in Search
Welcome to Neopoleon - Sign in | Join | Help
Navigation: Home | Forums | Galleries

Strange people and times

There are a lot of posts that I wanted to write before writing this one, but then I didn't know that I wanted to write this one until a few seconds ago, and so it seems to have "cut" in line.

Which is OK.

On a whim a few nights ago, I picked up a biography of Lewis Carroll (born Charles Lutwidge Dodgson). I had recently read "The Hunting of the Snark" and found it so delightfully not stupid that I wanted to know a thing or two about the person behind the poem.

What I've found has certainly been... odd.

Consider this: The next time you're riding the "Alice in Wonderland" ride at Disneyland, or the next time you give away the book for Christmas, or the next time you quote Jabberwocky (found in "Through the Looking Glass"), try to ignore the fact that you're delighting in a fantasy world created for a child named "Alice Liddell" by an unusually bright and creative latent pedophile.

I had an inkling of a thought that this was the case, but it wasn't until I picked up this book that I began to get the whole picture. Follow-up with articles (both web and otherwise) seems to confirm this as fact.

Wow.

Even stranger...

I also learned from this book that the legal age of marriage for a "woman" in England in the Victorian era was twelve. Yes - before a child had even entered puberty, she could be married away.

In an era when people didn't look at piano legs for fear of being sexually excited, they allowed their adolescents to be wooed, courted, and wed.

And even stranger still...

In a time when children could be sent off as wives, someone like Oscar Wilde wasn't able to go about his business in the victimless act of buggering his friends (consensual adults).

Oscar went to prison and lost everything thanks to the time's intolerance for his sexual preference, but nobody seemed to mind that children were becoming wives.

And just bizarre...

The strangest thing about all of this is that most of the western world can trace its roots back to a time and place (ancient Greece) where a combination of Lewis Carrol's tastes (rather young) were combined with Oscar Wilde's sexual orientation (same polarities) openly and regularly.

Why I care...

I find this interesting for a couple reasons:

- 1-

It's fascinating how people can celebrate something without knowing its origins when those origins would probably get right in the way of their enjoyment.

- 2 -

Completely forgetting #1 for a second, I'm a big fan of separating the artist from the art.

Consider these people:

- Bobby Fischer: Love his chess (absolutely brilliant), but hate the man - hate, hate, hate the twisted person he's become

- Ezra Pound: Down with the poetry, but he can keep his psycho politics (he died with them, which is basically the same thing)

- Michael Jackson: The guy is obviously in hot water right now, but I love his music

It's funny, though, how I "look the other way" when looking at Bobby's chess games, reading Pound's poetry, or listening to Michael's music.

Anyway, those are just some random thoughts I had this morning.

How's that for a way to get Friday going?

Published Friday, December 17, 2004 8:43 PM by Rory

Filed Under:

Comments

 

Randy said:

Tolkien: Awesome story teller - one of the best of his age - yet only wrote his stories to show off his ability to invent languages to his fellow professors. If I remember correctly, he only published the big three as an after thought. And what's more is that his son is now only known for fine tuning his "unpublished" stories - at least he's making bank now!

[C. S.] Lewis: Wrote the Chronicles of Narnia as a way push his catholic believes onto children (which I find ironic, since I think the RC would be against using fantasy books for recruiting) yet the religious overtones are normally overlooked (why else would The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe be so popular in public school systems?).

Nabokov: wrote Lolita, but how could one write a book like that without being a bit like Humbert himself? Twisted writer that he was.
December 17, 2004 9:04 PM
 

skicow said:

Along those lines of thinking, I've always thought it weird that the age of consent was a state law. Sally who is 16 and lives in Michigan is legal, but Jane who is 16 and lives in New York right next to Michigan is illegal. Are Michigan residents better adapted at handling sex and a younger age?

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

BTW in my country of origin - Canada - the age of consent is 14.....*shudder* I guess we Canadians are a bunch of pedos
December 17, 2004 9:12 PM
 

Rory said:

Randy -

"Tolkien: Awesome story teller - one of the best of his age - yet only wrote his stories to show off his ability to invent languages to his fellow professors. If I remember correctly, he only published the big three as an after thought. And what's more is that his son is now only known for fine tuning his "unpublished" stories - at least he's making bank now!"

I find it odd that he just wanted to show off a language creation ability - language creation is something that young children do 'round the clock.

