As I expected, Heretic TOC’s Lewis Carroll blog last time proved controversial. I have held back from responding in any detail to specific points of criticism in part because I felt I should avoid my own contribution becoming too much “the dominant discourse”, as it were. I am delighted to say this restraint has been richly rewarded with a number of interesting comments that have already appeared. There was also a blog-length one by “Sylvie” of such quality it cried out to be used as a guest blog, and it accordingly makes its debut below. This is Sylvie’s second guest piece, her first having been “We fight for more than Love or Pleasure”, last year.
This latest article is especially valuable as Sylvie is the author of two academic theses on Lewis Carroll and writes with obvious authority.
It seems that, as the celebrations for the 150th anniversary of the publication of Alice in Wonderland continue, we are likely to find Lewis Carroll mentioned over and over again in newspapers, at literary events, and all over the Internet. I welcome this, as any discussion around this wonderfully complex personality never fails to thrill me. Unfortunately, it seems that we are not going to mark 2015 with white stones. Those who hope, as l very much do, to finally read an unbiased portrait of the author of the Alice books are doomed to be disappointed this year as well.
Were it not for the fact that I am well acquainted with the character of the man, I’d have good reasons to lose my sanity over the mostly absurd theories revolving around him. There are seemingly two opposite factions nowadays: the very indignant “Lewis Carroll-Absolutely-Not-A-Paedophile” one, and the apparently nonchalant “Dark-Side-Of-The-Repressed-Paedophile-Lewis Carroll”. Whereas these two battling factions claim to be distinct, truth is that they are very much alike in their lack of insight into the nature of paedophilia: they are Tweedledumbs and Tweedledumbers on the subject. Even more poignantly, they strive in controversy over a non-existing man: the real Lewis Carroll – whom they claim to appreciate but evidently fail to fully grasp – was neither dark nor sinister, nor was he repressed.
Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was not, in many respects, a repressed man. On the contrary, he had come to terms with himself, perhaps not without difficulty, as he had very likely been on his own on the challenging journey to self-discovery. He must have arrived at such realisation possibly after much soul-searching, as is usual when one has a rich and complex inner life. He was not “strange”. He had his quirks, true, but that’s because he was somehow naturally unconventional – in his mind first and foremost, and therefore in his outer demeanour, interests, and hobbies. I believe he was at peace with his conscience; that is why he would not welcome interference from people, whether parents (whenever he thought they were being unnecessarily cautious) or anyone who would raise an eyebrow.
When word of his “friendships” reached his sister Mary, she wrote a concerned letter to her brother. Charles’ reply (21 September, 1893), shuts the mouths, l believe, of those who accuse him of being “sinister”, and reveals instead the character of the man as well as his integrity:
“The only two tests l now apply to such a question as the having some particular girl-friend as a guest are, first, my own conscience, to settle whether I feel it to be entirely innocent and right, in the sight of God; secondly, the parents of my friend, to settle whether l have their full approval for what l do.”
He was so free from repression that he claimed the right to pursue whatever friendships he liked best: not only with children but, for instance, with adult unmarried women as well, which may not have appeared as terribly appropriate at the time. He would happily mingle with artists and actresses. He was always looking out for like-minded people.
He took decisions that were coherent with his lifestyle: he took up photography and experimented with it as long as it thrilled him. He gave it up, not because of wagging tongues but more likely because technological advancement had made photography a more complex and burdensome hobby, and he presumably no longer wished to commit that much, in his later years, to something he felt he had experimented enough with.
His decision not to proceed to the priesthood cannot be accounted for convincingly by his speech impediment, which he had managed to control to a certain extent through discipline and professional help; a better explanation is that his beliefs developed as his life progressed, taking him beyond his Anglican faith towards a more ecumenical attitude. You couldn’t hold him down; he refused to be restricted.
In a letter to his niece, Edith Dodgson (March 8, 1891), he wrote:
“A truth that is becoming more and more clear to me as life passes away –- that God’s purpose, in this wonderful complex life of ours, is mutual interaction, all round. Every life…bears upon, or ought to bear upon, the lives of others.”
He had had a religious, conservative upbringing, but despite being traditional in many respects, he was never narrow-minded, or regressive. Far from being repressed or frustrated, he had a disposition that we could positively define as all embracing. Whereas the dicta of the established Church would not easily condone such an intellectual stance, he positively included dissenters and sinners into the picture.
Likewise, as a result of the same independent spirit, he did not remain a bachelor because “it was part of his contract with Christ Church”, as it has been perhaps too naively stated. Had he considered marriage feasible for himself, it is safe to assume that, in the end, he would have married. It had been clear to him, from an early age that married life was simply not for him. Not because he was uncomfortable around adults, or he failed to be appreciative of the many benefits of marriage, but likely because he may have recognised married life as incompatible with his lifestyle, and perhaps, with himself as a man – what he was, what he could or could not give. He longed to maintain a life that was not strictly bound by domestic obligations; a life that enabled him to be free to pursue interests and hobbies, and take up things and dismiss them, and change opinion and route.
