What do we know about this character?

[R Wallace]

To RavenDarkendale: Amen to that.

[RavenDarkendale]

I apologize for the public posting, but you do not accept e-mail, and you haven't been here long enough to receive PMs.

Mr. Wallace: I received my copy of The Agony of Lewis Carroll. The other volume has shipped and I expect it tomorrow. I pray it will be more enlightening.

IMHO, you seem to have started from the presumption that Lewis Carroll was a repressed homosexual and pedophile. Once you start with that presumption, you made your anagrams about these things, even though you have to refer to obscure works about vulgarities to make them make any sense whatsoever. An enormous amount of anagrams may be made from any of the passages you site, you seem to have kept going until you found one that was as vulgar as you wanted. IMHO that wrongs a great writer. I sincerely believe he was none of the things you claim. But I did keep my word and purchase the books prior to giving my opinion, viz: No redeeming social value, which I am sure you can work into some obscure profane anagram. Hint: 'Mendacious, large Evil one.'

Oh by the way: Why is a raven like a writing desk? They are both black

God Bless

RD

[Sickert]

What do we know about this character?

RavenDarkendale I have downloaded both e-books "The Agony Of Lewis Carroll" and "Jack The Ripper Light Hearted Friend" from http://www.smashwords.com/ All I have to do know is read them. When I have I will know more.

[R Wallace]

To RavenDarkendale

I'm choosing to address several of your points by quoting your post.

"IMHO, you seem to have started from the presumption that Lewis Carroll was a repressed homosexual and pedophile." Nothing could be further from the truth. Supported by my readings of his works, I sensed he was very angry: but why? I then researched many works by others who suggested strong sexual struggles; and I read many fawning biographies. I concluded he never acted out any pedophile impulses with either girls or boys. I believe he was homosexual, but did not reach a conclusion as to whether he was driven there by experiences in public school or if he arrived there by natural impulses alone. He avoided boys. I do believe he violated the innocence of the girls by practicing anagrams out of their awareness and concluded that he left hints in his works when he was using them – phrases or sentences in italics for no apparent reason, character reactions which did not respond to a sentence as written, etc.

"I sincerely believe he was none of the things you claim." You sound like many defenders/apologists of Lewis Carroll, such as Karoline Leach, in coming from your own bias. The critical style is to reject everything rather than pointing out strengths and weaknesses. I agree and still do that Carroll was a great writer but also that his children's books are more than what they seem.

" you...refer to obscure works about vulgarities." As part of the research I used slang dictionaries of the time along with the OED so that I was not creating anagrams from current usage. As a wordsmith, Lewis Carroll would respect that.

"An enormous amount of anagrams may be made from any of the passages you site [sic]..." I don't think that's true if completing a coherent sentence is a requirement. In one critique an anagram was made of a paragraph of mine which alleges that I committed the murders O.J. Simpson was accused of AND that I wrote Shakespeare's works, which, of course is beyond ridiculous even if it proves your point. I examined Carroll's statement about his mother only after others described it as from him and that it sounded like a construct. IMHO I "proved" that it was a construct even if I created another construct, which, in fact, sounds less like a construct than his. The anagram from Jabberwocky was made to be consistent with several published psychological interpretations of the work; the sexual and violent theme did not come out of the blue. I don't think any other theme for an anagram would be valid even if it were possible.

Your blanket condemnation of the book (I doubt you'll be enlightened by the second) is, of course, your right. Given that you are not the first or last who feels that way I console myself knowing that the book was on the short list for an award by the Children's Literature Association and that most sales were to libraries, who certainly were not responding to reader demand, but rather to their belief that it was well researched and/or unique enough to be in their collection.

Regards,

R Wallace

[Sickert]

What do we know about this character?

R Wallace as I haven't read them yet. I will say what I think once I have.

[RavenDarkendale]

That was a gentleman's response, Mr. Wallace. I think you believe what you write is the truth, I just do not share your belief. By the way, I am a great fan of Dave Barry who loves anagrams a lot! He got me interested.

