Lewis Carroll's Shifting Reputation
Why has popular opinion of the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland undergone such a dramatic reversal?
- By Jenny Woolf
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2010, Subscribe
The Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a teacher of mathematics at Oxford and a deacon of the Anglican Church. Some colleagues knew him as a somewhat reclusive stammerer, but he was generally seen as a devout scholar; one dean said he was “pure in heart.” To readers all over the world, he became renowned as Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
Alice was popular almost from the moment it was published, in 1865, and it has remained in print ever since, influencing such disparate artists as Walt Disney and Salvador Dali. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, just released in movie theaters nationwide, is only the latest of at least 20 films and TV shows to be made from the book. But if Alice has endured unscathed, its author has taken a pummeling.
Since the 1930s, biographers and scholars have questioned the nature of Dodgson’s relationship with the 10-year-old girl to whom he first told the story, and since the 1960s his work has been associated with the psychedelic wing of the countercultural movement. When some of Dodgson’s photographs—he was an accomplished portraitist—were exhibited in 1999, a New York Times reviewer quoted Vladimir Nabokov (who had translated Alice into Russian) as saying there was “a pathetic affinity” between the photographer and the pedophilic narrator of Nabokov’s novel Lolita. Tim Burton recently described Dodgson’s stories as “drugs for children” and Wonderland as a place where “everything is slightly off, even the good people.”
The decades of interpretation and reinterpretation have created a widening chasm between how modern readers perceive the author and how they receive his work. “Lewis Carroll is treated like a man you wouldn’t want your kids to meet,” says Will Brooker, author of Alice’s Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture, “yet his stories are still presented as classics of pure, innocent literature.” As Burton’s movie beckons us down the rabbit hole once again, it might be wise to ask: How did we arrive at this curious state of affairs?
Charles Dodgson was born in 1832 in Daresbury, a village in northwest England, the third child (and first son) of Charles Dodgson, an Anglican clergyman, and his wife, Frances. As the household grew to include 11 children, Charles did not lack for company. “He told his brothers and sisters stories, made up games and wrote magazines with them,” says Edward Wakeling, who spent 12 years annotating Dodgson’s diaries. Later in life, “he really enjoyed entertaining children, and they loved him in return.”
After enrolling at Oxford in 1850, at age 18, Dodgson became a “senior student”—the equivalent of a fellow—at the university’s College of Christ Church. According to college rules, senior students had to be ordained as priests and take a vow of celibacy; Dodgson evaded the ordination rule and lived at the college unmarried, until his death in 1898, less than two weeks before his 66th birthday.
Like many Victorian bachelors, he became a sort of uncle to his friends’ children, making up stories and games and taking them on short trips; the role ensured him a warm welcome in many homes. In 1855, dean Henry Liddell arrived at Christ Church with his wife, Lorina; their son, Harry, and daughters Lorina (or “Ina”), Alice and Edith. (The Liddells would have five more children.) Before long, Dodgson struck up a friendship with Harry, then 9.
“He taught Harry rowing and arithmetic, spent time with him and took him on outings,” says Wakeling. As Harry’s sisters grew older, he says, “Dodgson also took them under his wing, with their parents’ blessing.”
Dodgson particularly liked to pack a picnic lunch and take the Liddell children boating on the Thames, with adult friends or family to share in the rowing. On a July afternoon in 1862, he took the three Liddell sisters on a stretch of the river between Oxford and Godstow and told them the story that would become Alice. Alice Liddell, then 10, was delighted that the main character bore her name and asked Dodgson to write down the story.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (15)
Diary's are not for ripping pages of after authors' death, I am so frustrated because of past British culture's habit to make Egyptian statuses of deities, persons' own diaries etc. different than originals. We should have a right to now the truth about past cultures and persons without fear of what happens to their reputation. We should take history as it is, it would be much more interesting to hear the facts than read a lot of books based on inperfect sources. Times are different and people are different and todays crimes were not crimes in the past and vice versa and if they were, it makes more interesting facts.
Posted by Mirkka on February 14,2013 | 02:49 AM
I find it so upsetting that Mr.Carrolls reputation is so ruined these days. But of course you are right, Its not him who sexualizes children, its OUR society.
