Karoline Leach's book: new edition

[mikeindex]

My word, it's been quiet here lately.

News update, for anyone here who doesn't frequent the Yahoo list:

The publication date for the paperback edition of 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild' has now been fixed for 30 October. The new edition has been considerably revised, particularly in the much extended first section, so those who already have the hardback edition might still find this one worth a look.

Jenny's blog, which has had so much interesting stuff on it lately, recently featured a fair and very welcome comentary which aroused the usual polarised responses. I hope I'm not out of order in
reproducing it:

Probably the most controversial book ever issued about Carroll is Karoline Leach's "In The Shadow of the Dreamchild," which came out in 1999. Leach's book was the first serious study to question the commonly held views that that Carroll was either a sexless saint or a paedophile misfit who was fixated on little girls. Instead, she postulated the idea that Carroll had an adult personal life, which included an affair with Alice's mother, Mrs. Liddell.

Her book caused outrage amongst many scholars. There was no way anyone could lump Leach together with the many cranks who write peculiar books about Carroll. She was extraordinarily well informed, not only about Carroll but about his circle. She followed up little-known references, read many difficult and obscure texts, and made a persuasive case for most of what she said.

The stumbling block for many people - including me - was the idea of an affair with Mrs. L. Not the least of the reasons is that Mrs. Liddell would have needed a death wish to embark upon an affair with anyone, since an adultress generally lost her husband, her home, her children and her position in society.

Still, anyone who writes anything now about Carroll - including me - is indebted to Leach. Anyone interested in Carroll the man needs to read her book, even if they don't agree with it. After a long period out of print, it is coming out as a paperback next month. It is listed for pre-order in bookstores or on Amazon. Not before time.


Comments
Ric Howson wrote:
I am outraged that you can praise this book. Leach was seeking
publicity and twisted the facts disgracefully.

21 September 2008 20:18

NeVaR MiNd wrote:
Mrs Leach along with Hugues Lebailly pointed out that it was an error to take Dodgson's works with a 20th-21st aproach (mostly his
photographs). It was a misunderstanding of an aesthetic and
philosophical movement of the time. i can't agree more with that... i always sided that theory.

But concerning Mrs Leach theory of LC affair with Alice mother, is something not new. there were others that links him with Mrs
Prickett, others with Lorina, even news papers put a hand on this...with Violet Liddell!

IMO, aside she been an intelligent woman and give insightful ideas, we don't have to be in debt with her only... rather all biographers that even if one doesn't agree with them, should read their works to have a better understanding and be near the truth as possible.
she only put more wood to the fire...

22 September 2008 22:54

Arne wrote:
@ric, which facts are you referring to exactly? Using such strong words requires strong evidence. Or are you just being "ironic"?

23 September 2008 21:41

Ric Howson wrote:
She quoted a letter from someone called "Lohli" to Alice's mother which nobody else ever saw. I read that she can't say if the handwriting on that letter is Caroll's. There's no copy of it
anywhere nor any sign it ever existed. This is not "evidence" of
anything since it did not ever exist as far as I can ascertain. It
was quoted as if it did exist. Some irony there no doubt.

24 September 2008 14:56

`Hate…is a kind of respect. It shows you're having an effect.'
(Terry Pratchett, 'Witches Abroad').

[mikeindex]

Latest news: check out the new-look site for 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild' here:

shadowofthedreamchild.wild-reality.net

Make sure you have the sound turned up on your computer to get the flavour of the specially-written musical accompaniment by a very talented young composer.

The book also now has its own MySpace:

www.myspace.com/shadowofthedreamchild

Anyone here who is a member of the great MySpace community is cordially invited to take a look and become a Friend.

All the best

Mike

[quemaqua]

Thanks for this. I've long looked for the book and had no luck tracking it down. There was little supply online and, of course, it had long since disappeared from retail. I'll be glad to finally get the chance to read it, however infrequent my time for study is these days. I don't know that I agree with the woman's assumptions, but that just makes me all the more curious.

A shame there won't be a hardcover of this edition, though.

[mikeindex]

As I should have told you all weeks ago, publication has been deferred until the New Year and is now set for mid to late January. We don't have aprecise day as yet but I'm assured this range is definite and ther'll be no more delays. Sorry not to have mentioned it sooner.

Dec 5, 2008 10:39:38 GMT -5 quemaqua said:

Thanks for this. I've long looked for the book and had no luck tracking it down. There was little supply online and, of course, it had long since disappeared from retail. I'll be glad to finally get the chance to read it, however infrequent my time for study is these days. I don't know that I agree with the woman's assumptions, but that just makes me all the more curious.

A shame there won't be a hardcover of this edition, though.

I hope when you finally get your copy you enjoy reading it. Perhaps by the end you'll have come round to the view that what you assume to be the lady's assumptions are in fact deductions!

Mike

[justin]

Hello everyone.

How different is the new edition of Leach's book from the first one? I have that and was very impressed with it - is it worth buying both?

I love the weird and wonderful music on the website, kind of Leonard Cohen. I thought I could make out the words 'Carolus Ludovicus' - is it Latin? What does the rest of it say?

Justin

[mikeindex]

Dec 13, 2008 5:13:12 GMT -5 justin said:

Hello everyone.

How different is the new edition of Leach's book from the first one? I have that and was very impressed with it - is it worth buying both?

The main difference is that the first chapter has been greatly expanded to give a much more detailed account of the evolution of the Myth. There's also a fair bit of rewriting and reordering of the later chapters, particularly in the handling of the Mrs Liddell Affair (which even quite intelligent commentators have persisted in seeing as the 'main point' of the first edition).

I love the weird and wonderful music on the website, kind of Leonard Cohen. I thought I could make out the words 'Carolus Ludovicus' - is it Latin? What does the rest of it say?

Justin

I quite agree that the music is both weird and wonderful. (The composer is the author's son Tony). As for the text, yes it is Latin (well spotted), and in full reads:

'Sub umbra puellae somniatae tabescet Carolus Ludovicus. Emite hunc librum',

which being translated means:

'Charles Lutwidge languishes beneath the shadow of the dreamchild [lit.: girl of dreams]. Buy this book'.

All the best

Mike

[mikeindex]

All forum members in London, or near London, or who fancy popping up to London for the day, are cordially invited to the launch of the new edition of Karoline Leach's 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild' at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday 14 January at the Phoenix Arts Club, Phoenix Street (just off Charing Cross Road).

Hoping to see you all there

All the best

Mike

[justin]

Really? Everybody? You must have a very generous publisher.

I'll make it if I can

Justin

[tomato]

Lewis Carroll preferred little girls, and I can prove it.

Leach did only half of her homework. She read the literature on Lewis Carroll, but she did not read the literature on pedophilia.

As a result, she explains how Carroll's earlier biographers could have conspired to create an image of Carroll as a devotee of little girls. She does explain, however, how they could have created an image which so closely resembles such a devotee in real life.

Following is a list of traits which Lewis Carroll shared with the prototypical lover of children:

===identification with children===

On page 82, Leach takes a shot at William Empson, who wrote in 1935 in Aspects of Alice that Carroll identified with children. Yet in his latter years, Carroll often signed his name "Sylvie," Sylvie being the name of the child heroine in his last novel. So stated John Skinner, in an article in 1947 which was reprinted in 1964 in Psychoanalysis and Literature.

In 1930 in the International Journal of Psycho-analysis, and again in 1945 in his book, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis, Otto Fenichel wrote that girl-lovers tend to identify with girls.

You may say, "Empson wrote his article in 1935 and Fenichel wrote his article in 1930. Maybe Empson read Fenichel's article and slapped that trait onto Lewis Carroll."

That is possible, but here are some cases in which Carroll's biographers jumped the gun on the psychoanalytic writers:

===idealization of childhood===

Writers have commented on Lewis Carroll's tendency to idealize children. In Image of Childhood, published in 1957, Peter Coveney quoted Carroll as writing about "the eager enjoyment of Life that comes only in the happy hours of childhood, when all is new and fair, and when Sin and Sorrow are but names--empty words signifying nothing!" In Death of Narcissus, published in 1976, Morris Fraser, discussing the same topic, quotes the same passage.

It was not until 1990 that Segal & Stermac, writing in Handbook of Sexual Assault, commented on the tendency of pedophiles to idealize childhood.

===role reversal===
Paul Schilder, writing in 1938 in Aspects of Alice, spoke of role reversal in Carroll's relationship with girls. Writing in English Language Notes in 1981, Donald Rackin discussed Alice's protective role to a bumbling knight who keeps falling off his horse.

In 1949, Sandor Ferenczi, wrote about role reversal in pedophile relationships in the International Journal of Psycho-analysis.

Finally, here are a few observations of my own:

===attraction to an androgynous image===

Lewis Carroll dedicated "The Hunting of the Snark" to a girl who was "Girt with a boyish garb for boyish task."

