the question they’re all asking…

•June 15, 2010 • 3 Comments

Just to clarify, following the recent stuff being said in the comments section – neither this blog nor Carroll Myth have ever hosted ‘startling homosexual pornography’. We considered it of course, as any serious site must, and even had our links all planned out –

About Contrariwise”

“Visit our Website”

“More Links”

“Startling Homosexual Pornography

But for some reason people kept telling us it didn’t fit with the theme, so reluctantly we had to abandon it.

Hope this clears everything up, and apologies to Damien for his disappointment.   😉

(PS – ChocChipCookie doesn’t run this site, and as far as I know he doesn’t do porn either.)



•June 3, 2010 • 13 Comments

A recent commenter asked for info on Morton Cohen’s  article dismissing the Guildford paper as a ‘joke’,  and another commenter pointed her to the old Nohow section on our website, which hosted a collection of articles by Cohen, the late Martin Gardner and others offering their various rebuttals of the  idea of a ‘Carroll Myth’ . Unfortunately, as we’ve said before elsewhere, the Nohow section is defunct, and  we don’t know of any other place the material can currently be found online, (we’re happy to be corrected??) .

It was, if you think about it, awfully generous of us to give over valuable and costly webspace to people critical of us,  but at the same time it probably wasn’t in the best interests of anyone for the stuff to be where it was.  Still, we think it really is only right for the responses of Cohen, Gardner et al to ‘the Myth’ to be available for researchers, and  – as we’ve also said before –  we’re  keen to see the material find another home.

The obvious place for it is on either the Lewis Carroll Society site, or its sister – the LCS of North America. It would – we think – be a very good idea for either or both these sites to have a ‘Carroll Myth’ section, and having both Contrariwise and Nohow represented there would seem an obviously balanced approach.

So, any takers? Or any links to already existing outlets for the Nohow POV?

And should it really be up to us to be doing this?

Shame on all you Cohen and Gardner fans out there.  😉


•May 31, 2010 • 3 Comments

The Lewis Carroll Wiki page is an almost permanent zone of weird, of course, but I’m not talking about the usual kinds of  “he was a pervert who should have had his balls fried”, or “he lived next door to my Nan and used to walk her dog”, kind of stuff ; I’m referring to  that half-hearted part time Wiki-War being fought against those pesky and  inconvenient facts that have been recently unearthed.  Someone, for example, keeps modifying the  section on the so-called ‘Guildford paper’, digging up Morton Cohen’s still unsubstantiated, and best forgotten claims about Philip Jaques (Carroll’s great-nephew),  having written it  as a ‘joke’,  and  concluding  Carroll almost probably might really still have proposed to Alice Liddell on that iconic June day in 1863 after all.  You can just see them thinking – bless ’em –  “if we  can put it right there on Wiki then it must be true.”

Well today we noticed  things have suddenly ratcheted up a tad, and someone had deleted the entire ‘Carroll Myth’ section.

Guess that about wraps it up then. If it’s not on Wiki, then it just isn’t worth talking about. 😉

Update: someone has put it back now. Interesting (well slightly, it’s a slow day, I’m resting a shoulder tendon),  to see what happens next.  If you see anything worth commenting on let us know.

Completely irrelevant but…

•May 30, 2010 • 3 Comments

Contrariwise’s favourite search term ever reached us today –

Alice in Wonderland garden gnomes”


That thing again…

•May 24, 2010 • 17 Comments

Rejecting Apology II has generated a huge amount of response in the last day, some of which we can even publish without risking nausea in our readers.  Check out the ‘recent comments’ section in the sidebar.

A repeated argument is that if a man wants to have sex with kids but doesn’t act on it then he’s ‘innocent’.

Well,  if we’re talking court of law, then of course that’s true.  He hasn’t committed a crime, so he’s innocent of that crime. But we aren’t discussing legality we’re discussing morality and responsibility. And a man who is sexually attracted to children has the obvious moral responsibility to ensure he doesn’t harm them as a result of his inclination.  He can only do that by staying away from them. The awful blurry world inhabited by Porlaverded, CuteyPie and their ilk, in which there are ‘good’ pedophiles (them) and ‘bad’ pedophiles (not them), is both dangerous and terminally dishonest. However much these ‘child-love’ types believe they aren’t harming any kids they consort with, however much they draw a line between their desires and behaviour and the ‘abusive’  conduct  of the ‘bad’ pedos,  they’re just deluding themselves.  And  – the part that most concerns us – using the mythic image of Carroll to aid in this delusion.