The very strong point in Tom’s blog is, in my opinion, the affirmation that Dodgson’s sophistication was not at all incompatible with paedophilia. That’s because it is rather convenient nowadays to convey the message that virtually anyone who has a paedophilic inclination, or has experienced paedophilic feelings towards a child, must necessarily be an emotionally retarded loner. To concede that paedophilia does not necessarily make one “retarded”, either emotionally or on any other level, would attribute a certain degree of “normality” to paedophilic inclinations. There is always a risk that the public may suspect that the game is not being fairly played, and that this suggested “degree of normality” clearly clashes against the modern crusade that sees all adult-child relationships as suspicious. The mere suggestion of normality would make the crusaders’ stances reek more and more of propaganda, and less of legitimacy. Far from being emotionally retarded, Lewis Carroll “had a passionate orchestra playing within his breast”, as Morton N. Cohen has perceptively remarked.
Lewis Carroll did what he enjoyed doing and he could see nothing wrong in anything he did, because there simply was nothing wrong or “strange” or “unhealthy” about him. It’s not a matter of “Victorian social sensitivities” as the apologists (scholars included) nowadays claim, rather it is a matter of what he was and what he was not: he was not dark, he was not sinister. He was not then, he is not now.
Is this what you call, living a repressed life?
Similarly deluded are those Carrollians engaged in a (puerile and rather boring, if you ask me) battle for the affirmation of an appreciation for the companionship of children, on the part of Lewis Carroll, that was absolutely free from any paedophilic implications. Whereas I could, on a good day, be willing to make an effort to try and understand the reasons of those “fans” who evidently sleep better at night if they know that their literary “hero” was as far from being a paedophile as anything could be, I most certainly am not as merciful with “experts”, who have spent decades researching the life of Lewis Carroll. If the former are naive, the latter are likely to be intellectually dishonest.
I am absolutely sure Tom was perfectly aware of the fact that Lewis Carroll was being humorous when, in an attempt to amuse a child, he reassured her that he indeed was “fond of children, except boys”. I bet any girl would rightly giggle at that!
But was it just humour?
To say that he would spend more time with girls because girls were what he would find at home while boys were in school, is deluded at best, outright dishonest at worst. Such an openly misleading remark would convince no one except perhaps a naive audience longing to be reassured that Lewis Carroll was not a “child molester”. Furthermore, by rejecting allegations of paedophilia, the speaker is implicitly conveying the message that all erotic fascination with children is unacceptable, and therefore resisting the idea that paedophilia could be a sexual orientation with a legitimate place in the complex universe of human sexuality.
For most of his life, Lewis Carroll was actively and relentlessly seeking the companionship of girls, writing letters to girls, pleading mothers to bring girls along, asking permission to take girls out, simply because that’s where he derived his emotional satisfaction. It’s not that he went to this or that home and had to be content with what he found there, namely girls. There was a component with girls – emotional, romantic, and possibly erotic, why not? – that was just not there with boys. The fact that Lewis Carroll was most certainly celibate is no evidence that he never experienced a paedophilic attraction. Rather it is evidence of his stern rules of behaviour, and what he believed to be moral rectitude.
To claim that Lewis Carroll’s pursuit of child friendships equalled that of your average Victorian gentleman is nonsense. While it is true that Victorian attitudes towards children in general, and child friendships in particular, were certainly very different from ours, it is also true that it would have been quite unusual, even in those times, for a Victorian gentleman to engage in a relentless, life-long pursuit of friendships with little girls.
To claim that Lewis Carroll could not have been a paedophile because he was able to appreciate the beauty of the adult female form, is sadly unconvincing. There is no indication that one who has paedophilic inclinations cannot, at the same time, be attracted to adults, let alone recognise and appreciate the beauty of the human form.
Finally, to claim that Lewis Carroll did not have an appreciation for the company of girls that largely surpassed that of any man or woman of his times because, in his later years, he seemed to enjoy the company of adults as well, or even more, is frankly risible. Far from persuading me that there was “absolutely nothing even remotely paedophilic” in the man’s proclivities, it is evidence of that “degree of normality” in paedophilia that has been suggested before. In other words, that there is nothing, in an individual who has paedophilic inclinations, that will prevent him or her from being intellectually sophisticated, emotionally stable, fully psychologically developed, and socially acceptable.
In conclusion, the real obstacle to an open and frank discussion about Lewis Carroll seems to me to depend upon a reluctance to admit that there might be nothing inherently harmful in paedophilia, and that there is nothing, in paedophilic inclinations, that may prevent an individual from positively contributing to the greater good. In other words, that paedophiles as well can be a force for good in society.
All his life, Charles L. Dodgson cared for and looked after people, including attending to those in need as well as relatives, and providing financial support well beyond his obligations. In his dealings with child-friends he would make sure that the child was more than happy with anything he proposed, otherwise he would step back. He was forward-thinking in many respects: he wrote numerous pamphlets, including one pleading for the construction of a Women’s University, as he believed women were equally entitled to a higher education.
Very likely he experienced obvious difficulties. Very likely he experienced frustration. Very likely he experienced disappointment. Very likely he experienced loneliness. Still he was a creative genius who would always make sure that all of his magical gifts were shared with others, friends and strangers alike. His whimsical, immortal genius has continued to amuse and inspire generation after generation of readers, up to this day. If that’s not a beneficial contribution to society, what is? If he is not an example to truly look up to, who is?