Why is a raven like a writing desk? just for fun becomes 'Rakishly wreaking wise deviant.'. Hummmm.... devious!

Have a wonderful day and God Bless

Raven Darkendale or 'Rank and revealed.'

[RavenDarkendale]

Dear Richard Wallace:

Sir, I do indeed find that your second book is more enlightening than the first. You obviously did much research into the Ripper crimes, and I find your exploration of "what makes a psychopath" clear and confident.

In making your case for Lewis Carroll as JtR, when you stand upon pure psychology in naming him the TYPE of person that could have committed the crimes, you seem on firm ground. Carroll's many eccentricities are well documented, and could point, from a certain view, to hatred of mother, despise for his father, and certainly loathing for the Victorian hypocrisy, also very clearly documented by many author's works. So far, so good. This is a good working hypothesis, and would not be easy to dismiss as you would have as good a chance as any at identifying JtR , because Carroll would fit the profile of the unsub.

It is those awful anagrams that I just cannot see. Believe me, I am well aware of the brilliant mathematical mind of Lewis Carroll and word games would be old hat for him to play. I concur that the number 42 must have some meaning for him, every mathematician has favorite numbers. But you apply "the rule of 42" to areas of his poetry and prose in which you wish to find a significant anagram.

On the child's block found under the floor boards are 50 total letters. So you plan to eliminate 8 so you have 42 with which to work. Question: Assuming that there actually is "a rule of 42" , how did you decide which 8 letters were superfluous? There is no mention of any clue, such as circling or underlining letters to be dropped. You admit no anagram using all 50 letters, but is that no anagram or no anagram dealing with what you propose to have happened?

Next you have a line of 44 letters of which you drop two to form quite a number of anagrams that support your view. But how to decide which letters don't belong? See what I am saying. If Carroll left these anagrams, he would have left some way for the informed, for believe me he would have shared such a joke, especially with those with whom you say he consorted, to know what to fold and what to keep.

Minus these anagrams that you insist upon, the profile you give of Lewis Carroll would make him what the law candidly refers to as "a person of interest." I cannot not accept him as guilty, but that profile would just scream for the man to be investigated. One could not ignore that kind of fit to a profile.

You make a great case for Lewis Carroll as suspect, but the anagrams are not what makes the case. The profile makes the case. You might argue that you based the profile on anagrams in the first place. A man of your obvious talents, trained as a psychologist could not fail to pick up on word usage and writing changes (darker print, shaky lettering, etc.) to draw a conclusion. That's when I believe you sought for and found anagrams, which could be mere coincidence, and spell out anything arranged correctly.

You are to be congratulated on your profile, but I don't buy the anagrams, sorry. Suspect: yes, Carroll could be a viable suspect. Guilty: It would be like all the other suspects, nigh impossible to prove. I don't base that on my vision of Lewis Carroll, but on the fact that every JtR writer has to admitt that psychical evidence is sorely lacking.

Congratulations, Sir. You have made me admit you have a valid suspect even as I dismiss the anagrams completely.

Yours truly,

Raven Darkendale

[R Wallace]

To Raven Darkendale:

I'm pleased to hear that you enjoyed the second book, "Jack the Ripper," and found some of my arguments convincing. To put the sequence of the books in perspective, I had finished "The Agony of Lewis Carroll" without the slightest notion of him being Jack the Ripper. It was not until the work was about to be published that the notion entered my mind but I decided to publish the first book before even pursing the notion. After reading as much as I could about JTR I felt convinced enough in the possibility of the JTR connection and decided to make a trip to England and spent six weeks there, primarily at the British Library (reading Carroll's hand written diaries – I had already purchased the published diaries to research the Agony) and at the records archives of Scotland Yard and the London police. For the record, I am not a psychologist, but was a social worker who focused on providing therapy to abused children, usually in crisis.