So, let”s state again – if, despite all evidence, Lewis Carroll truly was a pedophile, and if he befriended kids, won their affections, played with their minds, watched their nakedness, while letting them inevitably sense the inappropriateness of his approach, then even if he didn’t go any further,  he abused those children. In fact being obliquely head-fucked by some person they love and trust  is going to scar a kid more not less than the more overt  stuff done by those presumed ‘bad’ guys, who are at least honest about their intent.

Carroll scholars and enthusiasts need to show the deluded souls who (let’s not kid ourselves) haunt Carrollianism that this image they nurture of Carroll  as ‘pedophilia incarnate and sanctified’  is a lie. Not only is this justice for Carroll, it’s removing from them a powerful agent of their own self-justification.

Last time we said this we were mailed by the LCSNA to ask  for assistance in setting up a good Myth-FAQ.  Not sure if they have pursued this any further, but if not – now’s the time. And maybe the LCS could follow suit?

Unless we really want this subterranean army of ‘good’ pedophiles to keep using the author of Alice as their patron saint.

Ok, it’s a beautiful day, birds singing, sky blue, and we just hope this is the last time  we have to write about this for a while.


Martin Gardner

•May 24, 2010 • Comments Off on Martin Gardner

As you’ll have seen, Martin Gardner, Renaissance man, has died, and it is a moment to mark. As he was one of the Old Guard, we obviously didn’t concur with much he said about Lewis Carroll,  and neither was he comfortable with the idea of  ‘the Myth’, but he was a force indeed, and probably his most notable work lay far beyond things Carroll.  His mind was curious and totally original. His interests were truly all-encompassing. He was a member of the controversial  CSICOP, and yet also a devout believer in God, and he  was equally  fascinated by magic and mechanics.  Carroll would probably have found him deeply engaging.

Safe journey, Mr G.

Rejecting Apology II

•May 23, 2010 • 11 Comments

Well, we just received two comments (click here and here)  on this blog of a kind I’m sure is nauseatingly and yawningly familiar to everyone who runs a Lewis Carroll website. We all get them by the ton, and mostly we just trash them. But these two so perfectly exemplify everything Contrariwise has been saying about this subject recently that, queasy (and horrendously spelled) as they are, we’re not trashing them this time. We’re letting them stand. As a kind of monument. Or  waymarker.

Because Mr Porlaverdad3 (don’t you just have to hope he isn’t really anyone’s dad?!) didn’t arrive at his ideas in an intellectual vacuum. He got there in the same way millions of others have, by reading what’s been written, and by assuming stuff from the silences where rebuttal should have been. His drooling and dishonest image of Lewis Carroll as the proud emblem of a whole fraternity of ‘child-lovers’ channeling their desire to have sex with kids into a beautiful expression of ‘love’ and enchantment is not really very far removed from the picture the Apologists have painted, and, sadly, continue, in some circles, to paint.

That’s really why Carroll’s sexuality matters so much. Because it’s been adopted as a symbol for a group of very dangerous and deluded people. And when we dodge the issues about him, when Derek Hudson squeamishly begged for understanding of the guy’s weaknesses, because he was a genius, and when other authors whine that  ‘yes he was weird about little girls, but he can’t have done any harm because the kids all loved him too much’ (as if predatory pedophiles are never adored by their victims), we’re handing over the man’s reputation to these people.

We contend there is simply no evidence to show Lewis Carroll was pedophilic in desire or action, and that his relationship with children  has been distorted and simplified by legend to appear a lot ‘weirder’ than it actually was.  But if you think that’s not true. If you think Carroll ‘loved’ children even slightly inappropriately, then you can’t dodge what that means. You have to go with the corollary, that when he sought their unchaperoned company, photographed their naked bodies, he was behaving like a predatory and dangerous sexual pervert. Avoiding that obvious and stark choice, being coy and fluffy about it, using special pleading to argue he was somehow above such questions, sanctified by magic and joy, is something we can’t afford to do, because it plays straight into the hands of the too numerous people like Porlaverdad3, who want to believe they can be ‘innocent’ pedos, just like Mr Carroll, frolicking happily in a rainbow Eden with the children they ‘love’.

We think Lewis Carroll would probably have deplored being associated with such individuals, and deplored possibly even more, the false logic and queasy special pleading that puts him in such company.

%d bloggers like this: