I posted an essay on Reddit a few years ago or so [a fairly close copy of which I’ve included below], and it promptly got deleted.

What really pissed me off was that it was wholly censored not by the automated filter, which promptly deletes material that specifically breaches clearly defined rules, but rather by a living ‘moderator(s)’ for the Lewis Carroll section within the website (a sub-site which, to me, read quite like Carroll fandom).

As punishment, I was banished from commenting or contacting anyone there — like I was some sleazy troll.

Apparently, it miffed a powerful Lewis Carroll enthusiast or two, there. And I was given no means of communicating with any of the Carroll-site ‘moderators’ in regards to the unjustified blatant censorship. I was accused of calling Lewis Carroll “a pedophile”.

In my mind, I had not, although the implication understandably could be perceived, especially by his defenders. At that point, I had mistakenly believed that a “pedophile” was consistently solely defined as a person who is physically sexually involved with a child.

But it actually is defined as “an adult who is sexually attracted to or engages in sexual acts with a child. (psychiatry) A person aged 16 years old or older who is mostly or only sexually attracted toward prepubescent children. [from 20th c.]” Another definition source has it as “a person who is sexually attracted to children.” Meanwhile, “pedophilia” is defined as “sexual feelings directed toward children.”

My post included factual information, mostly quotes with full citation, from academia and writers; it included different sources (pro, con and in between) on Carroll’s prolific proclivity for taking nude photos of little girls who trusted him.

Such photography is a plain, basically undisputed fact. However, while there may be strong suspicions he had done so, I have not read anything, including in his or others’ correspondence, about Carroll inappropriately touching his little girl “friends”.

The piece was the most journalistic and researched post I have seen on that website, yet I was brazenly told to “please do some actual research”.

Perhaps typically, there was/is no means by which to contact that Lewis Carroll subreddit’s gatekeeper on this (at least not anything that was made visibly available). Thus I was given no means by which to question the flagrant suppression. Where was I? China or Russia?!

I used to get comfortable to watch the weekend-long Great Books marathons on TLC, way back when it really was The Learning Channel and not its later form with so much schadenfreude content.

Besides Alice In Wonderland, I have four other collector’s editions of The Great Books series documentaries, albeit on VHS — Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jonathon Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds, and Herman Melville’s Moby Dick — all of which I’ve watched many times. [Of course, I’ve read the novels as well.]

(I’d like to get many of the others, like Plato’s The Republic and Sigmund Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, but they are no longer available to me as The Great Books documentary videos.)

With all five documentaries, though especially with Alice In Wonderland, I took down notes and quotes almost every time I’d watch them, sometimes repeatedly rewinding and replaying to make sure of the notes’ accuracy.

While none of the documentary’s scholars are critical of Lewis Carroll, the most memorable for me are those who talk glowingly of the author while — unlike the vociferous in-denial critics of my Lewis Carroll essay — apparently having come to terms with his predilection for naked-little-girl photography.

One Lewis Carroll academic interviewed in the documentary defended him, talking about the author like he could do no wrong.

_________

[My essay, as it was then worded]

With celebrity sexual assault and harassment scandals flowing from the showbiz industry, some people (including one CNN-based commentator) wonder whether they’ll feel comfortable consuming quality products involving seriously offending entertainers and producers.

Meantime, some big-celebrity fans will continue viewing their favorites nonetheless, while others may indefinitely remain in denial, as superstardom’s brightness can be blinding — especially when the product becomes legendary.

(The late Michael Jackson’s questionable history of having young boy sleepovers at his Neverland Ranch, comes to my mind as a current example, because of the enormous organized vicious attacks via various media on anyone, including big TV producers, who dare suggest that the legendary pop-music artist was a pedophile. He simply was — and still is — that great and loved.)

As a pre-broadcast-era artist example, many people to this day have great difficulty accepting, or perhaps even caring, that acclaimed author Lewis Carroll — writer of the Alice In Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass children’s novels — enjoyed having little girls pose nude for his camera.

A few years ago, I asked four peers whether they were aware of this rather unorthodox photography hobby enjoyed by Carroll, penname of Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. All four had no idea.

One, though, became agitatedly apologetic and diversionary in her defense of the author: “So what? Woody Allen had sex with his [adopted] daughter!” Another peer replied similarly.

Astounded, I felt sure they would not be so dismissive had they viewed just a few of the many shots of unnaturally seductive poses involving small child subjects. (The ones I saw left me disgusted.) Again, it seems few know or care about the real Lewis Carroll.

Acclaimed writer and commentator Will Self stated the conundrum thus: “It’s a problem, isn’t it, when somebody writes a great book but they’re not a great person.”

Some big-celebrity fans will continue consuming and defending their favorites nonetheless, while others may indefinitely remain in denial, as superstardom’s brightness can be blinding — especially when the product becomes legendary.

“[Carroll] would ask mama if it was alright for him to photograph the little girl; and later on he would ask if he could photograph her in a costume; and eventually he would work his way up like a lover to, if he could photograph the child in the nude,” says retired Temple University English professor emeritus Donald Rackin, in a Great Books documentary (a copy of which I own and watched many times to accurately record comments and information).

“We know that of course he was refused sometimes, but it was astounding how many mothers said, ‘go ahead’.”

Another Lewis Carroll academic theorizes that with Through the Looking Glass the author had himself in mind as the White Knight who rescues Alice as the pawn about to become a queen, an act that may represent the author’s love for little Alice Liddell that could never be formally realized.

Regardless, as a prestigious figure, instead of being reprimanded or thrown into a Victorian-era prison, he continued taking his child photos. Carroll’s ability to get away with his perverted predilection for such photography may have been but indicative of the societal entitlement he enjoyed, even as an oddball loner.

Says the documentary’s soft-spoken narrator, actor Donald Sutherland (who narrates the entire Great Books series): “His girl photos were troubling to some, pure genius to others … sensual portraits.”

Yet some feel Carroll was unfairly misunderstood. According to Hollywood Reporter guest columnist Will Brooker, who also authored Alice’s Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture:

“Lewis Carroll is treated [by his critics] like a man you wouldn’t want your kids to meet, yet his stories are still presented as classics of pure, innocent literature … Compared to some of our celebrities — the sportsmen, film directors and singers who commit real crimes like assault and abuse and are still welcomed back by fans — Lewis Carroll was a regular saint.”

Possibly as the perspective of a man of the cloth, Carroll himself wrote down about his girl photo subjects, “Their innocent unconsciousness is very beautiful, and gives one a feeling of reverence, as at the presence of something sacred.” (Letters 381)