In 1962, J. H. Fitch wrote that girl-lovers tend to seek masculine traits in girls.

===attitude toward animals===

I. B. Weiner, writing in the 1962 issue of Psychological Quarterly, reported a finding that pedophiles tend to be attracted to small and docile animals whereas male homosexuals tend toward the reverse.

In Sylvie and Bruno, there is a chapter in which the narrator takes a walk through the woods with Sylvie, talking about hunters. In this conversation, Weiner's dichotomy becomes obvious.

===feeling of discomfort around other men===

Leach repeatedly tells us that Carroll associated with other adults, especially women. Yet if she studied the literature on pedophilia, she would know how strongly she was confirming that Carroll was a pedophile. In 1967, Kurt Freund wrote in Behavioral Research and Therapy that men attracted to children tend to feel uncomfortable around other adult males.

[material deleted due to inappropriate content]

[Admin]

Sept 4, 2009 7:35:16 GMT -5 tomato said:

What could be Leach's motive for writing this book? She is probably seeking revenge for some unpleasant experience in her own past. On page 103, she dismisses as "sophistic nonsense" that a a man could feel attracted to children but conscientiously abstain from hurting them.
Since the offender is no longer available, she is venting her wrath on Carroll's biographers. (Still, this is unfair. How would she feel if a paraphile said that all normophiles were rapists and seductresses?)

I am sorry if Karoline Leach was abused as a child, but I wish she would find some other outlet besides rewriting history.

Other members of the forum may well wish to comment on the preceding paragraphs, but I would request them to refrain until the conclusion is dealt with.

Conjecture of any kind as to other writers' motives has no place in a civilised forum. Conjecture of this sickening and very possibly actionable nature is especially inappropriate. If the writer has any interest in further debating these topics I must insist that s/he withdraw the two paragraphs quoted above. Otherwise the post will be deleted for inappropriate content and the writer banned from membership.

[justin]

No reply from Mr Tomato then. I guess it’s not surprising. If I'd ever produced such a piece of semi-researched, cliché-driven claptrap I wouldn't be anxious to defend it. And obviously the kind of person who can come up with that kind of cheap sick innuendo in the first place isn't going to have the decency to apologise for it.

[mrlollipop]

In all honesty, I was reading Mr Tomato's comments with an amused smile on my face, in the firm belief that it was a very funny parody of the "Carroll was a paedophile" psycho-analysis we have all seen before.

I found the "Attitude towards animals" section splendidly amusing, the "I can prove it comment" at the top followed by a complete disregard of the logical rules for attaining a proof, and the sublime contradiction at the end: Ms Leach's views are invalidated because of some imagined experience, of course, begging the obvious question of what experience Mr. Tomato must have suffered to see grotesque sexual motivations in the most innocent of actions.

Real evidence of paedophilia would be a hint of something sinister in the many reminiscences by Carroll's "child friends" or that these children actively avoided Carroll or broke of the friendship as soon as they had chance. To my knowledge, there is no such evidence.

I invite you to read this snippet of psycho-analytical wisdom on children's stories – www.geocities.com/psychohistory2001/littleredridinghood.html - which should be sufficient and complete reason enough to dismiss this sort of nonsense. (I was particularly impressed by its referencing of works by people who share the same theories as if this lends it some level of credibility or academic rigour).

Surely Mr Tomato's comment was an amusing parody of such views.
No-one will convince me it was meant to be taken seriously.

[Admin]

My apologies for leaving this thread hanging while I have ben preoccupied with more personal matters.

As 'Tomato' has not reappeared to edit, attempt to justify or otherwise comment on his first posting I have deleted the offending section and placed him on moderation.

I decided on reflection that it was not the best course to delete the whole posting as this deprives other members of the opportunity of contributing their own critiques, and I would not wish to lay myself open to the charge - so often voiced by a tiny but vocal minority in my days in charge of the Yahoo list - of censoring all opinions which do not coincide with my own.

Mr Lollipop, I love your idea that the whole posting is a parody and I really hope it's true. Personally I can certainly see it as a possibility, but I'm afraid I've spent too long in Carroll studies to suppose that ANY viewpoint is too absurd for the writer, if no-one else, to take it seriously.

Anyway, the thread is now re-opened, if somewhat belatedly.

[mrlollipop]

Sadly, I have no doubt that you are correct (that Mr Tomato was not writing an amusing parody). I was being unforgivably sarcastic in my response, for which I apologise to all.

[Admin]

Oops. My apologies for being so dense as to miss the satirical intent.