Talk:Lewis Carroll/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Title

shouldnt the title of the page be Charles Lutwidge Dodgson rather than lewis carol? it makes more sense to have a page about a certain person with that persons name... lewis carol can redirect to Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.Jrcrisologo 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the article should bear the name by which he is best known. Septentrionalis 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Editing Discussion

[edit] Early life

[edit] Character and appearance

[edit] Dodgson the artist

[edit] Later Years

I have removed this recent addition:

He was a true genius as is shown by his accomplishments in the fields of mathematics, logic, religion, photography, and literature. He is most well known as the author of the world famous book, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It is no surprise that the centenary of his death is being celebrated all over the world.

1. because it doesn't seem the right place; a summary like this should be at the top of the page surely, and there already is quite an adequate one there.

2. Are phrases like 'he was a true genius' really Wiki-style? What is a true genius anyway?

3. Most important really - it was Dodgson's centenary EIGHT YEARS ago!! So no idea what that is about!

--Dee-Dee 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Controversies

added this a few days ago as the best place for all the more contentious debates,including the 'Carroll Myth' which seems to get people really riled up!! --Dee-Dee 14:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] paedophilia

took out the photo of "Xie" as I don't recognise it as being by Dodgson. If anyone wants to replace it then we need some sort of authentication first. (signed by Dee-Dee, who still can't remember her damn password)


Well i find the arguments quite interesting, but it amazes me they fail (i mean in the quoted texts and biographies, not in the wiki article) to see that a pedophile may also have meaningful sexual relations with older women... even if Leach is right (and from what i see in the article she seems very correct in her arguments) and Dodgson did have many relations with grown up women, that doesn't prove that he didn't have "intense, recurrent, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger), over a period of at least 6 months" which is the main criteria for APA to define somebody as a pedophile...

cheers to all

took out the stuff about Leach being basically right, and left it more neutral. Added some positive reviews of her work to balance the highly negative one already there.

There's probably more copyediting needed. But I think it reads better now

--Dee-Dee 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


the section describing the claimed reasons for Dodgson's assumed paedophilia is a bit weighted in favor of the claim. I don't think his liking of the theatre can reasonably be claimed as a suggestion of paedophilia, without amplification. Some of the other stuff seems a little tenuous too. I am going to prune and reword it --Dee-Dee 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this:

Of course, this view fails to take into account the diary material reportedly burnt by Dodgson's nephew and first biographer, Stewart Collingwood, due to such content (see intros. to Helmut Gernsheim's "Lewis Carroll, Photographer" and Cohen's "Lewis Carroll's Photographs Of Nude Children").

for the following reasons:

1. I have read Leach's work and it deals with the missing pages very extensively so the claim isn't justified.

2. no one knows who destroyed the missing pages or why, and all supposed reasons are speculation.

I think then that this addition is just an attempt to sway the readers by using inaccurate data. --Dee-Dee 13:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Dee-Dee,

1. It has been explicitly stated by reputable sources that Collingwood burned some of the material, and

2. this is of interest to the reader,

so some *direct* mention must be made, whether or not one believes it was salacious. You clearly have strong feelings on this topic, so perhaps you should be the one to compose a neutral addition dealing with the subject.

Hi Anon - no, it's been stated by reputatble sources that the diaries are missing. No one claims to know for sure who destroyed them or why, and certainly no one knows they were burned!!. See Cohen, Wakeling, Leach, and any modern biographer. Thanks for suggesting I do the composing! I do feel attached to this page as I have put a lot of work into hacking through it (it was a mess before!!) and trying to make it as balanced as possible. --Dee-Dee 15:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I find "Lewis Carroll: In his own account" [1] to be interesting and relevant. This book is an annotation of Carroll's bank account records, and reveals e.g. that Carroll privately donated money to a charity that "actively tracked down and prosecuted men who sexually abused children" Gmatht 09:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As noted by Kenneth Lanning[2], some child molesters try to make up for their behavior by doing "good," e.g. donating to charity. Anyway, though, it's VERY unlikely Carroll was a child molester, but he was probably a celibate pedophile. Being attracted to children does not negate the normal human interest in protecting them from sexual abuse. JayW 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)-

My edit re. the 'cut pages' document was reverted citing 'weasel words.' Look at the context - I expand on Cohen's belief (it's based on contemporary rumour) and point out that the document's provenance is disputed, therefore it's impossible to know its ultimate significance. But I left in what it seems to imply. This is not being a weasel, it's indicating the matter isn't settled. --Viledandy 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Viledandy - the authenticity of the cut pages in diary doc has never been disputed. It's a genuine document and the only dispute is about which member of the Dodgson famliy actually wrote it. Therefore to say or imply its 'provenance' is in question is indeed 'weasel words'. Sorry.