Re you second paragraph, I did not find anything in other people's works that convinced me that Carroll hated his mother and despised his father. I reached that conclusion based on the anagrams produced even as a child in his early writings while living at home and then expanded into his children's books. Eccentricity and loathing for Victorian hypocrisy would not make him a psychopath (I prefer sociopath) or the list of suspects could go into at least the thousands. But turning a number of children's books into a vehicle for hidden smut does.

Re your third paragraph, I'm not a mathematician but I didn't find evidence that he was a brilliant mathematician. He did publish books on mathematics and logic, including both games and theory, some of which are respected though not referenced. In fact he lived his life as a don at Oxford tutoring for the most part unwilling students on basic concepts. If he were brilliant, Oxford would have recognized it and had him doing something far more meaningful for the university.

At the risk of further alienating you on the anagrams, I'm going to quote a few of them for purposes of demonstrating consistency of theme and to give Casebook readers who haven't read the books a sample of what's in them. As copyright owner I can do that without the risk of violation; the sources of material of others are properly cited in the books. If you recall from Agony, his poem "Poeta Fit non Nascitur" laid out the rules for creating anagrams, to include a "sensation stanza" but his example of a sensational line is not sensational unless you rearrange the letters.

Rule 42 of the Code was referenced in several of his works. I had no idea what it referred to but when I learned of the wood block found under the floor of his house with a gag-worthy poem written on it I hypothesized, then concluded that it was a "message in a bottle" he wanted to send, despite the fact there was no guarantee that anyone would find it. It contained 50 letters and I couldn't get anything meaningful except by using 42. That became the only exception of not using all the letters, a rule I had set. (I did leave 3 out of the verse "Twas brillig..." in Jabberwocky, but that was inadvertent while going from the solving sheet to the book; the missing letters were b, i, and g, which word "big" could be placed in any of 2-3 places in the resulting anagram.) The poem on the block was "And we'll wander through/the wide world and/chase the buffalo." Already having concluded that he was on a mission from his early life to incorporate anagrams in his works, the following "manifesto" derives from 42 letters: "Bluff a rough, sordid, heathen world and cheat death." At least two notions are in there: an assault on Victorian hypocrisy, and the need for secrecy over the lifetime (or death would not be cheated). Keeping his own facade as the humorous writer of children's nonsense would have come crashing down if anyone figured out what he was up to. (Or not, given the overall public reception of my books. [] ) So, I certainly did not start by deciding what letters to eliminate and he would leave no clue either. Yes, he did have a few close friends "in" on what he was up to and even helping; but this game was decidedly not to be shared. It would have ruined him and he would have lost all deniability should anyone at the time find one and accuse him of hiding smut.

Regarding his mother; other writers attributed the following description to him. Others have described it as unreal, a construct. "one of the sweetest and gentlest women that ever lived, whom to know was to love. The earnestness of her simple faith and love shone forth in all she did and said; she seemed to live always in the conscious presence of God. It has been said by her children that they never in all their lives remember to have heard an impatient or harsh word from her lips." From that derives the following: "one of those sweet and gentle women that hobble blest, healthy, tempted children. As tenacious as a dog she never let them live their own lives. As her thin, mis-shapen favorite charmed her, I came to resent every word from her lips. So, a horrid freak – a timid phony – sneered, revolted, wasted a talent, and showed how vile filth vanishes in foolish nonsense." I believe that anagram is psycologically consistent, consistent with the history of his sisters and with the games he was playing in his literature.

I won't give the Jabberwocky anagram as it might offend the Casebook police.

So, in a never ending investigation into the Ripper murders, with a paucity of hard evidence and a plethora of questionable evidence created by others, the anagrams are very much a part of both my profile of Carroll and his possible involvement in the murders. At the end of my book I encourage others (better funded than I was) to pursue things further. At this stage of retirement trying to interest people in this pursuit is about what I'm up to.

