;/They threatened its life with a railway-share;/They charmed it with smiles and soap." Halliday decided to portray the abstract qualities of "hope" and "care" according the traditions of Western Art. This is why hope has an anchor, this is her traditional attribute LONG before Holiday illustrated "Snark". Care is portrayed with here head bowed, also traditional in Western art. --KEVP

“There is a tradition in Western art of portraying abstract qualities as people, often as beautiful women”. Yes: http://www.snrk.de/ReligionAndLiberty.html --DL5MDA (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Boots is the murderer? Bah!

From the end of the poem:

---

In the midst of the word he was trying to say,

 In the midst of his laughter and glee,

He had softly and suddenly vanished away—

 For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

---

How can someone claim he says anything but, when two stanza's down in explains what he had just said? 172.153.221.213

The idea for this, 172.153.221.213, was created by Larry Shaw in an article entitled "The Baker Murder Case" (Inside and Science Fiction Advertiser, a fan magazine, September 1956, pages 4-12). The article was cited in a footnote from The Annotated Snark by Martin Gardner. It is #62.

HurriSbezu 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really? A friend of mine told me that years ago and I added it here for amusement, thinking it was just a joke he had made up and figuring astute literary crickets would eventually ball my cuff. —This unsigned comment was added by 130.49.146.46 (talk • contribs) 10:28, April 1, 2006.

• I would question the utility of any attempt to 'solve' The Hunting of the Snark in this manner. While many critics have posited allegroical readings of the poem, such as that a Boojum is a prophetic allegory for the atom bomb (Martin Gardner “Introduction” in Carroll, Lewis The Hunting of the Snark: Centennial Edition Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc (1981) at 10-11) or that the poem is a critique of the banking industry (See again, Gardner at 10), by far the most convincing readings concern themselves with reading the Boojum as an emblem of existential angst, a void of pure and terrifying unmeaning. For more on this see Adams, Robert Martin Nil: Episodes in the Literary Conquest of the Void During the Nineteenth Century New York: Oxford University Press (1966); Holquist, Michael “What is a Boojum? Nonsense and Modernism” 43 Yale French Studies (1969) 145-64; Lecercle, Jean-Jacques Philosophy of Nonsense: The Intuitions of Victorian Nonsense London and New York: Routledge (1994); Rackin, Donald “Blessed Rage: Lewis Carroll and the Modern Quest for Order” in Guiliano, Edward (ed) Lewis Carroll: A Celebration – Essays on the Occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Birth of Charles Ludwidge Dodgson New York: CN Potter (1982); and Sewell, Elizabeth “In the Midst of His Laughter and Glee”: Nonsense and Nothingness in Lewis Carroll” 82 (3-4) Soundings (1999) 541-71. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gababy (talk • contribs) 02:59, October 18, 2005.

The idea should be mentioned alongside other attempted interpretations of The Hunting of the Snark in a section of the article. So, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, please?

HurriSbezu 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted material. Please feel free to make improvements to the section. - EurekaLott 08:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have obtained the article in question; however, there is still a copyright on it, so I shall simply outline its conclusions: The facts presented about Snarks are mostly false, due to their dubious sources (Bellman and sick uncle); the Snark is said to be a shape-shifter that transforms into the Boojum and can therefore turn into anything it wants; the Baker found out it was the Boots, who, being with them all along, caused him to see this as something to laugh about; the Boots, to prevent its identity being leaked, murders the Baker; the author is simply assumed to be an impartial reporter, with "just the facts". I have the text in image files on my computer and am fairly certain of their veracity. Its tone is decidedly tongue-in-cheek, but, seeing as how the eponymous book is often considered funny (though how is beyond me), it seems appropriate to mention some of its particulars. I am willing to elucidate on points I have not sufficiently discoursed on regarding information from the article. I obtained it from one Ned Brooks whom I located through a Google search (terms: "The Baker Murder Case") as the only pertinent result. He will send it upon request. HurriSbezu 05:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• The section "Boots is the murderer" is possibly the STUPIDEST theory I have ever read of Lewis' literature. (And I have read a lot.) I am also not keen on the silly picture of someone's attempt to draw the baker out of what is clearly intended to be a picture in which one is not supposed to be able to see anything.

A face in the last picture?

I just looked at the last picture "then silence" and am I the only person who sees a face drawn by the treeboughs? I think you can clearly see a screaming moth, one eye, a pointy ear and the jawline. It's quite in the middle and it looks like the uncle of the baker or something. Am I right or just stupid?