Author Will Self has recently expressed concern over the creator of Alice in Wonderland: “It’s a problem, isn’t it, when somebody writes a great book and they’re not a great person?”
According to the dominant cultural climate, anyone who experiences an attraction to children, must automatically be “not great people”. To even suggest otherwise invites reprimand and suspicion. To suggest that paedophilia may simply be a natural variant in the diversity of human sexuality, could rightly be described, theologically speaking, as a newfound “scandal of the Cross”: an idea that is so radical, that it can only be perceived as scandalous.
According to some, Lewis Carroll had such “dark side”. But let me challenge the status quo: why must this side be dark? Why can’t it be bright, instead? And why can’t you be just as great if you have it?
Lewis Carroll was anything but dark. He was not only a decent person – he was indeed what you would describe as “great”.
Then where do these allegations of a “dark side” originate from?
They very likely stem from the unwillingness to accept the idea that the same individual who experiences an attraction to children (whether this be romantic, emotional, psychological, erotic – or all of these combined) can, at the same time, be the one who will go to great lengths to ensure that a child’s wellbeing is a priority, and who naturally has a child’s best interest at heart.
Just as Lewis Carroll had.
SMEAR CAMPAIGN REACHES NEW LOW
In “An Idiot’s Guide to the Westminster Bubble” last month, Heretic TOC reported on a couple of events in parliament, one of which was a rally by Hacked Off, a group which aims to secure a more independent press complaints body than the toothless old Press Complaints Commission and the equally non-scary watchdog the press barons are presently trying to replace it with, an outfit laughably called the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).
In their efforts to smear Hacked Off, the Mail on Sunday, owned by one of the said barons, Lord Rothermere, has run a story highlighting the presence at the meeting of someone who would be, in their words, “an embarrassment” for the group. Who was that person? Well, it was someone who had been an activist in an organisation “formed in 1974 to campaign for sex with children to be legalised”. Yes, you’ve guessed it: they were talking about thoroughly embarrassing yours truly! See here for their mighty scoop, which mentions this blog albeit without doing the courtesy of giving the name or a link.
(I thought I’d post this here rather than under January’ blog “At last, the paedophile as hero!”)
I’ve just finished Chelsea Rooney’s “Pedal” – an enjoyable read made a little hard by not finding any of the protagonists likeable enough for me to care much about them (I know one shouldn’t judge fiction by how ‘likeable’ the characters are, but I think the real problem was that I felt that I was expected to like these beautiful, bad-ass, entitled, petulant, selfish characters…).
But, nevertheless it’s a worthwhile read that certainly promotes an enlightened vision of paedophilia and child sexuality.
But if we’re looking for ‘the paedophile as hero’ how about Oliver Gold in A.N. Wilson’s “Dream Children”?
He’s much more believable than Smirks (it often felt like I was reading my own biography!), and the love between him and the little girl ‘Bobs’ is very vividly and convincingly written – a passage in which Gold cleans up 5 year-old Bobs’s vomit really had me quite tearful, it embodied so well the kind of love one can come to feel for a child).
In fact I’ve recently been asked a couple of times by ‘nons’ what books they should read in order to understand paedophilia better and ‘Dream Children’ is one of my 3 ‘essential’ books that I recommended.
Thank you for reading the book and letting us know what you thought, Lensman.
I basically liked the characters in Pedal because none of them, including Smirks, were idealized. He was a good but flawed person. I know you thought all the characters were on the self-centered side, but I’m thinking you might be able to agree that Smirks certainly wasn’t portrayed as worse than the Non-MAPs in the story! He was depicted as, first and foremost, human, without any extra ‘unlikeable’ qualities attached. The only possible exception to that was his tendency to use adult women due to the fact that they were all he could have, a problem that society actually encourages MAPs to do if you think about it. Nevertheless, he was not without remorse.
I’m certainly interested in hearing your other two recommendations besides Dream Children 🙂
Hi Dissident – I agree that Smirks was a more likeable character – though you couldn’t say that he wasn’t a bit knotted up inside about his paedophilia. I would have preferred a paedophile who managed to be both ethical and reasonably angst-free – which is not that rare (I suspect most of us heretics would qualify as such)… but that would be a different novel, nor do I wish writers to write books that only cater to my world-view.
I didn’t get the feeling that Smirks ever used adult women – the reverse seems the case. For example in the episode where he fucks Larks – he really was cornered into doing that, trying to get out of it at every stage, and, yes, feeling intensely remorseful afterwards. How true would that be of most paedophiles I wonder? Not of myself – I certainly wouldn’t feel disgust. But then again I’m a bit of a freak in the paedo world, being very much into tits and pubes and curves. 😉
My other two recommendations besides A.N. Wilson’s “Dream Children”?
Well, one would have to be Tom’s “Paedophilia: the Radical Case” ‘cos it duz what it sez on the tin, and the other would be Clancy’s “The Trauma Myth” for the way it so decisively (and (apparently) inadvertently) nails the issues round harm, stigma and trauma.
I’d be interested to learn what would constitute your ‘essential paed-reads’ Dissident, and those of other heretics too.
