Which is not to say that Dodgson never staged a tableau, such as St. George and the Dragon, Little Red Riding Hood, or the famed images of Xie Kitchin as China Man and Penelope Bootheby and Alice Liddell as Beggar Girl. But this form of dress-up was not at all uncommon for the time (as it is still common today). And even when in costume, Dodgson’s children are not dressed up so as to be believable, as in Julia Margaret Cameron’s elaborate scenarios. Their props are far more whimsical, obvious and cheap, mere suggestions of a theme, perhaps no more than amusements to help pass the time in the studio. Dodgson does not insult our intelligence by assuming he needs to spell it out for us. As Nickel notes, this is something the Victorian viewer in particular would have appreciated, for it requires a level of sophistication beyond what is called for when viewing the work of his contemporaries. Dodgson gives us a nudge and a wink, seeming to say, “I don’t need to spell it out for you; I know you get it.”
But it is especially when there are no props at all that one can see the unmarked freshness of children, not yet weary of the world. They seem strong, at times even dangerous. These children are clearly comfortable with themselves, and neither they nor the photographer seem to care whether or not the viewer is comfortable, whether or not they are presented in a palatable way. They seem not to need us, perfectly capable in their element, threatening our very need to be protective and parenting.
In Dodgson’s lens they are liberated from the social “shoulds” and “oughts,” free of the constraining Victorian mores and rules of conduct. They appear to be joining their grown-up friend in thumbing their noses at what is right and proper. Let them not grow up so fast, Dodgson seems to be saying. What a joy it must have been for both child and photographer to have those afternoons in the studio, when the rigid code of Victorian conduct did not apply and children were free to be children.
Moreover, it is not merely Dodgson creating the image and we would do well to remember the role of the sitter in any photography. To deny that the sitter has anything to do with the resulting photograph is simply absurd, for the camera captures what is seen, what the sitter puts forth. Though he did sometimes pose his subjects, most seem to have an awareness and attitude all their own, and this is seen most clearly in the gaze of the sitter. What this gaze says is that children do feel pleasure, that they are aware of it, and this is frightening to us. Their “childishness” is apparent in their pose, as they make no move to cover themselves.
Article comments
1 - kristie
i couldn't agree more. you have hit the nail on the head. that certain fear of sexuality will always be present in society,we are hypnotized by sex, we are run by it. and none can accept it.we deny pleasure only to have it consume us. what you said about the "wild" "untamed" nature of children... couldn't have said it better myself. their innocence is their wisdom,they are curious, receptive, and above all else, pure, for this reason. they drink the world. there is no fear or shame. like the ancients in india once said, "do not ask a wise man about life, or love, or even god, but ask the little children."
2 - DrPat
Rodney Welch and Douglas Anthony Cooper ought to come here for their literary dicussion...
3 - sade
hi Kristie & Dr. Pat ~ thanks for agreeing, i thought about this piece a lot before writing it and what it means in our society that we have sexualized children or rather, need to neuter them to accept them as they are without using their inherent and normal sexuality (again, normal), to use this as some excuse to molest or otherwise abuse children. PUtting them in fairywings and halos as the Victorians did is some way to ward off their own feelings of guilt and shame, but these things ought not be imposed on the child him or herself.
There is a great deal of controversey around this and Carroll and i've written about it a lot, obviously. Where i stand on the whole "he was a pedophile" issue is pretty clear: i sincerely doubt it and see no clear proof that he was. In fact, it seems more likely that if anything, he had an affair with the mother, though again, the evidence here is very light. It's not at all uncommon for some epileptics (as he was) to live a life of complete celibacy and he WAS also a Deacon in the C of E (Anglican).
Thanks all for reading,
Sade
4 - Sara
Everyone seems all too ready to excuse the behavior of a man who obviously was a pedophile. This is evidenced by the "child friends" he obssessed over his entire life, his lack of marriage and relationships with older females, his reliance on young girls as emotional counterparts, and his distaste for young boys (who he never chose to represent in his "realistic art").
The discomfort of many parents, including the Liddells, that led to their breaking contact with him, leads one to believe that they saw something wrong in his behavior. Even people who excuse his behavior by saying "at least he never acted on it" have no idea if this is actually true, and even if he didn't, he obviously had a perverted sexual obssession with young girls.
No one knows what is going on behind the scenes in any of Lewis Caroll's pornographic photographs, and to say a child is a willing participant in something they cannot fully understand assumes QUITE a bit.
I wonder how many of you would send your child to pose nude for a single, older man who was obssessed with young girls?
5 - sadi ranson-polizzotti
hi Sara;
listen, everyone has different theories about Carroll, and i know because i'm working on a book about Carroll now so i've read them all, and so some agree and some disagree. the truth is this; i can tell objectively that no child ever posed for Carroll had explicit written permission from the parents *this is documented in his collected letters.
The Liddell family split is one of the most debated issues in Carroll scholarship but is generally NOT attributed to any 'pornographic' relation between Carroll (Dodgson) and Alice, but more that he may have hinted at marriage, since marriage was on the minds of every one at the time because of the royal wedding at the time - and also, because of Alice's sister Lorina, aged 14, who was getting married. As you know, Victorian society had many May-September marriages and this was the norm, not the exception. Alice was 11 at the time.