I even came up with my own once. In college, when I got tired of how inefficient English was, I invented "Roryese" which was a mixture of Latin and English - I basically borrowed the inflected endings from Latin and strapped them onto English.

So, here's a brief example...

English: I think I'm going to order a pizza

Roryese: Ordero pizza.

---

English: I am not going to order a pizza.

Rorese: Orderonay pizza.

---

English: I will, at some future point, order a pizza, I think.

Rorese: Thinko orderabo pizza.

---

English: I am *absolutely not* going to order a pizza, damn it! (emphatic)

Rorese: Orderoanayixnay pizza.

---

It was adopted by a few people in my dorm for about 13 minutes before it was deemed "stupid," by which I think they meant "way ahead of its time, utterly brilliant, and clearly the work of unbridled genius."

"Nabokov: wrote Lolita, but how could one write a book like that without being a bit like Humbert himself? Twisted writer that he was."

I've often wondered about this myself. One of the fascinating things about Lolita, aside from what a fantastically good writer Nabokov was (technically), was how *convincing* it was. It read more like a documentary then a novel.

Which is... suspicious.

If, in fact, he *wan't* a Humbert Humbert, then wow - he's a better writer than I believed.

If he *was* a Humbert Humbert, though, then he's just a good writer copying notes out of his journal.
December 17, 2004 9:23 PM
 

Yex said:

Guess it just goes to support the idea that, sometimes, "ignorance is bliss." :)
December 17, 2004 9:23 PM
 

Rory said:

Yex -

"Guess it just goes to support the idea that, sometimes, 'ignorance is bliss.'"

I agree with you, Yex, but although I'm ignorant about a great many things, I lost the nice ignorant innocence of my childhood a *long* time ago, and now that I'm here, and now that I can see how rotten this knowledge stuff is, I've decided to drag all of you down with me.
December 17, 2004 9:27 PM
 

Enoch said:

What this all points out to me is that what is right an wrong is completely related to the social group of the subject. If one state says 16 is legal and another state says its 18 which is right, which is wrong? Tribal peoples have long placed the age even lower than that. Are they "wrong" where we, the enlightened, are "right". The Victorians as pointed out were prude in one sense but liberal in another and at the time society held that as "right". Its all relative to what the social structure that holds sway of over the "perpetrator" deems is correct at the time. I know its moral relativism but there you have it.

I also believe that it is wrong to support one aspect of a person's life when you know of and disagree (especially morally) with another aspect. Assume Michael Jackson is guilty of what he is charged with, should you continue to buy his cd's because you like his music? Would you feel ok paying his legal fees and helping build the Pedoland Ranch? If Jeff Dahmer were a great cook does that mean you overlook his other lifestyle choices?
December 17, 2004 9:43 PM
 

TomB said:

Enoch
If you don't buy Michael Jackson's CDs then he'll go broke, and the government will have to pay his legal fees.

In general I've always felt that a criminal's talents shouldn't be wasted. Buying Michael Jackson's CDs isn't supporting anything he's done or going to do that's criminal.

My only hesitation would be Jeff Dahmer's cooking. I object with some of his ingredient choices.

I would disagree from a person profitting (sp?) from their criminality. Which I believe is what you Yanks call the Son of Sam law.
December 17, 2004 9:52 PM
 

Genx'er said:

"It's fascinating how people can celebrate something without knowing its origins when those origins would probably get right in the way of their enjoyment."

Do some research on Christmas & Easter - and you'll uncover Pagan heathen festivals...

2 Corinthians 6:14-17
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[b]? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”[c] 17“Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”[d] 18“I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”[e]
December 17, 2004 9:53 PM
 

TomB said:

Please make a note somewhere that Pagan does not mean Heathen.

If memory serves a Pagan is a farmer, or maybe it's a villager.
December 17, 2004 9:56 PM
 

TomB said:

Apparently I'm wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Sorry.
December 17, 2004 9:59 PM
 

Randy said:

@ Tolkien - yeah, but he had like 20 something languages that he had created - full languages with verses, tenses, characters, syntax and without a basis in Latin - so he might have taken an old hobby to a furthest extreme. I did read that blurb on him somewhere - one of those dated "in depth interview" since he died in 72 (I think it was 72) - it could have been bunk, but given the level of thought he put into Elfish and Dwarfish alone, it's conceivable. What's more is that he used the same approach for his stories... when he needed a new character in a "part of the story" he'd take the time to give the character a history and weave that in with the other bits of "history" so that there wouldn't be any Star Trek-esque gaps... all those song lyrics had to be based on something!

