Customer Reviews

In the Shadow of the Dreamchild: A New Understanding of Lewis Carroll

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Though comparatively slight, and not strictly speaking a biography (more a thesis), it can justifiably be claimed that Ms Leach's book should take its place as one of the two most important published accounts of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson yet produced.

Adopting a satisfyingly rigorous approach to its subject matter, which is predominently (though not exclusively) an examination of Lewis Carroll's sexuality, 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild' systematically debunks the nastiest of all Carroll myths - that Carroll was sexually attracted to pre-pubescent girls.

In the process, the author also successfully challenges a number of other Carroll myths and provides an irresistable case for a complete biographical revision of one of Victorian England's most fascinating figures. In effect Ms Leach does for Lewis Carroll what Horace Walpole achieved for Richard III (Walpole, as most professional historians, though few others, know, showed that Richard III almost certainly was not responsible for one of history's most heinous crimes, the murder of 'the princes in the Tower'). One hopes that having achieved this, Ms Leach is not to be ignored (as was Walpole) by posterity. Fortunately Ms leach has access to a rather more efficient media than did Walpole.

Using her access to the surviving Lewis Carroll Journals, published and unpublished letters, much original research and, above all, a keen understanding of Victorian mores and the complex nature of Victorian theological, political and social issues, Leach provides the reader with an insight into a supremely healthy (in the broad sense of this term) and intelligent person who, though complex, is in no way the paradoxical figure previously portrayed. She also provides us with a person who one can believe actually wrote the Alice Books, Hunting of the Snark and myriad other works without having to reduce those works to dark sexual metaphors. In so doing she has opened the Carroll Canon to serious mainstream literary examination and, hopefully, acceptance.

One does not have to wholeheartedly accept Ms Leach's own conclusions, to recognise the importance of this work - though the reader is advised to treat everything Ms Leach writes with respect.

The only note of caution regarding this work relates to the modesty of its primary aim. This was to show, by the simple device of checking freely available data, that by far the majority of Carroll's so-called 'child-friends' were actually mature women. It may have been helpful if Ms leach had been rather less modest in her ambition and placed more emphasis in demonstrating that, far from being socially inept and reclusive in regard to male companionship, Carroll was little different in this respect to others of his social class, circumstances and historical period. That he numbered among his friends many of the most notable names of the day has not been sufficiently noted - though Morton Cohen in his oddly discrepant biography does goes some way to correct this particular Carrolian myth.

This book could well be seen, not as has been prematurely (and wrongly) claimed of Cohen's work, as the 'definitive Carroll' but the beginning of true Carroll scholarship.

Dr John Tufail

I went through some trouble to get a copy of this via Amazon-it's not readily available-and I am a bit disappointed. As others here have been detailed in their various reports, I'll simply say that while I appreciate Ms. Leach's search for "truth" as regards Carroll's life, and her unwillingness to simply take as gospel the often-expresed line that he was a (probably unconsummated) pedophile, I do think she throws the baby out with the bathwater in this too short but nevertheless repetitive book.
First, I'll say that I strongly agree with Leach that poor Lewis Carroll(real name Charles Dodgson)has been grossly misunderstood and is STILL, in this supposedly enlightened age, misrepresented as a victorian Humbert Humbert("Lolita"), BUT she tries way, way too hard to get over the idea that, really, Carroll cared little or nothing for Alice Liddell, his "muse" and the girl for whom his greatest work was written! This is done by way of mentioning the three or four "unflattering" remarks Carroll made in letters or his diary, and making whopping omissions of the fact that he not only photographed this little girl much more extensively at the time than any other child, in many more imaginative ways(she was clearly and in his own words his favorite model, at least) but often and warmly DID express just how "special" she was as a person, in his opinion. He did this so often that Leach has to do backflips to ignore loads of material Carroll himself wrote, as it would blow her contention that he was no more interested in Alice than in any other kid. True-when Alice grew a bit older-older than, say, 12-she apprently became a bit of a sulky adolescent(hardly unusual then or now), and obviously didn't prefer Carroll's company as she had from the ages of 4 to 10. I am most bugged that Leach pointedly chooses NOT to quote from one of the last letters the old Carroll wrote to the then much older matron Alice: "I have had scores of child-friends since your time, but they have been quite a different thing". While I *don't* believe he sexually loved little Alice, it's obvious that he *loved* the charming, spiritually pure, endearing, pretty and photogenic little toddler Alice very much indeed. Perhaps as a creative artist(which he very much was-with his camera-as good as any painter of the day)it was Alice's unusual looks which entranced him more than anything else. But to suggest that she had NO pride of place in Carroll's life is just not supported by the tiny amount of highly ambiguous "evidence" Leach found among the Carroll family papers.
I'd agree with another poster that unfortunately the author makes a big deal out of this "important discovery"-dragging out it's "reveal" until far too late in the book, and padding the rest of it quite a bit. It doesn't work as exactly scholarship OR as an afficionado's book-length treatise/biography. The only really valuable thing about it is her very sensible description of the context of victorian "child-worship"-in other words, why Carroll was NOT a weirdo for doing nude photographs of children-little girls, and why it's apparently impossible for our modern pundits to understand this. Those chapters are by far the best thing about the book.

