Tag Archives: Writing

Not all men: The lie that keeps women trapped under patriarchal control

There’s an interesting phrase a lot of women use whenever they say anything negative about men:  ‘Not all men’.  It’s a disclaimer, an apology almost, that women feel compelled to add any time they criticise men.  It’s as if they’re telling the men who are listening, “Don’t worry, I’m not talking about you.  I’m talking about the bad ones.  I know you’re among the good ones.  This doesn’t apply to you.  Don’t get mad.”  Because we all know what men do if they don’t like what you’re saying.  They abuse you; they threaten you; they dogpile your comments section; they basically make you wish you had never opened your mouth.  And honestly?  I am tired of this disclaimer.  All it does is make every man who listens to the women feel that whatever they are saying doesn’t apply to them.  And it makes women believe that the ‘good men’ are just around the corner, if only they keep searching long enough.  It gaslights women into believing that the bad experiences they have with men are just unfortunate anomalies in a system that otherwise works well.  It makes women feel as if it’s their fault when things go wrong, for not choosing better, for not seeing the red flags, or for moving too quickly.  If only they had done something differently, the belief goes, they would have had different results.  So next time, they should try harder.  Be more careful.  Choose better.  This disclaimer basically transfers the blame from the men who collectively uphold the patriarchal system to the women who are its victims. 

My question is, if it’s not all men, where are the good men hiding?  Why do women struggle so much to find good men?  Why do most women have horror stories about experiences they have had with men?  Why do women keep warning other women about men?  If it were only a few bad apples, then these experiences would not be universal.  If most men were good, then most women would easily find good men without having to spend years searching for the good ones.  Women need to face the reality that has been staring them in the face for a very long time.  There’s no such thing as a good man, because all men support the patriarchal system that oppresses women.   They may not all be violent, or rapists or murderers.  But they all support the system, even if it’s through their silence and their refusal to call out other men.    

The patriarchal system could not have survived this long, for thousands of years, if it were being upheld by only a few men.  Every single man on the planet supports the system, which is why the system has lasted for so long.  For too long, women have been willing participants in their own oppression because they kept telling themselves that if only they could work harder, make themselves prettier, be more patient, be more submissive, be more loving, then the right man would eventually come along.  God would surely reward them with a good man.  Meanwhile, men continue to uphold the patriarchal system, each one of them a cog in a giant wheel that keeps the system running. 

The deafening silence of the ‘good men’

A few months ago, I watched a viral video of a woman being beaten by a man during a concert in Kenya.  The video caused much outrage, as such videos normally do, almost as if violence against women was a new concept in Kenya.  What struck me most, though, was the fact that in the video, several men stood nearby casually observing the scene as if nothing significant was happening.  Not one of them lifted a finger to help the woman.  These men most likely think of themselves as good men.  They would probably never physically assault, rape or murder a woman.  But does that make them good men?  No!  If you can stand by and watch a person being brutalised and do nothing, then you are no better than the person who is doing the brutalising.  It means that inwardly you agree with what he is doing, even though you may not do it yourself.  And this is where the road meets the rubber.  Most men fall into the category of men who will silently watch women being abused and do nothing.  It doesn’t cause them sleepless nights.  It doesn’t disturb them enough to call for something to be done about violence against women by their fellow men. 

In Kenya, if you hear a woman screaming due to domestic violence, the correct response is to do nothing.  It is none of your business.  The man is disciplining his wife, and he has every right to do so.  It is a domestic issue, and it has nothing to do with you.  If the woman goes to the police, most likely nothing will be done about it, or the man’s relatives will interfere to ensure he doesn’t face justice.  That is why women don’t bother reporting domestic violence or crimes such as rape.  They will probably not be taken seriously.   Men routinely look the other way when other men commit crimes against women.  There are websites and channels that teach men how to rape their wives and partners.  These forums have tens of thousands of men, yet none of these men ever feels the need to report the crimes.  There are WhatsApp groups that allow men to share non-consensual nude photos of their partners.  These photos were probably shared by women who genuinely thought they were in a loving relationship.    None of the men in these groups ever feels the need to call out their fellow men or report to the police.  Why is it that men can do such things without the fear of being reported by other men?  It’s because men operate by a code of silence, a sort of omerta that means that men need never fear that their fellow men will do anything to hold them accountable.   

