Now that the dust has settled: Did he do it?
>>24885268I'm pretty sure all of the hypothetical paedophiles of 19th century children's literature like J.M. Barrie were too sensitive and impotent to actually abuse children.
>>24885272You're probably right. I imagine there was a real (maybe unconscious) attraction there but it's difficult to imagine someone like Barrie or Carroll outright preying on anyone.
>>24885272>too sensitive and impotentisn’t that why people go after children in the first place.
>>24885285How would you know?
>>24885268Absolutely. Everything about his physiognomy screams paedo.
Do what? Commit the Jack the Ripper murders?
>>24885535I'm a non committing paedophile
>>24887327you mean a nomap
>>24885268Adult Liddell's highly dismissive attitute towards Lewis alongside a genuine subtle bitterness about him seems to hint at SA given how woman's attitudes towards that subject were at the time but given he talked with like a fuck load of girls, watched them play, invited them to his home and wrote them a lot of letters im genuinely surprised we don't know the testimonies of anyone else about the situation at all specially given Mr Dodogson's esteemed reputation. It's one of those situations where we can't be sure if he was just an overly hurt (his works generally give way to a freudian analysis of fear of his own mother and grown woman) giga autist who got along with kids and saw them as spiritual equals in contrast to his uptight and overly normative fellow scholars OR if he just like little girls and kept having them over to bang them. His attitudes are super pedophilic and being autistic doesn't exclude him being a pedophile. I just go with the "Lewis was a pedophile" route because ilof Occam's Razor and it just ends up sparing off needless devil's advocating with shit like "he uhhhhh only had tons of little girls over to eat cake and have them give writing advice!!!!!"
>>24887353>im genuinely surprised we don't know the testimonies of anyone else about the situationI mean, did they even know about pedophilia at that time? Or that child sexual abuse was something that even REMOTELY could happen. Victorians took nude photos of their children all the time with no sexual intent. Back then, the worst cases of sexual inmorality a man could fall into were adultery or visiting prostitutes. Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children is something so contra natura it genuinely would've been laughed off and dismissed (and maybe this is the reason all the speculation around Carroll's pedophilia emerged a century or so after his death.)It's actually plausible that he was a pedophile and poor Alice just repressed the trauma like women often did when abused at an early age. To counterbalance, today we have a social neurosis wherein adults who even get near teenagers are accused of being criminals to a ridiculous extent
>>24887519>mean, did they even know about pedophilia at that time? Or that child sexual abuse was something that even REMOTELY could happenI was more or so thinking about the more puritan nature of people at the time. It was a perfectly reasonable thing to just suddenly divorce someone you recently married because she had a broken hymen and leave her without many options except prostitution. It was way easier to fuck over an entire woman's life by stealing away her virginity just for when she's truly old enough to figure out what you did to her it's too late. Back than a woman's sexuality meant something and it could have far more disastrous effects beyond just the trauma and mental damage done by it. Yet little Alice seemed to perfectly engage herself within high society and be taken as a lady of class, if I recall correctly she even had a flick with some dude from the royal family. Hell we hardly hear from the other girls Caroll was around too but they all married and carried mostly normal lifes. Liddell had Lewis' manuscript saved for years on end like a family relic tooTruth is, we just can't know