I was given this book as a gift by a friend who knew that I was a large fan of Carroll. I read it with some trepidation, as I generally dislike Carroll scholarship. I am interested in his writing, and not his supposed or real relationships with little girls.

I was both reassured and interested when I discovered that Leach had set out precisely to debunk the notion of Carroll as either an eunuch or a pedophile. Her thesis is that the image of Carroll as obsessed with little girls was a Victorian attempt to whitewash his image gone sadly wrong with the rise of Freudian psychology. She draws a sexually mature Carroll, primarily involved with adult women. Most specifically, she theorizes a relationship between Carroll and Lorina Liddell, the mother of Alice.

While the book raises reasonable doubts about the theory of Alice Liddell as the Dreamchild, her evidence is as circumstantial as the opinions that she is attempting to debunk. It is and remains an interesting thesis, but she offers no real proof. Perhaps the main flaw of the book is that it is both too long and too short. It is too long to make just the point debunking the "Carroll as pedophile" myth; she presents her evidence quickly, and then repeats it for the rest of the book. It is too short to be a full or real biography of Carroll; she settles for criticizing the more mainstream biographers. I think that the readers would rather have seen either more or less material.

Potential buyers should be aware that if you are not already familiar with the Dodgson/Carroll biographical material then this book will not be clear or meaningful. Recommended for Alice/Carroll fans and scholars.

This gives a new insight into the myth that has grown up around Lewis Carroll. I don't agree with Leach's hypothesis (that he was in love with Alice's mother) but her book is well researched and shows that there is much more to Carroll than meets the eye. It is refreshing to have someone treat him like a flesh and blood human being, albeit an unusual and quirky one. You quite wish you had known him

There is a monotony among many contemporary biographies of Lewis Carroll. That he was child centered because he had inadequate social skills to have social relationships with adult women.

Ms. Leach reviewed the literature available to others for many years, and has found that the real issue with Lewis Carroll and adult women was that he had all together too much social relationships with adult females - especially for the Victorian times and for his role at Christ Church, Oxford. He certainly had too much social success with women for his conservative immediate family - who effectively controlled the original biographies written.

Leach has the central hypothesis that the Dodgson family wanted to erase this potential social scandal, and created the squeaky clean - but socially handicapped - false picture presented today. This is the start of the "Cardboard Lewis Carroll" - the man who could only love little girls, because if you knew the truth...... wow!

Politicians and business leaders today work at keeping their human sides for personal pleasures falsely fairly clean, as well. Remember the pecadillos of a former president, and the pecadillos of many of his accusers which caused more than one to leave public service. So, coverup of real and whispered relationships with adult females is eternal.

...M N Cohen thus clearly knew of the deep social associations with adult females, because from his books of letters, one can easily determine that there were many deep social relationships with women of all ages.

Yet, Cohen perpetuated the myth that Lewis Carroll was a near social cripple who couldn't maintain social relationships with adult women.

Why? It has been said that it is nearly impossible to get a Lewis Carroll book published unless it DOES say that he was creepy about girls and women. Like the Supermarket Tabloids, sensationalism for profit is the modern way with words and reputations of famous folks.

The first steps towards rediscovering a real human being behind the pen name of Lewis Carroll (Charles L Dodgson) is to read the work of Leach.

If you want the "Cardboard Carroll", there are many other books to select.

Ms. Leach's new bio of Carroll is one of many attempts to, on the flimsiest of evidence, stray far from accepted historical record, and just muddy the picture even more. In the last half century, Carroll has been accused of being a dope-fiend, a pedophile, a homosexual, a repressed, Jewish Talmudic cleric. Of course, this is mute point since we all know that the Alice books were really written by either Queen Victoria, or Mark Twain!!

Now Ms. Leech throws in her 2 cents to the mix. She disregards the almost conclusive evidence and facts that DO exist indicating that Carroll thought children to be of primary importance in his life, and beyond the scores of child friends, Alice (liddell) "was quite a different thing" ...his dreamchild. Yes, he did have platonic relationships with "grown" women, but besides the need to befriend the mothers of his child friends, and the few child friends who he kept through maturity, only Ellen Terry stands out as close woman friend, not attached to a child he was persuing (though she did have contacts to the many child actors he befriended). Though he kept company with a number of "grown women" during his life, nowhere is there any indication of a strong romantic attachment.

However, some of his letters to his "child" friends, read like love letters, remit with all the emotions of a man "in love". Please read the Morton Cohen bio for true insight into this complex man. One has only to read the dedications to the Alices or his other fictional writings to see where his true feelings lay. Of course we have no direct evidence to be absolutely sure of anything, yet the sheer weight of inference one can gather by reading all the material that IS available, the information that Carroll himself provided, is still a rather strong foundation of the accepted historical record.