There is some very poor stuff being added here. The claim that the supposed "marriage proposal" to Alice Liddell is supported by 'contemporary evidence' cites Cohen's use of Lord Salisbury's letter. But Salibsury's letter was dated 1878, when Alice was a grown woman, and holds no suggestion of referring to an earlier time,so citing it here is highly misleading and has been removed and reverted to earlier wording.

There is absolutely no presently known contemporary evidence, or rumour, of a marriage proposal in 1863, and I think Wiki needs to make that pretty clear.

Dee-Dee (who can't remember her password right now!!)

---

Notice I said 'provenance', not 'authenticity', meaning we don't know who wrote it. Cohen makes perfectly clear that Salisbury was there in 1863 and this is what he was referring to after the fact. From the Alice Liddell article:

It is uncertain who wrote the note; Leach has said that the handwriting on the front of the document most closely resembles that of either Menella or Violet Dodgson, Carroll's nieces. However, Morton N. Cohen says in an article recently published in the Times Literary Supplement [5] that, in the 1960s, Philip Dodgson Jacques told him that he had written the note himself based on conversations he remembered with his nieces. Cohen's article produced no evidence to support this however, and known samples of Jaques' handwriting do not seem to resemble the writing of the note very closely [6]. Precisely what this note means has yet to be determined, but it seems to imply that the 'break' between Dodgson and the Liddell family was caused by concern over the alleged 'gossip', linking Dodgson to the governess and to 'Ina' (presumably Alice's older sister). Whether there was any foundation in any of this gossip has not been determined.

The Carroll article, before my edit, strongly leaned toward presenting the note's contents as fact. Given that we could potentially be dealing with second or third-hand information, we can't responsibly do so. That was my only intention in the edit. The Alice article has it right - the cut pages doc seems to imply something, but that's all we can take it as.

Viledandy (who can't either)

[edit] Drug use

i changed the 'drug abuse' to 'drug use', i think that's more neutral, and added that he seemed to have used cannabis. i can't find a good source on google, but i saw this at public television some years ago, in a respectable documentary. i'll try to come up with a better source. Sarefo 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to mention this myself - my mum hates Alice in Wonderland because it was written by a "talentless druggie". I don't know the specifics of all this or I'd have put it in the article. Anybody want to help me out? --The Wizard of Magicland 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Sorry - there's NO evidence he ever used cannabis. he would have used opium all the time however, as laudanum, which was the standard painkiller of the time, was opium syrup mixed with alcohol.


The "drug use" section is now completely gone. What gives? I've heard from a wide variety of sources that he was addicted to opium. In addition to the dressed-up language in the pedophilia section, I feel this article is losing elements npov. : ( Also, ye who would deny evidence, please sign your posts. Thanks --Zaorish 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I'm back. I typed [ "lewis carroll" opium ] into Google. 43,000 results. Then: [ "lewis carroll" cannabis ]. 41,000 results. I'll add some info to the article now. --Zaorish 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I went through some of the sources. A lot of them referenced a previous version of this page... ... ... I copied the elements with wide support and pasted them back in. However, I'm in school and don't have a huge amout of time to go looking up each of those 43,000 hits for expert sources that Carroll smoked cannabis. If anyone could help that would be great.--Zaorish 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no documented source for Dodgson taking drugs of any kind. Check out any website devoted to him or any biog. It's possible he did of course but there's no evidence.

With that in mind I have edited the 'drug use' entry and also moved it down to the 'current controversies' section where it seems most appropriate. Is that okay with everyone? --Dee-Dee 19:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)




[edit] References

Could future editors cite the page they are refering to. Also, the short style of [Surname, Page number] is probably the best way to cite the books. Skinnyweed 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous comments

I just added some information that came to light from a newspaper article I read this morning - the original first edition of "Alice's Adventures Under Ground" was dedicated to Alexandra Kitchin (Xie) and not Alice Liddell. The book is also not in the British Library, but was sold at Christie's on Thursday by the Duke of Gloucester to an unnamed bidder. MazzieEowyn 28th Jan. 2006

The story that Dodgson wanted to marry Alice Liddell is just a myth - there's no evidence it was ever true, and no evidence to show he was a paedophile. You should read "In the Shadow of the Dreamchild" by Karoline Leach - it's a great book. It reads like a detective story and separates all the many myths about Lewis Carroll from the truth, and shows everyone's had it pretty wrong about him. It's also gor some great investiagtion of the mysterious missing pages in his diary and how they came to be cut out.

If anyone wants to find out more about Carroll they can join the lewis carroll mailing list at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll

Just go along and sign in - or you can subscribe direct by sending a blank email to: lewiscarroll-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



Do we need to sully this man's reputation with innuendo? Are we going to add innuendo to all the other people's entries that we may have heard rumours about?

