Still She Haunts me

[bettyboop]

Does anyone else think this was nasty and voyeuristic? Sorta like Dreamchild without the class and restraint.

[frockmaker]

Never read it, don't think I will now!

[Jules]

I didn't entirely hate it, but I didn't think it was all that well written. Her development of Dodgson never really convinced me, and I didn't feel as if she actually understood much about either him as a person or his situation. Nor that she really cared to understand. But maybe that's a bit harsh. It felt a bit exploitative I guess is what I am saying.

[johntufail]

I haven't read this book - though I have had it's contents relayed to me on numerous occasions. The general impression I have gained is that it is both exploitative and derivative of 'Dreamchild'.

The point is that such publications are 'best sellers' purely because of the commercial possibilities of 'The Myth of Lewis Carroll'. Like it or not, over the last 20 years or so, paedeophiila has become a 'hot' media and political subject. There is probably much less paedeophila around now than there was 30 years ago - but it has become much more high prophile. The writer of this book (and Mr Potter I should add), has observed this fact and utilised it in order to earn a pefectly legitimate income. Let's face it, you can't have an easier subject! We have no fewer than three (actually more) biographies of Carroll that wholly legitimise, using the cloaks of 'psychological' and/or psycho-analysis' the idea that Carroll had 'suspect' relationship with vulnrable pre-pubescent females.

Most other biographies eithr support this theme or only half heardedly reject it. The greatest encouragement that this writer and her publisher had, I suspect, was the Cohen Biography - which was published AFTER all the contrary evidence of Carroll' srelationships with prebuscent girls became available.

I can state as a fact that this contrary evidence was made clearly and unequivicably available to publishers. The publishers chose to ignore this data.

So I don't really blame the writers of this drivel. They are only trying to earn a living. Lewis Carroll emerges almost as a successul lottery ticket in their minds - it could as equally apply to Shelley or Clough, or any other person whose lifestyle can be profitably exploited.

Don't forget that publishers are much more comfortable when they are commissioning and controlling the product.

JT

[Jules]

Apr 13, 2008 19:14:17 GMT -5 johntufail said:

I haven't read this book - though I have had it's contents relayed to me on numerous occasions. The general impression I have gained is that it is both exploitative and derivative of 'Dreamchild'.

Yes, well it's derivative of the whole pedophile image really. It's much more crass than Dreamchild - and there are no Henson puppets!

The point is that such publications are 'best sellers' purely because of the commercial possibilities of 'The Myth of Lewis Carroll'. Like it or not, over the last 20 years or so, paedeophiila has become a 'hot' media and political subject. There is probably much less paedeophila around now than there was 30 years ago - but it has become much more high prophile. The writer of this book (and Mr Potter I should add), has observed this fact and utilised it in order to earn a pefectly legitimate income. Let's face it, you can't have an easier subject! We have no fewer than three (actually more) biographies of Carroll that wholly legitimise, using the cloaks of 'psychological' and/or psycho-analysis' the idea that Carroll had 'suspect' relationship with vulnrable pre-pubescent females.

Yes, I think he is an easy target, though to be honest, much as I have admired a lot of what Leach's book has done, I don't feel totally convinced about his attitude to young girls. He was a bit iffy sometimes wasn't he? Ambiguous anyway?

Most other biographies either support this theme or only half heardedly reject it. The greatest encouragement that this writer and her publisher had, I suspect, was the Cohen Biography - which was published AFTER all the contrary evidence of Carroll' srelationships with prebuscent girls became available.

Cohen was published before Leach though, in all fairness. Leach cites him so he must have been in print first.

I can state as a fact that this contrary evidence was made clearly and unequivicably available to publishers. The publishers chose to ignore this data.

Ooh interesting! And deep! So, you think there's a prejudice towards the pedophile image? it's not just that it's been around a long time and become a sort of habit?