Carroll would never have made the major social blunder of going to the Liddell's house (for Henry Liddell was the Dean of Christ Church) and and asking for Alice's hand. It seems more likely that Alice may have playfully said something along the lines of "when i grow up i'm going to marry mr. dodgson" and he may well have said playfully, 'well, why not!" of course, again, that's speculation... This may have spooked Mrs. Liddell for a number of reasons because although she liked Carroll very much, he was also quite eccentric (not his photographs, which she much admired) but his odd habits etc. and his general manner, and she may have found this a bit odd and not what she wanted for Alice. Also, she had another suitor in mind for Alice already - Reginald Hargreaves, who, in fact, Alice DID marry...
More, there is some new evidence that it may also have been that Mrs. Liddell who had an affair or fling with Dodgson - some recent letters have surfaced at Christ Church that seenm to hint at this, but here again, one can't be sure. It certainly looks possible and would be cause for the rift.
Obviously, Dodgson felt no need to hide the reason for the split and recorded it faithfully in his diary... it was only AFTER his death that his niece, Minella, razored out those four missing July pages right after the split. This tells me that Dodgson felt he had nothing to reproach himself for; if he WAS a pedophile as you seem to be suggesting, it seems highly unlikely that he would keep a written diary about it... and this is not the generally accepted theory among Carroll scholars today, myself includeed.
More, in his works after the Liddell split, which means, anythign he wrote after Alice in Wonderland, all make some reference to the Liddell family or are some pun on the Liddells in some way, especially in The Hunting of the Snark - so he wove in the answers to the split in a sort of code in his books.
At present, i am working on a book about Carroll, so i find your take interesting, and your vigor interesting as well - it is such a visceral and strong reaction to something that one cannot at all be sure of and frankly, there is really no evidence that he was at ALL a child pornographer or inappropriate in any way. Most if not all of his 'child-models' stayed friends iwth him all the way through their twenties into adulthood until he reached his early death in the 1890s at quite a young age.
The thing with Carroll is this; you have to remember that he was taking photographs along with and at the same time as Rejlander and Julia Margeret Cameron, both of whom made their subjects into these sort of "fairy" children. Rejlander going as far to dress them up with wings and halos and in this way, totally neutering them of any normal sensuality (and please, children are sensual - not sexual, but sensual whic is different... ) Camerson, like Rossetti also (*Dodgson was friends with all of these people by the way) she went out of her way to blur the images and turn her photos into madonnas and saints. Dodgson simply photographed children as they were for the most part, and that's okay. And again, he only did so with permission.
That famous photo, Alice as Beggar Girl (i'm sure you know it, if not, you can easily do an image search on Google, but likely you know it), listen, he may have dressed her or had the idea, but he could not get her to stand the way she did or the look in her eye. Which is to say that children themselves have an innate quality that is coy and as adults, it is our job naturally to know that this is a normal phase of growing up and as a parent myself, i saw my own kids go thorugh this. It's normal. As a normal adult, we do not play into this... we don't because children don't know or filter through any social context of their behavior, they just do and it is totally innocent. ONly a pervert would take advantage of that and then blame the victim.
I'm sorry, but i have to disagree with you here, as would most Carroll scholars, and say that i feel there is absolutely no evidence that Dodgson was a pedophile. Nabokov said what he said, but look who's talking and i quoted Nabokov for a reason because i find it both ironic and amusing -- also, it was Nabokov who translated Alice into Russian, btw. And Nabokov is a huge fan of Carroll. Artuad translated Alice into French.
Today, Alice in Wonderland still sells more copies than any other book with the only exception being the Bible. In terms of being the most quoted book, it is rivaled only by Shakespeare and is THE most translated book in teh world, translted, at last count (october, 2006) into over 121 languages, including minor dialects.
Would i let my own children sit for Dodgson? That was your question. I can say unequivocally Yes. I am a great admirer of his work and have many of his prints as well as a first edition of one of the first pressings (one of 500 copies ) of the original Alice in Wonderland from 1864, signed. If i felt for a second he was a pedophile, he would be repulsed and repelled and could never write this book.
He was a very very complex man, no doubt, and did many things in his time: a rector, a mathematician (whose theories we still use today in so many ways) a poet, a photographer, a logician, a writer, a teacher, and so much more. And given that, with all of this, he also suffered from epilepsy is simnply amazing to me... also, Dodgson was incredibly shy and bashful and yet he was incredibly determined, obviously, to go after what he wanted in life and before the age of fifty, he was already famous in his own life-time. That is quite a feat.
I'm not sure if i have answered your question here, but to say he was a pedophile is just too easy an answer and it's only with a backward glance that anyone can say this and it takes everything out of context and you can't do that. OR you can, but you will never come up with the right answer... You need the right variables if you are to get the right equation and thus, the right answer.
I'm happy to continue this dialogue, if you want.
But yes, i would let my children sit for Dodgson any day, and yes, i would have sat for him myself. And if you knew me, that is saying quite a lot.
Be well,
S. H. R. P.