That is very true, in the last image what you're seeing is the remainder of an outline in the darkness of The Baker with an expression of shock and fear on his face and having his hand being bitten by what appears to be a bird-like creature with an enlargened beak - hence, "you will softly and suddenly vanish away." Piecraft 04:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Baker?

I looked at the image closely and I found something that might really be Baker. Check it out, I painted a white outline. Korodzik 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if the above is serious or not, but the original picture has a deliberate and clearly discernible shadowy picture of the Baker shown in the upper half not as marked and the beak as marked. (ahah! see below!) Spenny 08:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that File:Snark9a.JPG is serious. I think that Holiday got that face (the vanishing Baker) from the Allegory of Iconoclasm (by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder, around 1567) Details: http://holiday.snrk.de/ --DL5MDA (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A Boots is what???

Are we sure the Boots was a shoeshine, rather than the definition in the Boots article? 24.91.43.225 17:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A boots is a servant, it could be that the Boots was a female thus it could be either the illustrated characters of Care or Hope, remember Carroll never alludes to the gender of the Boots. Then again that seems slightly off, because both Hope and Care do not look (as far as I know) like what a servant should.

Also I started thinking that perhaps Boots was a hidden reference to Boötes - and checked up on the mythology behind the constellation, which could reveal the Boots being the characters of Hope or Care. However, the illustration of Hope does appear to resemble an ancient Greek female this is why I considered the option. Hope is also carrying an anchor so perhaps this is an indication that she is the bowsprit instead of Care.

Also has anyone noticed how there are some similarities with The Rime of the Ancient Mariner ? The Bellman looks very similar to the Ancient Mariner - from the illustrations provided. Could there be a correlation? Piecraft 04:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• On Hope and Care: There is no doubt that the figures are the standard allegorical representations of Hope and Care. (e.g. Hope carries a sheet anchor. This is mentioned in Carroll's letters to Holiday. See Gardner's Annotated Snark.) --JW1805 (Talk) 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Boots is a cat, in reference to "Puss in Boots".24.1.218.36 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Totoro-chan

The character in question is "a boots" or "the boots". In a footnote to the preface the the poem Carroll mentions that the baker kept complaining that the boots was not adequately blacking (polishing) his three pairs of boots. So it is clear that Carroll meant that the boots was a servant whose job is to polish shoes and boots. In Victorian times, there were very strict gender roles, and I have never heard of a woman having the job of a boots. The footnote mentions that the boots was usually also the helmsman.

KEVP

That Bootes reference is found in this link: http://contrariwise.wild-reality.net/illuminatedsnark.pdf HurriSbezu 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The crew was complete: it included a Boots --

A maker of Bonnets and Hoods --"

I've never heard this suggested, but I have always wondered if Carroll was using "Boots" as a portmanteau of "Bonnets and Hoods," and if he using "Boots" to MEAN the Maker of Bonnets and Hoods.

You will not that no Boots ever appears in any picture, but the maker of Bonnets does. Also, "Maker of Bonnets" doesn't really begin with B. Carlo 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone pointed out above, "In a footnote to the preface to the poem Carroll mentions that the baker kept complaining that the boots was not adequately blacking (polishing) his three pairs of boots." So there was definitely a Boots, as in someone whose job it was to polish the boots, among the crew. 2.25.135.134 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Searching for [the hunting of the snark]

When ever I try typing "the hunting of the snark" Wikipedia shows up with no results, it seems that this article's title is case-sensitive meaning it can only be found if typed with the correct capitalisation of the appropriate words. Shouldn't this be corrected? Piecraft 15:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It's case-sensitive because it's the title of a story.24.1.218.36 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Totoro-chan

no kidding? Whoa thanks for enlightening me on that one! My life has new meaning now... praise the Snark! Google this ain't! Piecraft 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bellman

Also on another note it is interesting that the Bellman's Bell appears in every illustration (save for the one where only the Butcher and Beaver appear) - could this be a hidden reference to the quote by John Donne: "No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe;... any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." The meaning here would make sense in regards to the poem of The Hunting of the Snark. I am surprised no one has observed this nor mentioned it. Piecraft 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• It also isn't in the illustration of the blank map. --JW1805 03:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't take the blank map into consideration because it can hardly be considered an illustration but more of a 'map' - seeing as no other character appears in this design, therefore it would make sense that the Bellman's bell would not appear. However I still think it is relevant and possibly a connotation to the term "For Whom The Bell Tolls".