What innuendo? That he took nude pictures of children is an easily verified historical fact. The book is still available in libraries in countries that don't have their heads up their ass about nudity the way the US does. It is not verifiable that he ever abused children in any way, and the article, properly, makes no such accusation. There is some evidence that he asked Alice Liddel's parents for permission to marry her, but again, no evidence of any abuse, and considerable evidence to suggest otherwise. --LDC

When Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was 31 and Alice Liddle was 11 he wanted to marry her but his proposition was declined by her parents.
Later when she was 13 he remarked that she had changed for the worse and lost all his interest in her. The same lack of interest after puberty ensued with almost 100 other girls. Notably he was never on friendly terms with boys.

The idea that Dodgson proposed marriage to Alice Liddell when she was eleven is an idea completely invented by modern day biographers. There is not a shred of evidence to show he ever did or that he ever even thought about doing so. There is likewise no evidence to show he was ever 'in love' with her or any other child.

As for his child nude photography. It looks weird to our eyes, but to the Victorians child-nudity was not only acceptable it was fashionable. Virtually all photographers did such studies and they were considered so innocent and inoffensive people even put images of nude children on Christmas cards. So, saying Dodgson must have been a paeddophile because he took phoographs of naked children simply displays our ignorance of his century.

And no Dodgson did NOT lose interest in girls after the age of puberty - this is simply a myth. In fact he had far more interest in older girls than in very tiny children. Most of his 'child-friends' were teenagers or even in their twenties. And during his lifetime he was gossiped about for his many 'unconventional' friendships with married woman.

You really need to get acquainted with the latest research on the matter.

Not as a response to the person who wrote this (probably long gone), but for information in general: http://www.lookingforlewiscarroll.com/tlsarticle.html Ashibaka ✎ 01:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)'


did it ever occur to you that the 'norm' of upper crust victorian society was immoral and wrong? just because it was 'another culture, another time' does not make it right! the guy had a thing for naked kids. you cannot deny this. and your failure to even mention it in the main article is pathetic.

Removed this para because it's a lead into the book the page was taken from -AdamW


The more than an century that has elapsed since then has shown an explosion of the Carroll mythology. Elaborate tales are now told of the how and why of Dodgson's life and mind. He has been presented as paedophile, perpetual child, as scholar-saint as innocent dreamer of children, as a deviant resident in an ivory tower or dreaming spire. But how did these truths get here? Are they any kind of reality? The rest of this book will be an attempt to answer these questions, and trace the strange story of how "Carroll" came to be born and to eclipse the reality of the man who created him.

One more thing about the nude photography angle. Go to any Chinatown and you'll find a photography store with full frontal nudity of little boys (genitals prominently showing so that the viewer knows the child is a boy). Would this be considered child pornography if the FBI investigated?

The nude photos = pedophilia argument is just as fallacious as the argument that Mark Twain's book Huckleberry Finn is racist because it uses the word nigger several hundred times.

Greetings. I notice that this entry is followed by this message:-

This extract is taken from 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild', by Karoline Leach, with permission from the author. It's also available on the Victorian Web which includes an excellent biography section on Carroll

If the entry purports to be an extract from a book, does this mean we're not allowed to edit it?

Will anyone mind if I move this to Charles Dodgson? I'm going to wait for a while to see if there are objections. -- Zoe

Ack. I would have objected. I certainly object to dropping the Lutwidge entirely. It is clear that he derived his pen name from this middle name. For my money, the whole thing should be under the name he is most famous for, that is, Lewis Carrol. At least, restore the Lutwidge to the article. Ortolan88
I agree, it should be at Lewis Carroll. I added Lutwidge to the article, an oversight, it should have been in there already. -- Zoe

Let's put the article at Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, which is the man's full name and is more easily recognizable with the 'Lutwidge' than without. We can have redirects both from Charles Dodgson and Lewis Carroll. I daresay he's much better known by his pen name -- much the same as Mark Twain. --Ed Poor

Done. --Ed Poor 15:05 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
Well, given that he's better known by his pen name, I'm going to move the article there (Lewis Carroll). --Camembert
Actually, I say that, but I've looked at the article again, and see he is referred to throughout as "Dodgson", so it might seem a little odd to put it under "Carroll". I'll leave it be for now, though I certainly think it should be at Lewis Carroll - do other people think it would be OK to just move the article as it is, or would it be better to change references to him to "Carroll" or what? --Camembert

It's nice that Ms. Leach has given permission to use her information, but is she aware that there's no guarantee it won't be changed? -- Zoe