>”…one would have to be Tom’s “Paedophilia: the Radical Case” ‘cos it duz what it sez on the tin”
It’s nice to be up there in your rankings, Lensman, so thanks for that. Back in the day, though, soon after publication, I was taken to task by critics on the left who insisted it was merely a “liberal” case and not a “radical” one at all. Those folks seem to have gone a bit quiet these days! Others took offence against the word “The” in the title (honestly, I kid you not). A range of radical analyses was possible, I was told, so by what right did I claim title to *The* Radical Case, as though mine was the only one worth considering? Only a monstrous egoist could have given such a title. Instead it should have been called *A* Radical (or Liberal!) Case.
I was thinking the same: what are the other two books you recommend?
Thanks for your opinion on ‘Dream Children’: l very much agree with what you have written. You have certainly intrigued me enough to want to give the book a try 🙂
A while ago, I mentioned that the moderators at Amazon refused to host my review of Chelsea Rooney’s book. So I uploaded it to Goodreads instead. It is now here, if anyone is interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1227914616 [ADDED LATER: I see this has appeared in the wrong place. It is supposed to be in reply to Lensman’s post starting “I’ve just finished Chelsea Rooney’s ‘Pedal’ “.]
Thanks for that Sylvie, each paragraph of your essay had me inwardly cheering and whooping like an american day-time tv audience!
Just one point to pick up on – Dodgson used the wet-plate collodion technique to make his negatives. This was supplanted by the use of ‘Dry-Plates’ which were much, much easier to use and much more flexible (though the image quality wasn’t quite as good as with the wet plate). The new technology would have definitely not seemed more burdensome.
But of those who transferred to the newer technology a lot must have missed the elaborate process of preparing the plates, and the constraints imposed by having to expose and develop the plates whilst still wet.
A similar thing happened to photographers who went from darkroom-based working to digital photography – a lot felt that the ‘magic’ had disappeared. Dodgson may have felt this way.
You’re absolutely right, Lensman. I did not mean “burdensome” in that way. Perhaps it was the wrong choice of word, and I think I have failed to clarify what I meant. Of course new technology was gradually making the whole process easier. I may as well explain its development in a separate comment at a later stage, should anyone be interested.
What I really meant for “burdensome” is, I think Dodgson might have found the *idea* of having to continue to keep up with new developments, somehow “burdensome” (despite being a “man of the future” in many respects, and as far as technology and inventions were concerned). I think he considered that chapter of his life as closed. Similarly, his later literary production aimed at children showed a man with different preoccupations. I believe that, had he lived longer, we likely would have had more books on logic, for instance, rather than children’s literature.
I am glad you appreciated what was written and I feel humbled if any of it meant anything to you personally, or to anyone else.
One thing I am particularly happy with is that I realised, as I was writing it, that one does not have to have a higher education, or be knowledgeable about the life of Lewis Carroll to be able to understand, or appreciate what is written. I never want single individuals to feel excluded from what could turn out to be an engaging, if not enlightening discussion.
If you read the essay, you will find that the details of the life of Lewis Carroll are intertwined with issues that are very much relevant to us, in our time. There are questions in there that will resonate with the reader, assumptions that the reader is forced to challenge. I meant it to be that way.
I personally don’t feel it necessary to discuss Lewis Carroll’s sexuality at every occasion, because there are so many interesting aspects of his personality that are worth discussing instead. I however feel that whenever truth is distorted in an attempt to make it look more acceptable to modern sensitivity, then must Pandora’s box be opened.
The reason why every documentary or TV programme, or newspaper article, about the life of Lewis Carroll will inevitably tackle his alleged “dark” sexuality to a degree that is near-obsession, is that we are, in this particular cultural climate, sadly unable to see a few fundamental truths: that the care Lewis Carroll put in his dealings with children, his preoccupation with their well-being; the utmost respect with which he treated his child-friends, are not in contrast with, rather they are *very much a consequence* of his paedophilic attachment to them.
It’s not Lewis Carroll we have a problem with. It’s paedophilia.
Oh yes, and thanks for this Sylvie, you make some great points. I’ve learned a lot from ‘Lewis Carroll’ myself.
Indeed. It’s depressing how many friends demonstrate ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’ yet unwittingly betray their stubborn assumption that they’re the ones making all the adjustments and that my feelings are fundamentally maladaptive and emotionally disabling.
Some understand the distinction of course, and some have even apologized for belittling me on account of my condition. The most heartwarming is when a parent acknowledges the positive aspect of my friendship with their child. To me, this is the alpha and omega of paedophilic attachment.
“Convenient” is indeed the key-word, as I assume that not everyone must be unreasonable. Therefore some must obviously be intellectually dishonest. It is *so* convenient to keep conveying a certain message: it can persuade entire nations of realities that are just not there. It can shape an entire culture.
I am familiar with your position, Bloom. I am elated to hear that you do get a degree of understanding from parents, and that your integrity is being acknowledged.
Let me warn you: a battle against parents, is a battle LOST.
It is also, in my opinion, very unfair to people who, in most cases, have their children’s best interest at heart. Perhaps your way of proceeding, Bloom, shows true insight, as it recognises parents for what they can and should be: allies rather than enemies.