The Baker is Bald?

From what I've seen of the illustrations, I'm pretty certain that he is wearing a hat, and has hair beneath it. Where do you guys get the idea that the Baker is illustrated without hair?

HurriSbezu 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, the Baker is obviously wearing a hat. Totoro-chan

Interpretations

Sources and citations need to be provided for the "Interpretations" section. I think some of this boarders on original research. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as I know the final illustration found in the book has a hidden image of the Snark/Boojum if one carefully inspects it. Piecraft 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think too much space is devoted to interpretations of the snark. There are several theories about what the snark stands for, any number of metaphysical and otherwise interpretations. Why do we not create a separate page called "Snarkology" and be merely factual in the main page? Secondly, I remember someone mentioning in a book that he considered the hunting of the snark to be "The victorian masterpiece." Does this ring a bell? mohanravichandran 8:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Truth Revealed

File:Snark revealed.jpg

"Then, Silence"

Final panel illustration which has been "slightly modified" by myself, I have inverted the image and added coloration to the specific "hidden" areas within the illustration that show the features of not only The Baker but his hand being chewed by The Boojum which looks almost dragon-like in appearance - similar I suppose to a Jabberwock in some ways. Anyway I thought I would release this image, and perhaps it would be helpful to publish it on the article? Any thought just add on to the discussion. I think this will finally put to rest some of the hub bub over the "interpretations" section. Piecraft 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The image of the Boojum/Snark also resembles the drawn version of the Snark in Fit The Sixth "The Barrister's Dream" where we can observe the Snark's back turned to the reader in the illustrated panel "You must know - said the judge: but the Snark exclaimed Fudge!" Piecraft 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Turns out I tilted the head 90 degrees :) 80.55.2.254 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with anything. There never was any question that there was a hidden picture in the final illustration. It's kind of hard to see on the screen, but it's obvious in the printed book. It also isn't quite correct to say that the claw or beak shown here resembles the illustration in the Barrester's dream. In that illustration, the Shark is covered in a judge's robe, and is completely obscured. There is no claw or beak visible at all. (and of course, this is only a dream by the Barrister, who has never actually seen a Snark, so couldn't be expected to known what it looked like). So I'm not sure what you point is. My point about the "interpretations" section is that it doesn't cite any sources, so we don't know if these interpretations are original research or not. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The interpretations are original research, as for the Snark featured in the Barrister's dream it is plain that you can discern a figure from the illustration with or withou the robes. In any case the Boojum is not the same thing as a Snark but it's also pretty clear that the beak has eyes and teeth which are easily visible from the image I have provided. As for the other interpretations they are mostly original research and up to opinion. But as we can tell from the final illustration which was the intent towards the purpose of my argument it is clear that Boots is NOT the murderer. As for Lewis Carroll being the Baker this is clearly unrelated to the actual article seeing as it possibly may have been discussed by other scholars but was never put forward by either the Henry Holiday or Carroll. The Baker clearly ahs an "Asian" appearance and therefore I find it difficult to believe it was intended to be Carrol - unless we are to relate the initial identity to which Carroll purposefully intended the Baker to be, then that's an entirely different argument altogether. As for the Boojum being dangerous only to the Baker, this is once again relative to one's opinion and based upon personal research. In any case the reason I posted the inverted version of the image was to denounce once and for all the silly belief that The Boots was actually the murderer when it is stated several times (by Carroll on his preface to the poem) and in the poem itself that the Boots was a person who was even the Helmsman and shined boots (indicated by those that he polished for the Baker), the Boots is merely an unseen character for unknown reasons but as I said earlier from the illustration above it would appear that it is a beast (of dragon-like proportions) instead of a man that grasps the hand of the Baker. Also I would like to mention that I never read or heard of Carrol ever agreeing to Holiday's depiction of a personified characterisation within the illustration sof Hope or Care, I think this is also based around particular personal opinion and/or research. Piecraft 04:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't whether you agree with the various theories, but whether they are original research or not. Most of the material is not. See Gardner's Annotated Snark, which discusses the Hope/Care issue and also the "Carroll is the Baker" issue. The "Baker is the murderer theory" is apparantly from a science fiction story (see above). We're not trying to prove or disprove these theories here, but to state what others have written about the poem. I think the only thing in the article that is currently unsourced is the "Boojum was only dangerous to the Baker" section. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If they are theories then I would suggest placing them in a category referred to as "theories" based on The Hunting of the Snark. This article is not about other people's theories but the actual poem and if anything else its author. Also even if they are sourced as you say they should be referenced accordingly. Because I never heard of any of those apparent "interpretations". If they are a critic or another author's own perspective of the poem then it should say so. Until then it is original research and unverifiable! Sorry but it does say all of this in the guidelines. Piecraft 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Bellman's Bell appearances