And yeah, Nabakov has me stumped.

On the topic of age of concent, here's the most outrageous one I've read about: in Mississippi if a woman is not a virgin, the age of concent is 12; if she is a virgin it's 18... it's on par with Connecticut making it illegal for a non-blind person to use a white cane when walking. Honest. They're both real, or at least were a couple of years ago when I was looking into blue laws.
December 17, 2004 10:01 PM
 

antasm said:

Regarding age of consent

In practice, that age will vary between individuals. You cant put a blanket age across everyone and say "from this point forward, you can make certain decsions". The best you can do is to get approximates over a population.

Regarding enoch's view:
Just because one group of people puts that age rediculously low, doesn't mean it's *right*. Sometimes it's out of necessity. If you have a tribe with an average life span of 30 years, then that culture my necesitate young marriages - thought that still does not make a 12 year old being married a good thing.

I dont subscribe to that whole college-esq "enlightened" view that everyone's culture is valid in all ways. I understand the concept of each of us viewing the world thorugh our prejudices and forming our own epistimology to filter what we experience. But I also believe in some absolutes right and wrongs. If there is a culture that condones the marriage of children before they are able to make informed and intelligent decisions (i.e. abusing their age) - that is wrong.

And yes, that does make our society more enlightened.
December 17, 2004 10:15 PM
 

Stuart said:

"Do some research on Christmas & Easter - and you'll uncover Pagan heathen festivals..."

This statement is somewhat true but very misleading.

It is true that the dates on which we celebrate Christmas and Easter were selected as "replacement holidays" for pagan holidays. In other words, on "December 25" (or whatever day it was on the calendar of that time) pagans worshipped their god; the Church decided to institute Christmas on that day to simultaneously give an alternative and provide a contrast of beliefs.

So if I declared September 11th "Be Nice To Each Other Day", would you protest its observance because it has its roots in terrorism?
December 17, 2004 10:23 PM
 

Stuart said:

By the way, C.S. Lewis was Anglican, not Catholic, and I hardly think he wrote the Chronicles of Narnia to "push his catholic believes onto children" (or even his Anglican beliefs, for that matter), though I suppose you could construe that way if you really wanted to.
December 17, 2004 10:32 PM
 

Brian Vargas said:

Whitewashed historical figures is a pet peeve of mine. Your post prompted me to write a post in response.

http://blog.ardvaark.net/article.php?story=20041217180320394

Brian
December 17, 2004 11:11 PM
 

George said:

Thanks for mentioning that about C.S. Lewis Stuart, you beat me to the post. Also, if anyone would take the time to research Tolkien you'll find out that he wrote his stories for a slightly different reason then mentioned above and in fact had to be pushed by his colleagues (like C.S. Lewis and the other Inklings) to even write at all. (About to entirely invalidate this point I just made about Tolkien with my next comment)

What a strange coincidence Brian, a personal pet peeve of mine is destroying whitewashed images of historical figures. I am just fine not knowing about the faults and perversions that each and every one of us have. I personally find this "Blackwashing" all in all useless and a little distasteful. Since we are looking at histories that are often inaccurate (and must be since they are the historical views from humans or observations by other humans), it becomes very difficult and almost impossible to piece together the story of someone's life. Yes, there are certain "facts" about people that are well known, but I would much prefer the "Whitewashed" versions. I don't have any doubts that the historical figures and authors that I read and admire had faults (and probably perversions), but I do admire their accomplishments and achievements while recognizing that they were human and so like me screwed a lot of their personal lives up.

Why do I care what went on in their personal lives (wasn't that the argument 90% (entirely made up statistic) of the people had with the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton?).

Anyway, let the authors and historical figures in the past alone. That's my unpopular (and I wish I could have stated it better) view.
December 18, 2004 4:52 PM
 

Joe Grenier said:

Stuart,

I don't mean to put words in Genx'er's mouth, but I took his comments to pertain to the modern *trappings* of holidays like Christmas and Easter, rather than where they fall on the calendar. If you can show me where the egg hiding bunnies are in the bible, I'll run out and buy that version tout de suite.
December 18, 2004 11:45 PM
 

Stuart said:

Joe --

You're probably right.

It's hard telling exactly what Genx'er's point was, seeing as he was so brief.

