A request for Rafael Ontivero to withdraw some of his previous comments about me.
John Lamb
Dear Rafael,
I would respectfully request that you withdraw the three specific comments made about me from 6th June now that the context of my comparing two quotes by Nathaniel Hawthorne and Jules Verne has been fully explained.
The context was that both authors having a common strong link with Birkenhead (historical fact) and my hypothesis that Birkenhead inspired Verne’s 1895 novel The Floating Island.
Whether you agree with my hypothesis or not, that is not the point. The comparison was made due to existing common historical links of both authors to Birkenhead and a desire to look for possible new influences on Verne’s works. It is thus justified in academic terms and it certainly did not warrant your first quote when I said Verne had ample time to find a translator.
‘John, throughout my nearly 60 years of reading about Verne I have read some stupid, far-fetched, and forced things, but this one is giving me the biggest laugh. Come on, are you saying that Verne, without knowing the paragraph you're talking about beforehand, had it translated just to write a satire? Did it come to him in a dream?’
No it did not come in to a dream but the possibility that if Verne is writing a novel inspired by Birkenhead, then he may be satirising the most famous novelist ever to live in Birkenhead.
You also seem to criticise me for simply following the same broad pattern of study as William Butcher. Whereas I compared Verne’s passage in The Floating Island to Hawthorne, William Butcher compared passages in 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas (via Ray Bradbury) to Herman Melville’s Moby Dick (incidentally a novel dedicated to Nathaniel Hawthorne). Any claim of intertextuality will of course be the subjective opinion of those examining the texts, whether it be Bradbury, Butcher or myself, you should respect that as long as there is a contextual reason for looking for that link.
William Butcher wrote re 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas in 1998.
‘However, Moby Dick was translated into French, only in 1941, and Verne could not read English (although he may have had access to reviews or summaries).
Although Bill does not mention translators per se, I still think it is akin to my statement that provoked your ire when I said.
'Well, he had decades to find a translator if he wanted to get a bit of satire across'.
Secondly, you go on to write regarding my Verne Hawthorne comparison.
‘As others have already told you, first find a French edition published before Verne's work, because otherwise your thesis completely falls apart, and you should admit it, drop the subject, and move on.’
No the thesis does not ‘completely fall apart’ in the same way Ray Bradbury’s thesis re Verne and Moby Dick does not 'completely fall apart'. Indeed, despite many comparisons Bill concludes ‘direct influence must still remain an open question’ … that is fair enough
Thirdly, you then state.
I am a dilettante who couldn't give a flying fig about what they might think of me, my future as a Vernian researcher with an Anís del Mono label for a diploma (you have to be Spanish to understand that expression) and other such mental wankery, and I'm telling you that if you already had little credibility, you have lost it completely. Stop pushing it, because the more you insist, the more ridiculous you look.
This is uncalled for.
I would kindly ask you to withdraw your three statements above, while still being dismissive of my hypotheses if you wish (as is your right).
I know that I may be making claims that go against mainstream Verne studies. That is why I have to answer every criticism in a measured way and continue to back up my hypotheses which all state that the importance of Birkenhead, Liverpool, slavery, the American Civil War and Liverpool's dominant role in the abolition of slavery are all the driving force in Verne's early works (1864 - 74).
Best
John
Rafael Ontivero
I acknowledge that my approach and the language I used were not the correct ways to respond, and the translation may have worsened the tone. I apologize for that.
That being said, my stance on the core issue remains unchanged. I still believe your thesis is highly forced and unsupported.
I consider this matter closed, so let's please drop the subject.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jules Verne Forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jules-verne-fo...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/c0c8e376-0406-4b0d-abf3-1ccb8ec8b365n%40googlegroups.com.
John Lamb
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jules-verne-forum/C2E7CA57-7048-47EB-A525-9D8311A9C2DA%40gmail.com.