Bellman's Bell appears in most illustrations:

• Supporting each man on the top of the tide - The Bellman and his bell is clearly visible in the pic.
• He had wholly forgotten his name - The Bellman and his bell is on the upper deck, next to the Baker.
• The Beaver kept looking the opposite way - The bell doesn't seem to be on this pic...
• To pursue it with forks and hope - Bellman and his bell is behind all the people.
• But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day - Bellman's hand and bell is behind the window.
• The Beaver brought paper, portfolio, pens - Bellman's silhouette, with a bell, is on a hill in the back.
• "You must know" - said the Judge: but the Snark exclaimed "Fudge!" - Bellman's hand and bell is partially visible from under the Barrister's dream bubble.
• So great was his fright that his waistcoat turned white - It is clearly visible, if you can't find it you should consult an optician.
• Then, silence. - In the top-left corner.

Korodzik 18:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hidden meanings tweak

As already stated, the Hunting of the Snark is unique among Lewis Carroll's work in its length and its dark nature.

I had to change unique to unusual. The Snark's length is undisputed, but nobody familiar with his "The Pig-Tale" could say it was Carrol's only dark verse! Lusanaherandraton 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also true that Phantasmagoria is longer.Carlo (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Meaning not so hidden?

the article mentions that no convincing argument currently exists, but is this true? while i am not a scholar on Carroll, I do believe that the Hunting of the Snark is an allegory about finding meaning in one's life. The snark is satisfaction in life, and the boojum depression. The cast of characters is generally at an age in life of self-analysis. Carroll, as the Baker, in particular might have, at the time this was written, been questioning whether he had created a satisfying life for himself.

Each of the characters in the cast, for the most part, represented a very different lot in life from the other cast members. Recall that Carroll was a man of faith. There's at least one scholarly work (http://www.lookingforlewiscarroll.com/illuminatedsnark.pdf#search=%22snark%20beamish%20pride%22) counting the bellman as a man of God. Thimbles are often a sign of faith, or flasks for holy oils. So, the refrain, perhaps, describes each of the hunters by their trade. For instance: thimbles for men of God, forks for the butcher, threats for lawyers, shares for bankers, and smiles and soap for the bonnet-maker. Perhaps hope is for shoe-shine boys. What do each hunt? They all hunt satisfaction with life; meaning and purpose.

Then, what does beamish mean? Well, literally, the construction would imply, perhaps, "appearing to beam." I think pride goes to the heart of what "beamish" means: It is to appear or be prideful; to be beaming with pride. Like Milton's main character in Paradise Lost, pride can lead one to failure and depression, the boojum. Indeed, one suffering depression simply fades away. As the man who arguably slayed the mythical jabberwocky, the Baker had farthest to fall. What fun is there in hunting snarks, when you have slain the jabberwocky? The other adventurers, having chosen different paths, have not seen the heights of success and personal pride that the Baker has. As such, all but the Baker are eager to be on the hunt. And, of course, it is only the Baker that meets the boojum, depression incarnate. Perhaps the Baker knew that embarking on the journey would only sink the Baker into a stark realization that ahead was a lifetime of dissatisfaction, of heights never quite as high as had been reached once upon a time.

Perhaps, Carroll, seeing a future never to be as great as his past, was clinically depressed when he wrote the story.

Now, this is just one possible theory, I suppose, but I would think it pretty convincing. There may be others out there more convincing. However, can you truly say that there are no convincing arguments out there about the meaning of this work? Convincing to who?

Haffathot 17:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Another comment

Right:The image breakers, c.1566 –1568&nbsp. The etching is also known as Allegory of Iconoclasm. "Although not particularly sympathetic to the Calvinist image breakers, it is mainly critical of the Church. Thus the etching might have been the main reason why Gheeraerts had to flee to England in 1568." (British Museum, Dept. of Print and Drawings, 1933.1.1..3, see also Edward Hodnett: Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder, Utrecht 1971, pp. 26-7. Left: Henry Holiday's Illustration for Fit the 5th. Small picture: Baker

I notice no one has mentioned the interpretation I read, I think in Martin Gardner's Annotated Snark. If you look at the last fit, the stanza that begins with the word "Erect". Think about the usual context you find the word "erect" in, then re read the stanza. Especially the bit about the "chasm" and the "spasm". Following this interpretation, what is the Snark? What is the Baker? Are there other parts of the poem that support this interpretation?