Posted by Miriam on May 5,2012 | 04:16 PM
From a 21st c. viewpoint, it is certain that Carroll's behavior falls under the category of pedophilia, in the sense that he was totally obsessed with, and attracted to prepubescent girls.
One cannot deny this, as Carroll himself had stated so many times in his personal writings. However, though his motivation for his attraction may have been purely innocent, or sexual, no one can know, but it IS an absolute fact, and no evidence to the contrary, that he never acted overtly sexual, or inappropriately with his "child-friends".
That being said, in recent years, revisionists, in order to project a kinder image of Carroll for the 21st c. (and possibly in order to feel less guilty about their intense interest in a man whom by many of the uninformed, is thought to have been a child molester) have tried to make him into everything from a chaste cleric, a homosexual, etc. etc. in order to "cleanse" his tarnished image!
The BIGGEST bugaboo of all is the assertion of many that Carroll had true romantic feelings for Alice Liddell. Detractors try to wave red herrings in the path of truth in order to have no such idea be taken seriously. I will not list the many "arguments" that have been put forth, but I will rebut with a few points/reasons more likely than not why Carroll was most certainly "in love" with Alice Liddell, whether actual thoughts of marriage was within the scope of his romantic affections or not.
The poems framing the Alice books. The destroyed letters, the talk with Mrs. Liddell, the Alice/Ina letters, Carroll's letter to grown Alice..His not attending Alice's wedding to name but a slight few..
I am limited here by word count. Read my review of Leach's book on Amazon.
Posted by Japonaliya on March 14,2012 | 01:07 PM
Enjoyed your article - researched Carroll for university paper years ago and I agree that we err when we view yesterday through today's eyes.
It's vital to study any topic within its historical context. For example, would someone generations in the future view the popular photographs of Anne Geddes as evidence that we wished to eat our children? Would assertions be made that our generation included closet cannibals? Let's hope that the trend for revisionist history ends before that claim is made!
Posted by Nina Johnson on January 27,2012 | 04:26 PM
"Another thought, "We see him through the prism of contemporary culture—one that sexualizes youth, especially female youth, even as it is repulsed by pedophilia." hits it right on the mark. Our society is obsessed with pedophilia, even to the point of using the term to describe situations which are clearly not pedophilia (sex with 16 year olds for example). By these standards, many people of the 1800s, including our own ancestors, would be judged to be pedophiles and locked away."
Been reading about LC for over 40 yrs now. So many modern people have the unhealthy obsessions, and the need to see children as victims no matter what. From everything we know about Carroll (diaries, testimony of those who actually knew him when they were kids) he was always respectful and fun. Someone whom they remembered as making them feel BETTER about themselves as children. The nude photos, he knew were controversial, but this was an era where naked baby & child pictures were not rare. Cherubs always had been decorative. Carroll looked at children as beautiful and unflawed, but there is no record or testimony of his having "interfered" with any. My own take is that he was an innocent, and in this age, that's a difficult concept. He was also sincerely religious, if a bit unusual. He was out in the open re his photographic preferences. He always consulted the mothers and the kids. If there was any hint of shyness or reluctance, he he "dropped the request immediately." We overlay the Victorians with current concerns, some of which are absurdly exaggerated due to omnipresent media. Carroll is not known to have ever "hurt" any children. He was compassionate and gentle--he once took a stray kitten to the vet to get a fish hook removed from its' mouth. One child said of him "he made wonderful a childhood that would otherwise have been very dreary."
That about sums him up. Those who have dreary issues still to deal with, seek counseling; but they are not Lewis Carroll's fault.
Posted by Charlotte on October 25,2011 | 10:55 AM
Dodgson was not treated with LSD. He died in 1898 and LSD was invented in 1938. As for all this non-sense about the changing attidutes, I can not beleive how many people have wasted countless hours on something that no one can change. Everyone whoever knew Dodgson is dead (I;m not 100% about that, but he died over 113 years ago, so I'm just going to assume) I can't find one thing that can be accomplished by figuring out what kind of man he was. I wouldn't not let my children read the books or watch the movies if we found out he was a molseter. He's dead, can't hurt children now.