I asked about that back on 4th November 2002 (see anoymous entry further up). I'm worried that the wording of the note about permission (which was added by an anonymous contributor, 195.93.33.xxx) seems to imply that Karoline Leach wanted it to remain an extract from her book. Does anyone happen to know how to contact Ms. Leach...? -- Oliver PEREIRA 05:12 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Surely the picture of Alice Liddell should be on here page and Lewis Carroll's picture on this one. Mintguy
Yup, quite right! And it will go there, eventually. I found the Charles Dodgson article on my very first day here, and thought it was odd that the picture was there rather than at Alice Liddell, but then I found that there wasn't an article on Alice, so that was why! I started an article on her that day, but it's still so stubby that the picture would look awful there, completely dominating the page. So I think it would be better to wait until the article gets bigger before moving the picture across. -- Oliver P. 06:18 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
Oh yes, perhaps I should point out that the picture is now at Alice Liddell. Now all we need is a picture of Charles Dodgson to put here. Does anyone happen to have have one...? -- Oliver P. 07:08 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)




http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22lewis+carroll%22
or http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22Charles+Lutwidge+Dodgson%22 take your pick

Yup, well, I would have done, but I'm still not entirely sure about the copyright laws... I mean, could someone claim that the way they scanned and compressed an image, even a public domain one, used just a slight amount of artistic judgement, and that therefore the result could be copyrighted...? Well, I don't know... -- Oliver P. 15:45 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know either. The buggers at the National Portrait Gallery won't let you use images from their site without going through hoops. It's a pain. Mintguy

I only just saw Camembert's comment above. I've always thought this article should be at Lewis Carroll, and, if that means changing all the references to Dodgson, I'm all for it. Deb 21:17 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

"Lewis Carroll" was only his pen name: a name he used to stick on the front of his books. He would not usually have been referred to in real life in this way, by people who knew him as a person. A biographical article discussing his life as a real person should refer to him by his real name. Even if the article is moved to Lewis Carroll (which I wouldn't be very happy with), it should still refer to him as Dodgson throughout the text. (Except to say things like, "which he published under the pseudonym 'Lewis Carroll'", of course.) I'd be happy with Charles Dodgson as a title, as it's his real name, and the usual convention here is not to include middle names. -- Oliver P. 19:06 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

I can see your point - kind of - but I don't think it's true that there's a convention of not using middle names, or at least not when the middle name is normally used when referring to the person, as it is in this case. (George Shaw would sound pretty silly, wouldn't it?) Would there be any support for the idea of two separate articles - one specifically about Lewis Carroll's writing, and another about the man behind the pen-name, who is quite interesting in his own right? I ask because there was a minor disagreement over Jean Plaidy, and I sort of settled it by making different articles for her under all her pen-names. Deb 14:14 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with you about Shaw, and about other people who are only known by longer versions of their name, but as far as I am aware Dodgson was not such a person. If someone mentioned "George Shaw" to me, I wouldn't have a clue who they meant, but if they said, "Charles Dodgson", I would. I think of him as "Charles Dodgson", not as "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson". Not that I'm bowing down to the Google god or anything, but Google has slightly more matches for "Charles Dodgson" than for "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson". Contrast this with "George Shaw" versus "George Bernard Shaw", where the latter has about twenty times the number of matches! I don't think Dodgson is in the same situation as Shaw at all.
As for the idea of a separate article for his writing, there are already separate articles about his works - see Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Through the Looking-Glass, and "The Hunting of the Snark". There's no room for another, I don't think... At least, I don't see what such an article would say that wouldn't fit comfortably either into his main biography or into one of the individual articles on his works. I don't really see what the problem is, since the very first line of Dodgson's article says that he is also known as "Lewis Carroll".
And about Jean Plaidy (real name Eleanor Hibbert) - I must admit I'd never heard of her before today! Where was the disagreement about her? She has several pages now, and none seems to have a talk page. It doesn't seem a good idea to me to have lots of articles that are all about the same person but just under different names. It would be rather confusing. All the pages are stubs, anyway - I would suggest merging them under her real name, and making redirects. Then anyone searching for one of her pseudonyms will automatically end up at the right place. -- Oliver P. 18:04 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
Well, she started off as Jean Plaidy, the name under which she is overwhelmingly best known -- but someone decided to be clever and move her to Eleanor Hibbert, just because they happened to known her real name (which few people do, even if they read her books). But she had so many pseudonyms, and wrote in different genres, that it seemed like a good idea to have those separate articles, cross-referring to one another.
I'm really surprised about the Google situation on Lewis Carroll -- I'd have thought he was best known by his full name, including the "Lutwidge". But I take your word for it. Presumably, though, you wouldn't be in favour of moving the main George Sand and George Eliot articles to their real names. Or would you? 212.159.41.90 18:16 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
That's me. I didn't notice I'd been logged out. Deb 18:18 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
Ermmm... I don't know. I don't see why it would matter if people were under their real names, if all the redirects were in place, and the opening lines made it clear who was being talked about. But I suppose I would find it strange to find George Sand or George Eliot under their real names, as I only know them by their pseudonyms. I suppose where people want articles to be depends partly on the subjective matter of whether they think of the person primarily as just some author, or as a real person. As a biographical article develops from just a basic list of publications into a full-blown analysis of the person's life, it would just seem (to me, at least) more and more strange to refer to them by a pen name. Don't you think so?
I suppose it wouldn't really matter if Dodgson went under "Lewis Carroll", as long as the article itself made it clear that he was really "Charles Dodgson", so if everyone thinks he should go there, I'll give in. (As for his middle name, my impression was that people only know it because it's the source of his pseudonym, not because he actually used it very much, but I could be wrong.) But I still think he should go under one or the other, and not both, to save confusion. In the case of someone with several pseudonyms which are all fairly well known, I think it would be best to go for the real name to prevent disputes between people who know the person under different pseudonyms. But whatever name is picked, I think that the real name and all the pseudonyms should go in the introductory paragraph, which would then be followed by the biographical information and the list of works, without splitting these into separate articles; otherwise it would confuse people, I think. -- Oliver P. 18:50 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
It's very difficult, isn't it? I mean, I can totally see your point of view. And Jean Plaidy was a bit of a special case, because she was so well known under so many different pseudonyms, all of which were better known than her real name. You can rest easy, I'm not going to attempt to move Dodgson unless lots of other people agree with me. Deb 21:26 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
Ah, it's all terribly tricky. I'll probably have changed my mind by this time next week, anyway. ;) Anyone else want to put in an opinion...? -- Oliver P. 02:41 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
We have an article at Mark Twain, not Samuel Clemens or Samuel Langhorn Clemens. Consistancy, anybody? -- Zoe
Lots of people are known by lots of different names. The only way we can have consistency is if there is a set rule, e.g. giving only the name they had at birth. Since we have agreed not to have such a set rule, there is no chance of consistency, and we have to treat each person on a case-by-case basis. -- Oliver P. 14:22 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
But there is a set rule, namely to use the most common name of somebody or something. So that means the article goes under Carroll in this case. --Camembert