Carroll said he did not know what the poem meant. I think he was telling the truth. I think what we are trying to say is that subconsciously he may have put a meaning into the poem, without being aware of it consciously.

KEVP

Henry Holiday (1898, January 29th) on Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark: “It is possible that the author was half-consciously laying a trap, so readily did he take to the inventing of puzzles and things enigmatic; but to those who knew the man, or who have devined him correctly through his writings, the explanation is fairly simple.”

I myself almost got stuck in one of Carroll's and Holiday's traps. What you "read" in the Lewis Carroll's text and what you can "see" in Henry Holiday's illustrations in the end all is in your mind. Once I understood, with which care for the detail both worked (for Henry Holiday see http://www.snrk.de/HolidaySnark.cgi), he must have recognized Carroll's traps and mirrored the textual simulacra to simulacra in his illustrations (see "The Vanishing").

This is why Carroll and Holiday must have chosen the simulacra at least "half-consciously" and intentionally. But rather than hiding personal issues in their work, Carroll and Holiday quite meticulously installed traps which also would embarrass ill-intended critics who would openly discuss what they believe to "see" in the text and the illustrations. This is about experimenting with taboo braking and the question how far one could go without getting into trouble. Compare this with the taboo braking in "The Allegory of Iconoclasm" Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder (1566-1568). (Holiday referred to the Gheerharts - Father and Son - in his illustrations for the Snark.) --DL5MDA (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Search for Happiness

On the soundtrack album of the Hunting of the Snark is a comment attributed to Lewis Carroll. In 1897 a year before his death he wrote. "In answer to your question what do you mean the snark was?; Well tell your friend that the Snark was a Boojum. I trust that she and you will now feel quite satisfied and happy. To the best of my recollection I had no other meaning in my mind when I wrote it; but people since have tried to find meanings in it. The one I like the best (which I think is partly my own) is that it may be taken for an allegory for the pursuit of happiness".

So if you consider that all of humanity’s search for happiness in its goals and methods may be misplaced or misdirected all of our Snarks will turn out to be Boojums.

NCTS

Zn'rx

Marvel's Zn'rx as "Snarks" may be mentioned at the Snark disambiguation page, but it doesn't change (or even mention) the fact that it's an example of The Hunting of the Snark's impact on literature. A disambiguation page is hardly the place for the note, and the section "Impact on literature" in the article on "The Hunting of the Snark" is exactly the place, don't you think? Someone reverted my edit because of it's mention on a dismbiguation page... bizzare. AvatarMN 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

all the crew names?

all the crew names first letter is B? Why? 212.97.183.42 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that was their names, silly. You wouldn't want him calling The Broker "The Chimney Sweep," now, would you? Carlo 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In "Alice in Wonderland" (also by Carroll) the dormouse tells a story about three sisters who draw things beginning with the letter "M". Alice asks why they only draw things beginning with "M", and the Mad Hatter replies "Why not?"--KEVP August 17, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.12.24.197 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

see: Poem's Link to Tuberculosis. From Fernando Soto's paper "The Consumption of the Snark and the Decline of Nonsense: A Medico-Lingustic Reading of Carroll's 'Fitful Agony'": "...a hidden reference that appears to have been overlooked is that all of the characters whose names begin with the letter “B” are also preceded by the definite article “the” (i.e. “the” Bellman, “the” Baker, “the” Butcher, etc). Thus, all of the crew memberʼs names not only begin with the letter “B” but are preceded by the letter “T”. This, of course, makes “TB” and reflects much about the ill state of the crew!" (10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.165.34 (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Impact on literature

Stefano Benni, el novelista italiano, tiene un personaje llamado Boojum, en su libro más vendido: Terra! 212.97.183.53 12:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Layer upon layer of nonsense

The crew, as Gardner repeatedly points out, consists of 10 members: A Bellman (the leader), a Boots, a Bonnet-maker, a Barrister, a Broker, a Billiard-marker, a Banker, a Beaver, a Baker, and a Butcher. The Snark's slowness in taking a jest, and his looking grave at a pun (Fit 2, Stanza 18) has, as Andrew Lang pointed out already in 1876, communicated itself to some reviewers. This explains a "theory" that holds that "Care was also landed with the crew".