Posted by Jessica on May 26,2011 | 11:58 AM
Jenny (and anyone else interested in understanding Dodgson's behavior and personality)-
There is obviously a lot of speculation and misconceptions about Charles Dodgson. However, to understand him, you really need to understand Geschwind's Syndrome, which is exhibited by people with temporal lobe epilepsy. In Dodgson's case, stickiness and hypergraphia were prominent.
Eve LaPlante's book, "Seized", about TLE, explains Dodgson's symptoms and also some of his medical history (he was being treated for epilepsy with one of the only epilepsy drugs available at that time, LSD).
His seemingly odd personality traits and behaviors make complete sense in this context.
Eric
Posted by Eric Brown on March 21,2011 | 01:47 PM
This is a really excellent article Jenny.
You have very succintly summarised the whole debate around Carroll's relationships with his female companions.
However! I do think you have done yourself a disservice in Not acknowledging that you have wholly relied on secondary sources. It is interesting that you quite happily quote secondary sources in the introductory section of the article as this enables you to rebuff these sources. Yet you do not (except in the case of the admirable Edward Wakeling) cite the sources you use to rebuff the likes of Cohen. For example, you cite the famous (or infamous) 'note' as though it was common knowledge. You fail to mention that it is a contentious isue and you fail to mention the controversy it has raised. You also fail to mention the discoverer of the note.
I do think you should be more scrupulous in acknowledging sources. Other than that I think you are doing a really good job.
best wishes
John tufail
Posted by John Tufail on August 5,2010 | 07:20 PM
Couple of interesting websites about the changing image, if you google 'carroll myth'. Leach apparently is 'the Queen of the Revisionists'
Posted by Bernardo on June 3,2010 | 06:57 AM
@john nicol
First he wasn't considered a pedophile, then he might have been (with no real evidence), then we found more material that appears to indicate he was not. What would you have us do?
It nothing else, it appears that history is going back to the original opinion of his time after his character was attacked by spurious claims. That was the revision.
Another thought, "We see him through the prism of contemporary culture—one that sexualizes youth, especially female youth, even as it is repulsed by pedophilia." hits it right on the mark. Our society is obsessed with pedophilia, even to the point of using the term to describe situations which are clearly not pedophilia (sex with 16 year olds for example). By these standards, many people of the 1800s, including our own ancestors, would be judged to be pedophiles and locked away.
Posted by Mike on April 26,2010 | 01:46 PM
Another chapter of "Revisionist History"
Posted by john Nicol on April 22,2010 | 01:54 AM
It is curious that there is such a debate about the intentions of someone in one era, by someone viewing them through the coloured lenses of another era, since the values of one era do not always match the ideas and philosophies--nor even differing cultures--of some time remote.
For example, it is easy to view the burning of witches as something insipid, ignorant or superstitious, from one's contemporary arm-chair, but within the context and locales of the times, the prevailing ideas were that the burning of the witch would release the connection to those dark forces that had inhabited that body; thus allowing that person to be cleansed.
I would think that, too often, contemporary viewers are quick to jump without looking, or having complete knowledge of a person, distant era or whatever, and find the sensational, as that is far more profitable than something scholarly, exact, and to the points within the context of that distant era, et al., as there is little sensation and even less profit, to do so. While not everyone may be motivated by profit or sensationalism, we live in a time when the negative has far more media value than the positive.
The author has done an admirable job pointing to the events and circumstances, as well as the knowledge extant and missing, on Lewis Carroll.
I would be curious to see how Victorians would have viewed us; and what value judgements they would have drawn through those Victorian lenses.
Posted by Andreas Berg on April 10,2010 | 05:23 AM
The reason why popular opinion of Dodgson changed is because in each period, critics view the past through the filter of their own time.
Posted by Dr. Yusuf Al-Kindi on April 7,2010 | 06:44 PM
This article kind of doesn't answer its own question,'why did popular opinion of the author of 'Alice' undergo such a dramatic reversal'? It doesn't even say there was a reversal, let alone what caused it. Was there? If there was, what caused it? Was it Leach's book? If there wasn't, why say so?
Posted by justin on March 30,2010 | 04:54 PM