Hum - who the hell is "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson" - oh it is Lewis Carroll! Come on people we have a clear naming convention on this at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Of course in the article itself we should prefer the guys real name but page titles are to enable people to most easily find and directly link to our articles. Thus William Bonnie's article is at Billy the Kid and Linda Boreman's article is at Linda Lovelace. --mav

Moved. --mav
There was a redirect at "Lewis Carroll" already. Redirect pages can be both (a) linked to, and (b) found in a search, so the ease of linking to and finding the article is precisely the same wherever the article is. So I don't see what your argument is. Is it just that you don't like redirects? -- Oliver P. 14:22 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with redirects, you're right, but it's better to have the page under the correct name by the conventions because people are likely to be influenced by how other pages are named when it comes to naming their own pages (if you see what I mean) - so if they see articles under birth names, they'll do that themselves, if they see common names, they'll do that (that's the idea, anyway). In other words, following the conventions promotes them. There's another reason, I guess - people interested in Lewis Carroll but who don't know much about him might see Dodgson come up on recent changes and not take any notice, because they don't realise who it is. There are probably other reasons I can't think of. I agree it's not the biggest deal in the world, but as mav says, there's a convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and it ought to be followed. --Camembert
Hmmmmmmm... Oh, all right then. -- Oliver P. 14:36 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Neither the suggestion nor the fact that Lewis Carrol apparently enjoyed child pornography detracts anything at all from his reputation as a writer, mathematician, and philosopher. It merely adds another interesting element to his personality.

I have to say, though, that the biography of him here at Wikipedia is too worshipful of Lewis Carrol. Instead of praising his every idea and work, can't we just say he held this idea and wrote this work?

Totally agree, i've tried to rectify it --Dee-Dee 15:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

All the people who claim that there is no evidence that Lewis Carrol was a pedophile remind me of the people protesting outside Michael Jackson's trial. Why can't you just separate the guy's art from his crimes?

None of the nude pic of childrens taken by Lewis Caroll I've seen qualify as pornography IMO.
Ericd 18:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

erm well maybe

The MYTH as you call it of the affair between dodgson and alice may not have been sexual, but there were conotations of a relationship that was not quite right. Alice liddell, REFUSED to speak to Dodgson from being aged around 11, and then spoke about him in interviews, she did like him, but she felt UNCOMFORTABLE around him, the original story Alice in Wonderland, is full of Freudian slips, and was first thought up on one of their many picnics, and boat rides. Which he, Alice and her siblings used to have. (The story itself was made to amuse little alice, given as a christmas gift, which then Alices parents covinced Dodgson to Re-write and then publish it.)

While these may suggest some affair, they may also be explained in many other ways. The evidence is certainly present, but not very strong. On the other hand, the very fact that the topic is so popular is worth mentioning, but with emphasis on the uncertainty of its truth due to limited evidence. Deco 01:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Some of the notable Victorian-age photographers who produced some nudes involving children were Julia Margaret Cameron and Sally Mann."