Um...... what is this gibberish? The Snark's slowness in taking a jest can hardly "communicate itself to some reviewers", it's openly stated in the text of the poem. If the intended meaning was that the significance of the Snark's slowness in taking a jest has communicated itself to some reviewers, then what, pray, is the significance? And what the hell has any of this to do with the line about care? I'm taking this piffle out unless someone can explain it.

I'm also removing the bit about Gardner emphasising there being ten members, since this is pointless unless the article is prepared to go into detail about the significance of the number 10. 91.107.190.53 22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that whoever put it in was trying to say that some reviewers, like the Snark, have no sense of humor. But I have no idea why it was in the article at all. Carlo 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A Maker of Bonnets and Hoods

Has anyone considered that there is an alternative meaning to the phrase "A maker of Bonnets and Hoods"? Bonnets were a form of auxiliary sail in use with square rigged vessels. They would have been rather old-fashioned by Carrol's day, but still a part of the tradition. I am less certain of the term "Hood", but I am pretty certain I have seen it used of some part of the rigging of a square rigger. So, the "Maker of Bonnets and Hoods" could in fact be a sail-maker - a rather old-fashioned one. It makes sense in terms of the make up of the crew. --APRCooper (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The different members of the crew stand for different character types. The Bonnetmaker is the only artist in the crew. By the way: Henry Holiday's depiction of the Bonnet Maker does not show the whole man. I think, Holiday used his own face for the Bonnet Maker: http://www.snrk.de/HolidaySnark.cgi, pg. 1 and 11. --84.150.112.142 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Possible sources of Holiday's idea"

Illustrations by Gustave Doré (1866) and by Henry Holiday (1876) --DL5MDA (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://holiday.snrk.de/curiouserlinks.cgi, „Holiday's Illustrations to the Snark: A document showing possible sources of Holiday's ideas ...“ --DL5MDA (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonnetmaker/4711601342/ a picture (engraving of an earlier drawing of photo?) of Charles Darwin's study is compared with Henry Holiday's illustration for "The Baker's Tale". I think, this is clearer than the speculations in The_Hunting_of_the_Snark#Interpretations --DL5MDA (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC), link update: DL5MDA (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Poem??

Beautifully erudite analysis of the work, but nary a sign of the complete poem!! Was its omission deliberate? Androstachys (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what Wikisource is for. See the link to the Hunting of the Snark on Wikisource in the External Links section. BabelStone (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Poem's Link to Tuberculosis

Fernando Soto's paper "The Consumption of the Snark and the Decline of Nonsense: A Medico-Linguistic Reading of Carroll's 'Fitful Agony'" provides a very convincing reading of The Hunting of the Snark which connects the whole poem with tuberculosis (a very prevalent disease in England at the time the poem was written). Soto approaches the text through etymological research, biographical information, and carefully researched references to Carroll's other texts. Before writing the poem, Carroll was deeply disturbed by the slow death from tuberculosis of his much loved young cousin and godson Charles Wilcox. In Carroll's diary, the Snark is mentioned alongside the death of Charles Wilcox. Soto also notes: "In addition, a hidden reference that appears to have been overlooked is that all of the characters whose names begin with the letter “B” are also preceded by the definite article “the” (i.e. “the” Bellman, “the” Baker, “the” Butcher, etc). Thus, all of the crew memberʼs names not only begin with the letter “B” but are preceded by the letter “T”. This, of course, makes “TB” and reflects much about the ill state of the crew!" (p. 10) Also, Soto says that the members of the ship's crew are victim to the disease, and careful reading of their behaviours reveal the symptoms of TB. The Snark is consumption, and the Boojum is death. Both of these readings are strongly anchored in etymological research. What has been described thus far is only a small portion of what Soto illustrates in his paper. It is the only full explanation of "The Hunting of the Snark" given to date. It is a very convincing, well researched and insightful explanation at that. Yet, it is widely ignored here - this paper should at least be mentioned in the main article. The paper was printed in The Carrollian Issue 8: http://thecarrollian.org.uk/thecarrollian-scripts/abc.pl?TYPE=Issue&ID=CAR8&BACK=A Soto, Fernando. "The Consumption of the Snark and the Decline of Nonsense: A Medico-Linguistic Reading of Carroll's 'Fitful Agony'". 1999 --142.151.165.34 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)