Perhaps this mutual alliance based on understanding is where future victory lies? Once more and more people have become aware that the messages they are being conveyed reek of propaganda and contain little truth, I bet “Big Brother” will have a hard time sounding convincing anymore…
My God, the sanctimonious little prat! I might easily have invested precious time reading one of his books, so I’m glad to have cleared that up.
….figuratively, I mean [TOC adds: Looks like this has ended up in the wrong place. This seems to refer to Bloom’s comment below about loving Alice’s pants off.]
@TOC You are correct!
I agree that Self’s statement is heavy with ignorant assumptions. But given how rarely ‘norms’ get even a glimpse of enlightened thinking vis a vis this subject I think it would be wrong to take too much umbrage at statements which simply reproduce an orthodoxy as hegenomic as anti-paedophilia.
But you’d be as wrong to dismiss Self’s writing because of his unenlightened thinking as someone would be to dismiss Alice in Wonderland because of Carroll’s fondness for small girls. I’ve read a few of his books and they are generally entertaining, well-written and thought-provoking.
Some ‘Anti-Paedophiles’ can indeed seem to be good people, despite the flaw at the core of their being. Some can appear to be gifted with talents, some seem amusing and can give the impression of being at ease in social situations. In fact some of my best friends are ‘Anti’. There are even one or two I know who are actually quite good with kids, who don’t ignore them or treat them condescendingly.
Remember that ‘Antis’, though they may not realise it, are struggling with deep-down errors and illusions which impoverish their lives, make their world frightening, confusing, a hall-of-mirrors filled with nebulous monsters – is it surprising, given this, that occasionally they sound like they’re more full of shit than a bucket-full of shit?
I hear you, Lensman, and if Self were writing technical books I would read them with perfect disinterest. However, in serious fiction, which can have the power to affect a reader quite profoundly, I look to the author above all for honesty and independence of mind, and Self seems to display neither. I just read this on Wikipedia*:
I might suggest it’s problematic for an author to be a great writer while also being a middle class crack head, except that I wouldn’t, because my litmus test would be independence of mind and honesty, not drug habits ..or sexual orientation.
Everything I’ve read about Charles Dodgson suggests to me that he was honest with himself and others, almost to a fault given the fact that he was attracted to little girls. Even if it wasn’t the witch’s mark it’s become in our time, it was probably still uncomfortable for him and his openness and truth to his feelings endear him to me as much as any of his creative output.
In contrast, Self seems to be parading a persona tailored to advertise free thought while harbouring deep conservatism.
*Wikipedia of course is also brimming with bias and prejudice, but that is politics, not personality.
I really think that we shouldn’t expect artists etc to be any better than the rest of us – great art is frequently produced by people who were, to varying degrees, shits (Wagner, Celine, Caravaggio, Phillip Larkin, Picasso, Evelyn Waugh…).
Art doesn’t come from simplicity, nor from an easy, happy relationship with the world. Nor is ‘integrity’ an artist’s duty: we especially must all realise to what extent integrity is a luxury that is reserved for those whose lives would not be destroyed by that same integrity, or for those with exceptional courage.
Rare are the artists who seem both good people and great artists – Dodgson is a shining example, the only other that springs to mind is Papa Haydn (whom children adored, by the way… 😉
And, of course, many failings are only ‘failings’ depending on your point of view: my list of artists who were shits clearly shows me to be a left-leaning liberal. Someone to the right of the political spectrum would probably have a different list…
In the end all that matters is the work – the work has to stand independently of the person who created it – and we, as an audience, have got to engage with the work on its own merits and not use the artist’s life and opinions as short cuts to a judgment – otherwise we fall into the same trap as those who refuse to listen to Gary Glitter or look at Ovenden’s art work because of what they know of those artists’ lives.
I totally agree with you and Sylvie that art isn’t a personality contest, but the character revealed in Self’s comment just seems mean, small minded and conventional and none of these are qualities I look for in an artist. Sure, Dodgson was a man of his time and class and, by accounts, could be petty and fastidious, but I don’t think he was ever mean and he certainly wasn’t conventional.
For instance, it cannot be assumed that Dodgson’s paedophilia blended seamlessly with the Victorian ‘cult of the child’ or that he was a product of his time. His sexuality was clearly different to that of his peers and perhaps difficult for him to manage (why else would he need ‘pillow problems’?). The ‘missing pages’ strongly suggest that his life had challenges.
I expect a number of people commenting here know the sadness of losing friendships with beloved children as they outgrow the affections of sentimental old men. And yet he made new little girl friends and wrote letters to the ones who’d grown and generally remained true to himself. That consistency continues to inspire me today.
Will Self doesn’t have the mana to belittle Dodgson and doesn’t even have the consistency to stay on drugs. Clearly no William S. Burroughs or Hunter S. Thompson.
This has seriously amused me! I think it may have something to do with Self’s alleged incapacity to “stay on drugs”!
I couldn’t agree with you more that “it cannot be assumed that Dodgson’s paedophilia blended seamlessly with the Victorian ‘cult of the child’ or that he was a product of his time”.