As a matter of fact, Sally Mann does not belong to the Victorian age. She was born in 1951.

I'll leave correcting this fact to someone else, but here are some suggested names that could be used to replace Mann's:

F. Holland Day

Wilhelm von Gloeden

Oops - my bad. Got honestly misguided, will fix it. However, I am not sure that Day and von Gloeden qualify here, since their controversy seems to be about homosexuality, and I was aiming for completely non-scandalous figures who did take nude photos. For now I have replaced Sally Mann with Frank Sutcliffe, whose photos of nude children I have seen with my own eyes, and who has a very established reputation.

[edit] Jack the Ripper Suspect

I have removed it and inserted a link to the wiki page about the theory, which seems more appropriate.

--Dee-Dee 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Unless anyone seriously objects, I plan to remove the section on Carroll as a Jack the Ripper suspect, which seems to me completely pointless and unsuitable for an encyclopaedia biography. No one, except perhaps Richard Wallace, takes the suggestion that Carroll was Jack the Ripper seriously. It has been repeated mostly on account of its amusing absurdity, but here it's a useless digression. -Eb.hoop 2:15 3 Dec 2994 (UTC)

In 1996 author Richard Wallace published a book entitled Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend. The book expressed his theory that Lewis Carroll and his colleague Thomas Vere Bayne were responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders. Their hypothesis found little support, and for most Ripperologists Carroll remains a well-known but unlikely suspect.

This theory was based primarily on a number of anagrams derived from passages in two of Carroll's works, The Nursery Alice, an adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland for younger readers, and from the first volume of Sylvie and Bruno. Carroll first published both works in 1889 and was probably still working on them during the period of the canonical murders. Wallace claimed that both books contained hidden but detailed descriptions of the murders. This theory gained enough attention to make Carroll a late but notable addition to the list of suspects.

However a number of arguments raised by Carroll's recent biographers and fellow Ripperologists have shown that this theory can hardly be taken seriously. Among them was Karoline Leach, who in a lecture about Wallace's theory gave three main arguments against it:

  • Carroll and Bayne had clear alibis for the murders:
    • On April 3, 1888, when Emma Elizabeth Smith was attacked in London, Carroll was in Oxford and was temporarily unable to walk due to health problems.
    • From August 31 through September 30, 1888, when Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, and Catherine Eddowes were killed, Carroll was vacationing in Eastbourne, East Sussex along with Isa Bowman, an actress and personal friend of his. Meanwhile, Thomas Vere Bayne had severe back pain during the summer of 1888 and was barely able to move.
    • On November 9, 1888, when Mary Jane Kelly was killed, both Carroll and Bayne were reportedly in Oxford.
  • Carroll had some interest in the Jack the Ripper case. An August 26, 1891 passage of his diary reports that he spoke that day with Dr. Dabbs, an acquaintance of his, about "his very ingenious theory about 'Jack the Ripper'". Although the theory he refers to is unknown, the passage does not indicate that Carroll was personally involved in the case.


I object to the idea that the information would just get removed. It should go somewhere, if for no other reason to serve as a scholarly debunking of the theory, which got some publicity in the press and is still occasionally brought up here and there. I can see how it would be too much text within an entry on his life, as it seems to pay too much attention to a strange theory, but the same problem creeps up with others who have been suggested as the Ripper for almost equally unlikely reasons (Walter Sickert, Prince Eddy and Sir William Gull, for instance).

In this particular case your best bet might be to create a new page based upon either the title of the book or its author and move the Ripper theory to that and have a small link to it within this article as part of a sentence that says, yeah, this book claims he was the ripper but nobody takes it seriously, see the page for more info..

DreamGuy 04:20, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

There is far too much information here about this nonsense. The page List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects should be expanded to cover this information. [unregistered user 80.43.205.224]
It used to be on that page (or section when it was part of the main Jack the Ripper article), but it was removed because it was too long. If you try to put it back it'll just be moved out again by one of us who edit that page. Do you object to the idea of putting this on a page devoted to the book? That's what my comment above suggested, but you didn't reply to that. DreamGuy 21:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I support the idea of creating an article either about Wallace or his book, and moving all this stuff there. -- Eb.hoop 0:46 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I moved the info to an article about the book, figuring that the book was more notable and known than the author. I kept a minimal summary of it in this article. DreamGuy 22:34, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
I attempted to briefen this info in the past, but without removing content, as to not irk anyone. I agree that a brief summary is more appropriate. Deco 01:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Project Gutenberg on Lewis Carroll

There's a HUGE amount of public domain text about this guy at http://www.gutenberg.net/1/1/4/8/11483/11483-h/11483-h.htm should anyone be interested in adding to this page or spawning more articles


[edit] npov header

To the anonymous users who POVize this article: Please know that Carroll's use of drugs, or his pedophilia, has nothing to do with his art--they are still exactly as great as they have always been. Compare this to Thomas Jefferson's slave sex abuse, or Martin Luther King Jr.'s plagarism. They are bad acts done by great people, the acts are still bad and the people are still great. Please let the man's life speak for itself...no man is without sin.--Zaorish 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the npov header, I feel it fits this article's issues better than just "cleanup". Let's try to work together to de-bias the language used here.--Zaorish 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


please tell me where the bias or inaccuracies are... I don't realy see why you complain because the man's supposed paedophilia is discussed. Whether you like it or not it's an issue, and Wikipedia needs to cover it. I think the article does so very fairly, presenting both sides of the current debate.