Regards,

R Wallace

[RavenDarkendale]

Well, I should clarify something:

Were I a policeman investigating the type of murders the JtR murders were, and I were handed your PROFILE, and knew how it fit Lewis Carroll, I would definitely feel compelled to investigate the man. It would be foolish not to do so, although I believe he could be ruled out quickly.

My take on Charles Lutwidge Dodgson is that he suffered from what is sometimes referred to as "Peter Pan Syndrome." He was incapable of dealing with most adults despite his success in being a Fellow at Christ Church Collage, and his limited role as a minister. He lived in a child's dreamworld, and never really became an adult. He wouldn't be the last to have accusations thrown at him because of this, the Michael Jackson fiasco is a grim reminder of that.

I wonder what we should suspect Ogdan Nash of, since we can certainly infer suppressed anger and hatred of his father and children from perusing his poetry. A good line is:

And everything that baby says,
My daddy's sure to tell.
You must have read my daddy's verse.
I hope he fries in Hell.


Just a thought.

A person suffering from the level of pain you perceive Lewis Carroll had, would produce a profile like you have compiled. Any serious crimes in their town, arson, destruction of property, rape, murder, etc. would put that person on the suspect list.

I just can't see the anagram thing. You worked hard on your two books, and you deserve credit for sticking to your conviction in the face of ridicule. My hat is off to you. May you be blessed in all of your endeavors.

Raven Darkendale

[RavenDarkendale]

Mr. Wallace,

Now see what you've got me into!
Anagrams, anagrams, anagrams!

"Emma Smith'
anagrams to
'Tame him Ms'

'Martha Tabram'
anagrams to
'Hmm! A tart Arab!"

'Mary Ann Polly Nichols'
anagrams to
'Oh, silly, carnal, nympho.'

'Annie Chapman'
anagrams to
'Cheap 'n' in a man.'

'Elizabeth Stride'
anagrams to
"Their Laziest bed.'

'Catherine Eddows"
anagrams to
'Dead nicest whore'

'Mary Jane Kelly'
anagrams to
'My! Jerk in an alley!'

'Rose Mylett'
anagrams to
'Smelt to rye'

'Alice MacKenzie"
anagrams to
'Am Nazi, nice knee'

'Frances Coles"
anagrams to
'Of crass and lice'

Fun, but irrelevant

[R Wallace]

To: Raven Darkendale

Just a brief response to your two posts. My case against Lewis Carroll after identifying him as angry enough is clearly circumstantial, with most of the JTR book laying out why he could have done the murders – opportunity, proximity, motive, etc. Since there's no extant physical evidence, that's all we have regarding any suspect.

Re Peter Pan Syndrome; I understand it but haven't studied it. That said, what's behind it? What brought LC or Michael Jackson to it if he really suffered from it. I suspect pedophilia could not be far behind with adult sexual impulses wrapped in a childish psyche. What was all the crotch-grabbing in public about? That said, I don't believe LC was bedding with children or that he ever touched them carnally. LC had a number of friends both at Oxford and with many women in society in addition to the little girls.

Re Ogden Nash, whom I haven't studied, if he truly hated his father as you say, he didn't suppress it; in fact he expressed it -- in his poetry. Maybe that was an effective outlet for his aggression. My argument re LC is that he did not express it in public, but in secret, therefore did not have an adequate outlet for it.

Re your anagrams on the Ripper victim names. I'm not inclined to take any credit for inspiring them. Irrelevent and don't look like much fun. If I thought they were intended to disparage my efforts I'd send along a "lump of sugar" as the beloved LC did to Massachusetts girls he thought had dissed him.

In any event, I've made myself available on the blog to discuss LC as a suspect and would prefer to keep the discussion to that. I don't just "do" anagrams.

R Wallace

[RavenDarkendale]

Re Peter Pan Syndrome; I understand it but haven't studied it. That said, what's behind it? What brought LC or Michael Jackson to it if he really suffered from it. I suspect pedophilia could not be far behind with adult sexual impulses wrapped in a childish psyche. What was all the crotch-grabbing in public about? That said, I don't believe LC was bedding with children or that he ever touched them carnally. LC had a number of friends both at Oxford and with many women in society in addition to the little girls.