Of course not! That seems to be the lame excuse “apologists” always come up with in order to avoid having to entertain the idea that Lewis Carroll’s attachment to children indeed had paedophilic connotations. It would be too much for them to take, as their fearful little minds would be forced to admit that perhaps, all the good that they see in their literary hero’s dealings with child-friends is very much a consequence of his paedophilia – not one bit in contrast with it!
You will understand that, to serious self-righteous zealots, this revelation would come as a shock. It is certainly more reassuring to continue to believe in the Victorian ‘cult of the child’ as an explanation to a lifetime of friendships with children.
Now…The missing pages.
What we know for sure is that some pages were removed from Dodgson’s journal by an unknown hand. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that they could have been removed by Dodgson himself. He wouldn’t have recorded, in the first place, something he might have been uncomfortable revealing. As far as the contents are concerned, it seems unlikely that they could have been about Alice Liddell. It is entirely possible, of course, but we shall never know unless the pages are recovered. They may have contained something about Dodgson, some difficulty that he was experiencing at the time. But what if they dealt with a family matter instead? Something about a member of the Dodgson family, some problem that Dodgson’s nieces (whom likely removed the pages) preferred to keep private? Could have been a difficulty encountered by someone, or an individual that had proved problematic.
What’s wrong with being Oxford educated and behave accordingly?
My dear Bloom, I am so sorry that I may be about to destroy your dream… I am afraid Lewis Carroll was very much a man of his…social class (much more than Will Self could ever be).
And perhaps he didn’t enjoy the company of *all* children equally.
Please don’t hate me! 🙂
…see above. And of course I don’t hate you! I loved your blog post and I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here. 🙂
Lensman, I understand what you mean but, let’s be careful and not convey the wrong message here.
One does not have to have paedophilic attraction to children in order to be appreciative of childhood or understand children, nor can a paedophile claim special insight into childhood. There are paedophiles who are clueless as to the “reality” of childhood, and children in general, or what it means to have children, to rear children, and to attend to the needs of children.
Similarly, there are “Antis” who are parents, or will be parents, who possess an invaluable insight into the world and the needs of their own children and are doting parents with nothing but their children’s best interest at heart. If they are conveyed a deceptive message by newspapers or TV, they are certainly not the ones to blame. Instead, it is those who know the truth *and remain silent*, who could be blamed, in my opinion.
That’s a commendably sober view, Sylvie, but it’s one that’s always struck me as altogether too sensible and plausible.
Pathologizers and victimologiists regularly finger ’emotional congruence’ with children as a trait shared by many paedophiles, and so one to be suspicious of, in their view. However, despite it being one of the top ten witch’s marks, I recognize it in myself.
As it happens, I’ve recently been forced to realise how deep this runs, and to realise that my insight into a young friend’s nature and vulnerabilities really did outstrip that of her parents’. This isn’t so hard to comprehend when I think how utterly my own parents misread me.
I felt an obligation to defend her at the time, but it became too difficult and I turned my back. For over ten years I felt I’d abandoned her and it sat with me like a lead weight. Then it turned out that she really had felt abandoned and really had expected that I would stand by her. In hindsight, with too much water under the bridge, I’m trying to make amends, but there’s no way I ever can.
For over ten years I felt I’d abandoned her and it sat with me like a lead weight.
Bloom, I found myself in a similar situation almost three decades ago where, at the time, it seemed that the best thing for all would be for me to move on.
Ever since the ‘lead weight’ you mention has been growing heavier by the year and now I wake in the middle of the night, after some dream, filled with unbearable longing for a time when I had someone to love and someone who loved me back.
Why am I sharing this? Well, for all the joy and beauty of being a paedophile when you love a child you love something that is evanescent and ever-changing, that won’t be pinned down. And, for the ‘true’ paedophile, adolescence is ever looming and threatening to bring it all to an end.
This means that, over and above the pressures imposed on such friendships by society, there’s something inherently nostalgic about being a paedophile – love flares briefly for a few years and then dies out. And then there are those stretches, growing longer and longer with age, when there’s no loved child in your life and all you’ve got are your memories, and maybe the most spectacular and intense friendships occur early on in our lives before the dulling effects of routine, habit and disillusion set in.
And the object of the love having been a child I wonder how much she remembers of all the happiness and love we shared. We forget so much of our childhood when we grow up. I torture myself wondering if my little love now that she is a woman, ever thinks of me, ever remembers how happy we were together…
As Nabokov had Humbert(x2) say:
“I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew she would not be forever Lolita.”
I suspect that Dodgson felt this way about Alice – she remained special for him. He must have longed for the little girl she used to be and been hurt by her lack of interest in him as she became a woman.
Is paedophilia inherently bitter-sweet?
Norms get married, have children, strengthen their bonds by sharing the business of life and hope to stay together till death. How often can that happen to us? How often do we get anything more than a few years’ happiness and love before Time cuts things short?
All true Lensman, except that I’m now reconnecting with the adult who I loved as a child and my guilt is being justified because it turns out that she really did love me too. Not just that but she needed me in her life and I turned my back on her.
In my heart I always knew this was true, but the sober and plausible possibility that I was reading the situation through a fog of wishful thinking allowed me to convince myself that I could exit her life without consequences for her.
It turns out I was wrong. I was important to her and and I should have stuck by her.