Carroll wrote about a incident where he met with his younger brother to advise him about his brother's romantic involvement with a 14 year old Alice Donkin (they did eventually marry when she turned 18) He advised his brother not to repeat the pitfalls of his own attachment to "AL" (Alice Liddell) an almost direct admission of his feelings towards his "dreamchild".

In another writing, Carroll mentions a meeting with Mrs. Liddell after Alice had been married for some time. While the pretext of the meeting was to give Mrs. Liddel some photographs of Edith Liddell (who had died tragically a few years before) he begain reminiscing about his past "foolishness" (while discussing Alice and her marrage) and now that Alice was safely out of Carroll's life, Mrs. Liddell indirectly forgave him (for his attempt we presume of asking Alice's hand in a possible future marrage when Alice was 11)

If Mrs. Liddell and Carroll had indeed had an affair, or if she even entertained the idea that Carroll was attracted not to Alice, but to her, then the words exchanged would have made no sense, yet conversation DID take place in fact. I could go on and on sighting examples taken from the "known" historical record, but I think I have made my point. So, let Lewis Carroll have the last word..."Still she haunts me phantomwise, "Mrs.Liddell" under skys??????????????? I think not....

This important and detailed study of the new data about Charles Dodson and his alter ego Lewis Carroll shows that much that has been assumed about the man and his private life is as much a fantasy as the Alice's books. Relevant and adequate evidence from the letters, diary, and contemporary writings, now shows that Lewis Carroll was pretty much a normal, healthy adult person with a normal health social and private life. True, Dodson did have an affection for little girls, especially a little girl named Alice Pleasance Liddell (rhymes with little), but he also liked boys and men and photographed many of them. And in his later years he loved women, many, many adult women, perhaps, as Leach pointed out, too many. Although Karoline Leach, well-loved and well known British actress, appears to contradict the view of Carroll expressed by Cohen in Cohen's book which has now become the (gold) standard biography of Carroll, both are probably correct. At Oxford and in his early years, Carroll concerned himself more with children and later in London and at the beach he concerned himself with adult women. At both times in his life, Mrs. Grundy objected. Yet, Carroll was clear in his own conscience and nowhere is there the slightest piece of evidence that he did anything wrong by modern cultural standards. Oh yes, one of the main things I enjoyed about Leach's book, is the clear presentation of what it was like at Oxford during the time that Carroll was a student there. The boys with noble titles wore gold tassels and dined at the high table. Commoners worn black tassels and dined in the commons. No one could matriculate at Oxford unless they signed off on the 39 principles of the Church of England and therefore only those who were adherent to the state religion had a go at an Oxford degree. Also interesting is the amount of wealth controlled by the clergy and the penchant they had for distributing two-thirds of the income from the vast estates held by the church to (who else?) themselves. The nepotism within the church is too appalling to discuss. For good reasons, America's founders decided on strict separation of church and state.

This book fundamentally changes the way we will all think about Carroll in the future. It's flawed - the biggest failure being its attempt to suggest an alternate explanation for events when leaving the questions unanswered would have been better. But even so it is powerful, cogent and flawlessly argued. It examines Carroll's entire biographical history and shows how, the biographers themselves have built on each other's mistakes and fantasies to create an almost entirely bogus image. The story is hugely entertaining and a terrible indictment of biogaphers everywhere!

Read it. If you love Carroll, Alice, history or biography, read it and prepare to be amused, amazed and informed

It's significant perhaps that although a recent reviewer (Pony Express) criticises Leach for failing to produce the supposed mass of evidence in favor of Carroll being obsessed with Alice Liddell - he doesn't produce any of it either!


In fact the only evidence he does quote is to be found also in Leach's book which sort of knocks a hole in his central claim.

The point of Leach's book is exactly this - that the current image of Carroll's relationship with Alice Liddell has been built on fragmentary or non-existent data; that it is more mythic than real. And it is her exploration of the evidence (or lack of it) behind the image that makes her book invaluable.

If after reading this book there seems to be very little real evidence on which to base the current idea of ALice Liddell as the love of Carroll's life then this is because there *is* very little evidence and not because Leach has been avoiding or suppressing it.

If anyone doubts this they should go back to the main sources and see for themselves. They may well be surprised

Assuming the format of a biography, this novel depicts an assumed conventional view of its hero, Lewis Carroll, as a shy recluse in love with female children, one especially (a character named Alice Liddell). The literary detective narrator, however, finds a torn scrap of paper containing a cryptic reference to AL's sister or, aha! mother?). She concludes Carroll must be an adulterer, possibly a serial adulterer! The hypocrisy of the hero is concealed during his life time, and after his death, his family cooks the books (his diary--they chop out pages) to maintain his saintly image. If THAT wasn't bad enough, all of the biographers of the hero conspire to sustain his sanctity. And so, it turns out that the real hero of this novel is the narrator, a modern Miss Marple, who uncovers and proclaims that this beloved character who wrote stories for children and who has been for over a century viewed as a religious man who loved children, one especially,--is an adulterer who skulked his way through Victorian England and went on to win the hearts and minds of foolish biographers and academics who lacked the Marplean acumen of the narrator.