Definition: A man who cannot or refuses to grow up

Cause: Basically childhood has been so controlled by circumstances and\or authority figures that a natural childhood becomes impossible. The sufferer then attempts to make up loss of childhood by living in a fantasy world. This would fit LC fine, as he created a MAJOR fantasy world with his Wonderland.

Michael Jackson was pushed into the world of music entertainment at a very early age. He compensated for this with his fantastic Neverland Ranch, and like LC, had many child friends. I do not think either were guilty of pedophilia.

Re your anagrams on the Ripper victim names. I'm not inclined to take any credit for inspiring them. Irrelevent and don't look like much fun. If I thought they were intended to disparage my efforts I'd send along a "lump of sugar" as the beloved LC did to Massachusetts girls he thought had dissed him.

I don't just "do" anagrams.

R Wallace

No intention of disparaging your efforts. Just fun. I have already made my points about your theories, congratulated you on the enormous effort you put into your two books. They remain in my collection, having been read cover to cover.

There are few Ripperologists who can get beyond the blinders of their favorite suspect. The common factor connecting them is physical evidence is pretty much nil. All suspects should be identified, discussed with an open mind, and eliminated for one reason or another by each scholar.

You are certainly a scholar, a Ripper Crime enthusiast, an published author, and a credible writer. Anagrams are a stupid thing about which to fall out.

Trusting that I have given you your due, which includes the exhausting labor you went through to find your anagrams, I remain someone who recognizes Lewis Carroll as a viable suspect.

God bless you immensely,

Raven Darkendale

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Raven

If you don't mind me saying so, that was a very measured and respectful response to a somewhat hasty and slightly ungenerous posting. I congratulate you on your tact...

All the best

Dave

[R Wallace]

To Raven Darkendale:

A few thoughts on your post and a suggestion.

The more I think about it I don't think LC had Peter Pan Syndrome. Here's why. He developed (orally), wrote the Alice books and published them and lived off the proceeds. He did not live in the fantasy world of Wonderland. He did spend a lot of time with children re books and stories and included them in his annual trips to the beach. (Whether he included them or used them in his photography is another discussion.) But he also lived in an adult world, was manager of the dining room at Christ Church, Oxford,for about 20 years, interacting with many adults in that task. He wrote the Sylvie and Bruno books, hardly children literature and spent much more time on them than the Alice works. (Tough reads. What do you think of my comments about why he included an Index in those novels?) He was involved in campus issues, though it seems as an outsider. And he had a rich social life with adults, mostly women. He was an avid theater goer, and not just to children's productions. And he developed and published his books on logic and mathematics, and poetry. Obsessive? Yes. Intelligent? Yes. In some sort of "fantasy world" much of the time? Yes. But didn't grow up? He did, but awkwardly and, in my opinion, fueled with anger. Peter Pan? No. Jekyll/Hyde? Yes, but without the chemistry. A classic child of the Victorian split.

I didn't check all your anagrams, but the last one on Frances Coles doesn't have the right number of letters and you added an "i" for lice that wasn't in the original. I honestly just didn't like most of your anagrams. Hence, I thought that might be an effort to disparage (like some other critics have done). I'm going to accept the stated sincerity of your efforts and appreciate your kind words re mine.

I stay away from other suspects because I reject the cases against them, having read on all of them before starting my book. But to become qualified enough by one's own research to discuss more than one suspect is a challenge and one I'm not up to. So I stay focused on LC, believe that the other suspects have been largely disproved by others.

Interesting factoid: My first publisher for JTR was an academic press, who got cold feet (as we approached publication) when they heard that "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" would come out before mine and didn't want to risk it being valid. I think that book and suspect has been dismissed as a hoax.