When she was younger she knew nothing of the paedophilic aspect of my love, I was like an uncle to her. She’s beginning to realise now that it was social attitudes to my romantic feelings that caused our parting.
Why am I sharing this? Because I want people to know I am a real person who has real relationships with others. I may not be a ‘great person’ but nor am I ‘not a great person’.
Wow. I am left speechless. I could say that I understand every word you say, Lensman. There is a point though after which words become limited, perhaps useless, therefore I’ll limit myself to a literary reference.
Yes, I agree that Lewis Carroll must have certainly felt that way. There is a letter that he wrote to Alice Liddell (she was already married at the time) on March 1,1865:
“My dear Mrs. Hargreaves, I fancy this will come to you almost like a voice from the dead, after so many years of silence – and yet those years have made no difference, that I can perceive, in my clearness of memory of the days when we did correspond. I am getting to feel what an old man’s failing memory is, as to recent events and new friends […] but my mental picture is as vivid as ever, of one who was, through so many years, my ideal child-friend. I have had scores of child-friends since your time: but they have been quite a different thing.”
You ask: “Is paedophilia inherently bitter-sweet?” I am afraid it is.
Is love doomed to “flare briefly for a few years and then die out”? Again, afraid so.
The nostalgic quality you speak of, is perhaps very much part of these feelings, because childhood is evanescent and fleeting, and children inevitably grow up and depart for the journey of life. On a sweeter note though, there is also something to treasure: to have been there for a child, to have provided for a child, to have strengthened a child’s confidence, and so on. In other words: to have meant something for a child.
So, if there is sadness in it, it doesn’t mean there can’t be joy. The poem found at the beginning of “Through the Looking Glass”, I believe, summarises these feelings very well:
Child of the pure unclouded brow
And dreaming eyes of wonder!
Though time be fleet, and I and thou
Are half a life asunder,
Thy loving smile will surely hail
The love-gift of a fairy-tale.
I have not seen thy sunny face,
Nor heard thy silver laughter;
No thought of me shall find a place
In thy young life’s hereafter –
Enough that now thou wilt not fail
To listen to my fairy-tale.
A tale begun in other days,
When summer suns were glowing –
A simple chime, that served to time
The rhythm of our rowing –
Whose echoes live in memory yet,
Though envious years would say ‘forget’.
Come, hearken then, ere voice of dread,
With bitter tidings laden,
Shall summon to unwelcome bed
A melancholy maiden!
We are but older children, dear,
Who fret to find our bedtime near.
Without, the frost, the blinding snow,
The storm-wind’s moody madness –
Within, the firelight’s ruddy glow,
And childhood’s nest of gladness.
The magic words shall hold thee fast:
Thou shalt not heed the raving blast.
And though the shadow of a sigh
May tremble through the story,
For ‘happy summer days’ gone by,
And vanish’d summer glory –
It shall not touch with breath of bale
The pleasance of our fairy-tale.
Thanks for that Sylvie.
Re-reading Dodgson’s letter and poem reminds me that – beyond all the debates, discussions, competing biographies and controversies – what really matters is what he left us – and though he’s rightly recognised as being a great writer and photographer, maybe only child-lovers can know quite just how great he is.
Perhaps, but my own experience has been different. I really love my adult friends who were child friends and they seem to love me.
It can be bittersweet when they grow up, but I think parenthood is like that too. That doesn’t make it futile.
But I really agree with you, Bloom 🙂
I also recognise it. What I meant was that you obviously can’t expect to find such insight or care in virtually anyone, otherwise it would be a perfect world.
Still I am reluctant to claim that parents, as a rule, misunderstand their children. And, whereas that is certainly true in some cases, don’t you think it is equally fair to say that children as well misunderstand their parents?
Hi, Sylvie. One thing I have noticed about the great majority of Non-MAP adults who are said to understand and have special insights into children – or even young adolescents – is that they still relate to them as an authority figure. They still refuse to recognize the capabilities that younger people have, and they most often do not in any way challenge the modern conceptions and overall attitudes towards younger people. This clearly interferes with their empathy and understanding of children.
This isn’t universally true, of course, and I understand and sympathize with your opposition to generalizing. Yes, there are many genuine MAPs who are “clueless.” But the majority of pro-choice MAPs, at least, are able and willing to think on the level of the children, and prefer to think of them as at least potential peers, and more willing to treat them according to their individual merits than any Non-MAP who is not a youth liberationist. I honestly think if many Non-MAP adults who aren’t youth liberationists had a strong understanding and empathy with children, then youth liberation would be an actual issue for them. But by and large, it isn’t, and I think this is very telling.
And yes, there are many parents who have a genuine interest in their children’s well-being. The problem is, which I think you have more or less overlooked in your post but is important to mention, is that power is a corrupting force. Parents in the modern world have near-complete control over their children, and this often leads to love being twisted into its darker side, including a desire to control “for their own good,” and to develop great emotional difficulty in being objective and differentiating between their children’s best interests and their best interests, i.e., the maintenance of their power and authority over all else. I’ve seen numerous parents who impose a rigid degree of racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious fanaticism on their children. That doesn’t mean they don’t love their children very deeply, but they were certainly putting their own values and authority ahead of the best interests of their children when it came to insisting that they not associate with any of “those people.”