I've worked hard on making this page far more balanced and accessible than it was, so please don't just slap a npov notice on because you don't like the paedophilia being mentioned. The npov notice is NOT there for you toi express your personla dislike. If you really think the discussion isn't balanced then give examples. Then we can 'work together'


--Dee-Dee 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd addition

"[it should be noted however that paedophiles themselves are often married or otherwise engaged in adult heterosexual affairs - it is therefore generally considered a poor argument to imply that such a thing would having any bearing on the real issue]"

I removed this from the Leach section since it really serves only to attempt to influence the reader rather than provide additional (purported) fact. Basically you could say this about any "thought crime" -- "oh, he may have many black friends, but he's still racist" or, perhaps closer, "it should be noted however that homosexuals themsleves are often married or otherwise engaged in adult heterosexual affairs" (not to imply that homosexuality is a "thought crime" or should be equated with racism -- just trying to show the absurdity of the original editor).

And besides, frankly if one of the points of evidence for the pro-paedophilia side of the argument is that Dodgson had no relations with adult women, Leach's argument is definitely a good counter-argument, regardless of the purported tendencies of paedophiles to engage in adult relationships.

--128.36.72.247 00:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's a reasonable counter-counter-argument to say that pedophiles engage in adult relationships, but to conclude from this that the counterargument is irrelevent is wrong. It's another piece of evidence among many from which the reader might form an opinion. I've added something more balanced in its place. Deco 00:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epilepsy

A recent review of his biographies, published in the journal Epilepsy and Behavior [abstract] suggests that Carroll didn't have epilepsy at all. The article's author writes that only in one biography is any form of attack mentioned: Carroll wrote that he had an attack on New Year's Day 1886 and that after six days of still having a headache, his doctor was less certain that it was a fainting attack and more certain it was epilepsy. The researcher suggests that as only 8 per cent of post-seizure headaches last more than 24 hours and that such attacks are common after the day after drug ingestion, the attack was actually migraine with possible probable drug withdrawal symptoms Dupont Circle 20:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Added a brief mention of this, although I don't personally think it's worthwhile to go into the details - they can see the reference if they like. Deco 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor misquote

There seems to be a minor error in "Certainly he always sought to have another adult present when nude prepubescent modeled for him.", but not having the text in front of me I cannot correct it.

[edit] Inventions

removed the 'inventions' bit as the article is LONG and we need to cut it and coming after all the paedo stuff it read like a bit of a pointless anti-climax. Not much info in it for the space. if people want to put it back maybe add it in earlier on? But I think we need to keep it leaner as it is. --Dee-Dee 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nyctograph

Does this invention sound useful to anyone? If it's only for short notes, why not just write in the dark? --Chinasaur 30 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)

To make sure it is legible enough to read in the morning. Septentrionalis 17:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] photo caption

Photograph of Lewis Carroll taken by himself, with assistance.

Huh? Stbalbach 03:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

He set up the camera, which at the time was difficult, and had someone else snap the picture. The details are at the image's source. Deco 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invented the modern dust jacket?

I just removed this from the main page:

[He] introduced the dust cover for books in modern form inadvertently, by insisting that the publisher of Through the Looking Glass print the book title and illustration on its dust cover, which led to many people not throwing it away.

For some reason it just seems suspicious to me, and it was added by an anonymous user; I can't find anything about it on google. Anyone else have a way to verify this claim? Sorry if I'm being paranoid. Lunkwill 07:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I cant find anything about it either. Good catch. Stbalbach 16:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carroll or Dodgson?

