Forgive my bit of rambling here, but I feel the need to make a necessary point. About Alice and Carroll, both.

In the light of all-things-Alice trending again with strange remakes, reworkings, and wonderful new material being published about the actual historical figures, it seems important to set something straight.

First, the obvious. (Albeit, maybe controversial.)

Dodgson was not a paedophile. Alice Liddell was not innocent.

Oh, and if you’d like to argue that point? Have a look at one of the most famous photographs ever taken by Dodgson – ‘The Beggar Maid’ from 1858, featuring, of course, Liddell.

Go on.

Holy eyes, Batman! How would you feel if you were a repressed Victorian gentleman on the other end of that?

Why Miss Liddell was quite the strange charmer of men at such a young age, nobody truly knows, and she, of course, never dared to say. (After all, it’s horribly un-lady-like to discuss one’s personal business in mixed company — or, let’s face it, at all.) All we know is that, given the evidence that’s been left behind, certain testimonials and memoirs — she was. And, unluckily perhaps for Dodgson, with whom she shared a close and somewhat precarious friendship for most of her youth, he got the brunt of it.

Was it playful? Her mother, Lorina Liddell, the wife of the Dean certainly knew how to wrap men around her finger. The newer (last 5-10 years) biographical material argues that a lot of the personality for the famed Queen of Hearts came from none other than the domineering Lorina, given the power and control she had over all of Oxford. If you wanted to be somebody, then she had ultimate say over it. (Yikes.)

Being from a domineering mother myself, I understand how a little girl can watch her prime feminine role-model’s behaviour with men and draw all sorts of conclusions. And if they practically bow to, defer, and treat her as if she holds their life in her hands … well … it sends a hell of a message.

So, on that front, can we really be that surprised when a fumbly, well-meaning Oxford don shows a great deal of interest in photographing and spinning tales of incredible imagination and wit with an insatiable (and very precocious young mind) that, given her background, she’d pull immediately from how she thought women were supposed to engage men, despite her years?

Dear God.

It was a Victorian recipe for ultimate disaster — and I can only hope I capture (at least) the spirit of it in my novels. (I think I do.)

So, as a result, we have lots of pages ripped from diaries, the rest of those journals burned, misunderstandings, gossip, and eventual estrangement.

Sigh.

I’m not even sure the little Alice had any idea — at first. She simply thought this was male-female interpersonal dynamics worked, and it must have been great fun to evaluate the power she no doubt held over Dodgson. He was seeking a free-spirited and adventurous cerebral playmate. One who wouldn’t be hung-up on all of the tropes and trappings of the Victorian era; who chose against operating by it. Which is why her nice dresses were always splattered with mud, her hair constantly tangling, and her eyes positively full of mischief. (Again. Look at the challenge in those eyes! Goddamn!)

As a result, I’ve always felt a kinship with her. The real Alice. As, I have to admit, it reminds me a lot of how I operated as a youth. Watching my mother, I had a very sure sense of this is how stuff worked, and … I suppose given the numbers, I encountered enough submissive boys to have it somehow proven right.

I had ‘boyfriends’ for every day of the week. I wish I was kidding. They each knew when it was or wasn’t their day, and politely backed off in those times. They were also all very aware of each other — and as a result, some of them got into a few fights on the playground, while others were great friends. I hadn’t realised at the time what a disservice I was doing to my girl-friends at the time. What elementary schoolgirl does? (Oh, did I forget that part? I was … let’s see. 8? Maybe ’til round-about 11? Something like that.)

Of course, I had no designs on anyone. They were perfectly free to court any of the other girls in our classes, and, of course, some did. And we’d all play tag and steal kisses on the cheek and run away. Even some of the girls — which, at that point, is a pretty natural exploration of sexuality. They’re your sisters, and they might later become your lovers, and they might not. We’re all figuring it out at that point. For me, I ended up playing for the opposite team, but I never faulted any of my sisters that chose otherwise. Hell, I respect and support them for it. (But that’s another story. Speaking of other stories — ask me about the monogamy versus polyamoury ‘experiment’ I unwittingly held that year. That’s a trip in and of itself.)

Ah, digressions.

I know why I’m not innocent, and haven’t been since the age of seven. As for Liddell … who can say? It may simply be modelling. Some of mine may also be due to the very same.

Either way, thanks for letting me soapbox there. Since so much new information is coming out about Dodgson’s life and sexuality, (namely, that he actually had a drive of which to speak, and it vacillated between periods of long celibacy and bursts of passionate interlude) I felt it important to fill in some blanks there, as a result of my own extensive research over the last decade or more.

We’re quick to paint someone a paedophile if there was any sort of involvement with children. We don’t even examine the interaction or relationship. And, I realise, being as insistent about this as I am, being a survivor myself of childhood sexual abuse, it’s a bit contradictory. But you might say it’s also kept me from becoming dogmatic and exclusionary.

My personal understanding and definition of abuse involving a minor is when a child is lured into sexual situations of which they have no understanding or ability to evaluate. Their privileged trust is used against them by the one seeking to satisfy their illness, or, simply encounter a sexual relationship without having to go through the necessary work to achieve one with a consenting adult. And that is something for which I have equal if not greater passionate detestation which knows no bounds.

Anyway.

It’s seemed pretty important for me to bring some necessary clarity to this subject which is often confused, clouded, and as misunderstood as it was accused back when it was first happening. Give the ghosts some peace, for chrissake. Sometimes, it feels like that’s what I’m trying to do, in a way. Set the record straight, and let their story conclude with the same sort of truth that only they ever knew.

So. Thanks for listening.

Tags: alice in wonderland, alice liddell, charles dodgson, dominant mothers, femdom mothers, identifying childhood sexual abuse, lewis carroll, lewis carroll was not a paedophile, lorina liddell was a victorian femdom, not-so-innocent alice liddell