Further, it needs to be recognized that love and respect do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. I would argue that the vast majority of parents have a tremendous love for their children… but do not respect them as people, nor their opinions, or the validity of their individual merits. The main problem here, as you say, is indeed the system and status quo, not parents themselves (many youth liberationists are, in fact, parents – contrary to popular belief). But the fact remains that the majority of contemporary parents do not recognize the status quo as a problem, and this causes problems for children on many levels.
This doesn’t make the institution of parenthood itself a bad thing; quite the contrary! But the way the legal system currently disempowers anyone under 18, and the way the favored nuclear family unit largely isolates the community at large from the household where children are forced to live, is precisely the reason why the bulk of every form of genuine abuse initiated against children and young adolescents occurs within the walls of the home. We shouldn’t blame parents for this, but neither should we overlook the “elephant in the room” that so many of them go along with the problem because they put such a strong emphasis on preserving their authority over that of doing the right thing.
With that said I fully agree with you that a lot of the problem are those who may not agree with the status quo, but stay silent. I’m glad this situation is slowly starting to change.
Because of today’s social climate, both nons and MAPs are just as likely to view children as lesser and things to be controlled. The difference is, while MAPs may be warped to view children as sexual objects to be controlled as well, it also can cause them to view them as humans and with respect because of their attraction to them. It just depends on the MAP. Nons like myself will generally not view children in a sexual manner we are also much less likely to question the social narrative. I am very happy to have done so and I can mostly thank paedosexuals for that.
It’s great to see you back in the fray, Jack! Especially with GC being down of late due to technical problems…
As far as Lewis Carroll is concerned, what if Will Self is the least intellectually dishonest of them all?
He might not have too much insight into the nature of paedophilia, as he *seems* to accept the paedophile=child-molester equation.
But aren’t those poor indignant souls that cry their hearts out that “there is absolutely nothing even remotely paedophilic” in Lewis Carroll’s life-long pursuit of child friendships, significantly DUMBER?
Granted, he gets that right to a degree. I’m just not interested in reading the writing of someone so shallow…
Hi Sylvie
Thank you for your insights into Charles Dodgson. I have learned a lot about him having read your article. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion: “… the real obstacle to an open and frank discussion about Lewis Carroll seems to me to depend upon a reluctance to admit that there might be nothing inherently harmful in paedophilia, and that there is nothing, in paedophilic inclinations, that may prevent an individual from positively contributing to the greater good. In other words, that paedophiles as well can be a force for good in society.”
On the topic of Will Self, you say: “He might not have too much insight into the nature of paedophilia, as he *seems* to accept the paedophile=child-molester equation.” The contributors here may be aware of Will Self’s brush with the law when he was suspected of being a paedophile. See theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/will-self-reported-suspected-paedophile.
Oh yeah, I do remember that! Ha ha, sucked in. I do feel for him, to suffer the indignity of being stopped by a squaddie.
Poor lad, it’s almost like he was judged in absentia, had his character assassinated in print and was hounded out of his community. Almost…
Well, I believe he is not wrong when he asked: “Can there be a more disturbing parable of the Britain we have become?”
I am glad you enjoyed the blog.
I’m hearin’ ya, Sylvie. 🙂 But why is it always what’s become of us when ordinary, decent people are suspected of being paedophiles? Why not ever what’s become of us when we deny the humanity of paedophiles and turn them into monsters? Why does noone ever ask what purpose those monsters serve, and what they say about the collective guilt of ‘ordinary, decent people’?
Have people they treated children so badly they need a scapegoat? (Yes.)
Will Self makes being stopped by a squaddie into a personal tragedy, but really it’s nothing more than an inconvenience. What about the folk who really do fall in love with children?
What is it like for them? Whether they honour their love with decency and grace, hide it away in shame and embarrassment or spiral it into a self serving fantasy, should they ever be unearthed they are sure to be hounded into the open and have their lives torn apart.
That’s more than inconvenient, I can tell you.
To me, this story is immeasurably more troubling than Self’s Shakespearian comedy of doting father and son mistaken for jaded roué and dewy catamite. If he ever had the guts to write it (he won’t) I would read it and retract everything I’ve said about him on this page.
Tom, you’re not an embarrassment to “polite” society. You’re an irritation to them, because you refuse to shut up and force too many people to think outside the narrow box they construct around their minds.
As for Sylvie’s post, I thank her for it, as it’s far superior to anything I could ever have written, about this or any other topic! I think I learned a lot from it on many levels 🙂 She even got Christian to make a sort of compromise in his thinking about Carroll 😀 Woo hoo, you go, girl!!!
No, I did’nt compromise, I think the same since a few years: he liked women and girls, but teens excited him more than others, see Lebailly “Your affectionate friend”.
From what I read, I think that Lewis Carroll was an ephebophile, his sexual preference was for teenage girls, but quite generally he liked all ages of womanhood, from 4 to 60.
Really? I can’t believe it. How could he have made those enduring images of the young Alice Liddell without loving the pants off her?
This is why I read Christian’s assessment of Carroll as an ephebophile here as a ‘compromise.’ I didn’t glean that from his critique of Tom’s original post that spurred this guest blog, but that could have been me having a “bad reading day.”