Because he... 1) insinuated that Christmas and Easter have their origins in Pagan heathen festivals, and 2) quoted 2 Cor 6:14-18... I took that to mean that he thinks Christians should not celebrate the holidays that commemorate Christ's birth and resurrection from the dead.

If that was his point, you obviously know by now that I think it's ridiculous. There's no rule stating, for example, that your Easter celebration has to include the Easter Bunny.

Anyway, I'll go back to shutting up now. :)


--Stuart
December 19, 2004 10:33 PM
 

George said:

I for one vote for Stuart to always speak his point of view.

Keep up the good commenting Stuart.

Oh and I guess keep up the good conversation starters Rory (you've always got to throw a little nod a Rory or he gets a little snippy with you. Something about this being his blog or something.. What a prima donna!!)
December 20, 2004 4:55 AM
 

David Burke said:

The legal age of marriage in the state of New Hampshire is 13 for a female and 14 for a male, so the 12 year old limit in Victorian England is not far distant from current law in at least one US state.
December 20, 2004 9:48 AM
 

Chris Wallace said:

Regarding artists pushing/not pushing their beliefs....I found some site on the net a while back relating the entire first Matrix movie to the bible. I guess anything can be interpretated as being related to anything else if you put enough thought into it. Hell, with all the mentioning of pedophiles in this post and its comments, I could interpret it as Rory trying to push pedophilia on the blogging community. How's that for an inference?
December 20, 2004 1:05 PM
 

Fred said:

Several times I've had the argument with friends that creators are responsible for their creations. The obvious Mary Shelley reference aside, it seems obvious and intuitive to me that we have a responsibility for what we create. Thus I have a hard time separating the artist from the art, but not necessarily the art from the artist.

In other words, it's possible to judge a creation on its own merits. But when judging a person, I have to take into account <i>everything</i> I know about the person. While I appreciate Woody Allen's earlier movies, for example, he's not the sort of person I'd want as a new best friend. And so on.

Yes, the dear Reverend was not someone you'd care to have babysit for your children. I much preferred his book <u>Symbolic Logic</u>, as there were far fewer underage females featured.
December 20, 2004 10:00 PM
 

Dourn said:

Rory, did you know that in Victorian era, in 25 States the age of consent for females was 10.
What's more, it was common practice for both sexes to swim in the sea together naked, and also common practice for women who weren't sexually satisfied by their husbands to go to a doctor to have him give them an orgasm - doctors in the States used to charge $2.00 each time, and it made up 75% of their income.

Thanks to The Book of Weird Sex (as reported in today's paper) for all these facts...
December 21, 2004 11:17 AM
 

Will Von Wizzlepig said:

I think we choose our own realities, and that it's fine if you want to live in the dark, but the option to find out what the heck something was really about should definitely remain. It seems, um, immature, to purposely live in the dark, but that's just my opinion.

I mean, I don't want to force people to live in my reality, which is: life is damn hard, and people are usually pretty stupid (radiant optimist that I am.) The more I read (Brian's blog entry references "Lies My Teacher Told me", a brilliant introduction to "A People's history of the United States", both great introductions to my reality,) the more I see that people think too highly of themselves and their abilities, and pretty much make the same dumb mistakes over and over again, regardless of their society, education, or religion.

So Lewis Carrol was interested in children. Ick. A little look into cultural anthropology and sociology shows that while the only global taboo seems to be incest, pedophilia is largely frowned upon, too (I wish I had a reference to this, sorry, I did minor in anthro, though.) Whether there were laws against it, the fact that he got locked up for it shows pretty well he knew he wasn't supposed to be doing it.

I think the value of a thing, as Rory said, is definitely separate from its creator. After all, many of our parents weren't trying to make us at all, but here we are. And like any good book, the imagery and characters really live in your head, and the magic is because of your imagination. The Volkswagen Bug is adored by many, despite the man with a funny moustache who caused it to be.

[I tend to post in a train-of-thought fashion, with an interest in discussion. Please don't take my posts as preachy. I know I can't change your mind- only you can do that.]
December 21, 2004 9:08 PM
 

Stuart said:

...and if it's in The Book of Weird Sex, it *must* be true! ;)
December 21, 2004 9:44 PM
New Comments to this post are disabled

About Rory

I *own* this site, you loser.

This Blog

Post Calendar

<December 2004>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2829301234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678

Post Categories

Feeds
Copyright Rory, 2007. All rights reserved.