It seems to me it is appropriate to mention all pseudonyms in the lead par, and then only refer to one name afterwards. This article seems to use both. I couldn't find any guidance in the WP:MOS. Not sure if it makes more sense to use his real name or his more well known name - maybe more well known, since that is where the article is located (Dodgson redirects). Thoughts, help anyone? I am having this problem on William Wharton (author) too. pfctdayelise 14:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I would prefer "Dodgson", but there are exceptions, such as when discussing perceptions of the author and his books by contemporaries unfamiliar with the person himself, or when specifically discussing books written under that pseudonym (as opposed to books written under his real name). For example, it would be incorrect to use "Carroll" in the context of Dodgson's non-fiction mathematics books. If we are to be consistent, I would choose Dodgson, but would also explicitly note the use of the pseudonym where applicable. Deco 19:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi, a quick Question, why are his books as a logicician not included in the booklist, "Pillow Problems and a Tangled Tale" is an example? //Clive// (try search GOOGLE or AMAZON for this title)

—This unsigned comment was added by 192.100.124.219 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah a (brief) section on his logic would be good. Any takers? --Dee-Dee 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

What's all this about 'FOR TESTING ONLY {{{last}}} ({{{year}}})'? Is it some kind of experiment gone wrong? Anyway, it certainly doesn't seem to be contributing to the article, so I've removed it. Sergeant Snopake, 16:30, 21/03/06

The clue was in the template name ({{citation}}); it used to be a template asking for a citation. I've replaced it with {{fact}}. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's as maybe, and yes, I did see that the template name was ({{citation}}), and I do know what citation means, but my point was: why did the template come up on the article as 'FOR TESTING ONLY {{{last}}} ({{{year}}})'? Anyway, wall done for replacing it. Sergeant Snopake 15:46, 21/03/06 (UTC)

I don't know why it's been changed to "FOR TESTING ONLY {{{last}}} ({{{year}}})" (perhaps it hasn't — perhaps it's always been like that, and I'm just misremembering). It seems odd, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Well, it doesn't matter! Sergeant Snopake 08:30, 23/03/06 (UTC)

[edit] Xie's age?

This page and the page on Xie seem to disagree about when Dodgson stopped photographing her. This page says around 16 and that says around 14. Which is more probable? Phiwum 10:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


ANSWER TO ABOVE: Xie was born in 1864, so when Dodgson was asking to make studies of her in bathing dress in 1880 she was 16.

[edit] Carroll myth revisited.

I have no opinion on the so-called Carroll myth, but this paragraph seems more like advocacy than neutral presentation of the debate:

In a review of the title in Victorian Studies (Vol. 43, No 4) reviewer Donald Rackin wrote, "As a piece of biographical scholarship, Karoline Leach's In the Shadow of the Dreamchild is difficult to take seriously". However, for all the emotional intensity of his attack, he visibly failed to detail any actual errors in her work. Nor have any errors been pointed out so far by any other authorities, and many now regard her work as an important step towards a better understanding of Carroll. Her work has been paralleled by that of Hugues Lebailly whose studies of Dodgson's artistic and social interests also support the idea that the image of his "obsession" with little girls was largely simplistic or mythic in origin.

(Emphasis added) Is there some more neutral description of the debate? Phiwum 10:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


If no errors have been pointed out in her work there's nothing partisan about saying so.

I've changed the wording

--Dee-Dee 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British spelling

I've changed the speling of "pedophile" to "paedophile", as Carroll was British, hope no-one minds! (MatthewMain 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Lewis Carroll, a Northern writer?

Hello, I'm a second year English student at Sunderland university currently studying Carroll. I wondered, do any of the readers and contributors to these pages have a view on Carroll being a specifically northern English writer? I am aware he was born in Daresbury, Cheshire and then moved to Croft in Yorkshire, but do his writings carry any specifically northern references? Thanks for any input you may have.

Colin Young.

There are references to places from his youth in various of his works, but more than that I can't say. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have tagged this article for cleanup. I was surprised that a detailed, long-standing article on such a major figure as Carroll should contain so many typos and problems with language. And why are the subheaders not capitalized? I will try to deal with this when I have more time, but I encourage others to help out. -- Eb.hoop 11:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame you. Looking at old versions of this page, someone deleted the entire "drug use" section...why? Also, the word use in this article doesn't seem very neutral.--Zaorish 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have been doing a lot of work on this for a few days. I've cut it, edited it, checked the sources and removed all the imbalance I can see. I've also spell-checked it. Any thoughts? --Dee-Dee 22:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Superposition

Since LC's parents were very closely related, is it possible that some of his chronic health problems were a result of inbreeding? Were his siblings unhealthy?205.188.116.197 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


[edit] Influences

Who cares that Marilyn Manson cites Carroll as an inspiritation?

If Carroll was alive, I don't think he would have liked that. Skinnyweed 11:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Photographer" section, request for more photographs

As Dodgeson was such a prolific photographer, would it be possible to include more photographs of his work? Thank you. Skinnyweed 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits. June 2006

I have added a number of books to the references section and some citations, all from Leach. Some of these will be second hand references as I don't have access to the other biographies. Skinnyweed 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cohen's criticism of Leach

What does "Morton N. Cohen repudiates this as being simply a plea for the defence" mean? I can't tell from that what the substance of the repudiation was. Does this mean he said Leach's book was defensive or pleading in tone? I'm assuming it's something more meaningful than that. 70.137.133.110 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/w/Talk%7ELewis_Carroll_Archive1_9041.html"