Suggestion: To help further the goals of the blog and further clarify your own thoughts, why don't you explain (from my "profild" or your own knowledge and sources) how you reached the conclusion that LC is a valid suspect. I totally depended on the belief that the nonsense books he wrote for children were anti-social and that he was a sociopath, and, therefore a possible suspect. If you reject that and believe that he was a Peter Pan innocent, on what basis do you conclude he should be a suspect for such violence? Or, you may conclude he should be dismissed because he doesn't fit the profile. As a follow-on we could discuss the circumstantial case against him which I presented (less the anagrams if you wish) if you continue to believe he is a suspect worth discussing.

Regards,

R. Wallace

P. S. For those who haven't read my books, an explanation is due re the "lump of sugar" LC sent when dissed by young girls when they wouldn't withdraw publication of articles he didn't like after he had given permission to use "Jabberwock" for the name of their publication:

Many who learned of the gesture fell over themselves praising him being so forgiving; "The man is a saint, a veritable saint!" As you know from reading my book AOLC, I rejected that, concluding that in his anger (or pique, if you wish) Hyde came out in spades as he reverted to his coded words and sent them a fart ("foul rump gas") for their denial of his request. Who's right?

[RavenDarkendale]

Mr Wallace, Hi again

From your own "profile" (got the spelling wrong the other time, eh? ) you show LC as awkward around adults. He stammers. He is more comfortable in the presence of children. He had a father that was pretty much unavailable, a mother who disparaged the father in front of the children. His school years were marked by bullying and almost certainly being used as a fag by older students.

(By the by, I first came across this despicable "fag" business in the AJ Raffles stories long ago, and was intrigued enough, since the word only meant "homosexual partner" to me at the time, to find out what it meant in practice. The fag was a servant, doing all kinds of nasty chores for their "master", often doing their schoolwork, covering for them when they needed an alibi, take the blame for the master's mistakes, and yes, serve as sexual partner if that was the master's preference.)

His family was overtly religious, and he was expected to follow suit. He was awkward with love. He was filled with rage, against his parents, especially his mother, against religion in general and his home church in particular. He accomplished much, as you say, but never felt he was anything to anyone. His Fellowship was in his eyes, merely tolerated by the other Dons. He found it difficult to preach, felt that no one was listening, and dodged it all he could.

His childhood ruined by the actions of family, schoolmates, teachers, etc. drove him into a dependence on an ever growing fantasy world. He could accept responsibility as an adult, but he could never grow up, never measure up to his own expectations, and certainly felt his ideas and plans never would meet others approval. He was a breakdown waiting to happen, held together only by his rich imagination. He ceased being Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and became Lewis Carroll, man of magical nonsense. A split personality perhaps.

How does this make him a suspect? Any competent profiler has already marked several red flags in my analysis. A man who feels inadequate and neglected. Stormy relationship with parents. Perhaps disrespected his father since his mother did in front of him. Domineering mother. Child abuse and bulling. Trapped in a religious world not of his own making,. Rage of which he had no great control, no healthy pop-off valve to release pressure. Not just flaming rage, this burns up quickly and passes. A smouldering rage that becomes cold and calculating.

Combine the red flags and compare to red flags concerning JtR. Does the profile of JtR overlap the profile of LC? Certainly they do. Was LC in London in 1888? Absolutely. Could he have been at the crime scenes at the right times? He cannot be ruled out.

When a suspect fits the profile of the unsub, this suspect must be investigated.

I'm leaving out a lot here, but this profile is very personal to me, and the fantasy world in which LC lived just shouts out: "Never grow up, at least on the inside. Tolerate adults, be responsible, but never, never grow up."

Had LC been in the present, there are medications and counseling to help keep the dragon chained. When the dragon escapes, it's never pretty... Fantasy worlds look good sometimes, but we do not live in the "sweet by and by" but in the "nasty now and now"

OH, and never expect people to understand you, they won't. Stay true to yourself. That's all that counts.

Forgive me if I have rambled a little here and there. As I said LC's profile by you, and my take on it being Peter Pan Syndrome is very personal, very personal indeed.

God bless

Raven