Men hold all the power, yet do not hold other men accountable

Most positions of power in society are held by men.  This is true in the political arena, in religion, in corporations and on the home front.  The father holds the power in most homes.  Most world leaders and politicians are men.  Most church leaders are men.  Most billionaires are men.  Most corporations are headed by men.  Everywhere you look, men are the ones in positions of power.  And yet this power is never used to hold other men accountable.  In fact, this power is used to allow men to get away with crimes against women.  Look at the Epstein files.  Most of the perpetrators were men, and yet only one woman was ever held accountable.  Look at the abuse in churches.  The priests were abusing young boys while the authorities in Rome did their best to hide the rot.  Look at human trafficking.  The perpetrators are mostly men, trafficking women for other men to abuse.  If the authorities were to take the abuse of women seriously, these crimes could be stopped.  But just the same way Epstein was protected, the people carrying out the trafficking of girls are protected by powerful men.

On the global stage, it’s the same thing.  Look at what Israel is doing in Gaza and Lebanon.  Who will hold Benjamin Netanyahu accountable?  Who will hold Donald Trump accountable for bombing Iran?  Who will hold Vladimir Putin accountable for bombing Ukraine?   The weapons that are going to these countries to fight these wars are coming from so-called developed countries.  Who will hold Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz accountable for sending weapons to kill people in other countries?  Men apparently can do whatever they want on this planet, and nobody can do anything about it.

Let’s come closer home.  Kenyans can do nothing but watch as their president invites the United States and France to set up military bases in their country.  We already have the United Kingdom’s military base, which has been accused of committing many crimes against Kenyans.  Can’t our leaders learn from history?  How do you invite the same people who colonised and enslaved Africans the same way our forefathers did hundreds of years ago?  Our president is gradually selling our country back into colonialism, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.  Public institutions that were built over decades are being sold off, which will most likely lead to job losses and more expensive services.  Debt and corruption abound because this is what men do when they get power.  And yet, religion teaches us that it is women we must be afraid of.  Because Eve ate the fruit, women can never be trusted to hold power.  Only men can be entrusted with power, even though it is obvious to anyone with eyes that all men do is abuse power and cause suffering. 

Men have no empathy for women

Men as a collective have no empathy for women.  This is the sad reality that women need to come to terms with.  Women keep asking men: What if that was your sister, or your mother, or your daughter?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but men just don’t care.  This argument has never moved any man to protect women, because the patriarchy is more important to men than women’s safety.  How do you expect men to protect women when it is men who have been selling their daughters to other men through the institution of marriage?  Why would you expect men to have empathy for women when they watched their own fathers treat their mothers with disrespect?  Why would you expect men to go against a patriarchy that promises them a woman to cater to their every need, bear them children, ensure the continuation of their lineage, and run their homes so that they never have to think about domestic matters?  I don’t know if women understand just how good men have it.  They are never going to willingly give up this power over women just because we ask them to think about ‘what if that was your daughter?’

Most men do not see women as human beings.  They see them as sexual objects, maids, and child bearers.  They need women the way you need an appliance that makes your life easier.  You don’t need to love an appliance for it to be useful to you.  They choose women based on how willing a woman is to serve their needs, not on some fanciful idea of romantic love.  This is a lie that has been sold to women to make them willing participants in their own oppression.  That’s why girls are taught from childhood how to be good wives and how to please their husbands, whereas no one ever thought of preparing men to be good husbands to their wives.  Women who have never been married simply have no idea what is waiting for them on the other side.  The amount of work they will have to do to maintain their house, satisfy their husband and tend to their kids is something that should cause even the most hard-working, diligent woman to think twice before committing to such a life.  No one ever warns women about this.  They enter marriage with fanciful ideas about a blissful married life, ideas that instantly disappear once they realise that their husband will sit on the sofa playing games or watching sports while they perform all the domestic chores.  And if you think that that easy-going, modern man of yours will help you with domestic chores once you’re married, you have another think coming.  Most men will not lift a finger to help their wives.  It doesn’t matter if she brings in more money than him.  If anything, women who earn more than their husbands are more likely to be abused.

What’s the solution for women?

Most women are, unfortunately, still trapped by the idea that they cannot do without men.  They believe that, yes, men have caused women pain, but we cannot do without them.  There is no point arguing with a woman who is still in this state of mind because she can’t accept that she can survive without a man.  She will fight this idea with all her strength.  She will accuse you of being bitter.  She will accuse you of hating men.  She will accuse you of hating women.  She will call you ugly and claim that no man wants you.  There is a reason why women hold on to this mindset, even though it’s clear how much suffering men have caused women.  Most women have an existential fear of being on their own.  But where does this fear come from?

Separation from your higher being

At some point during the evolution of this planet, people started moving backwards instead of forward.  Instead of raising their consciousness, they started lowering their consciousness and moving further away from oneness into separation.  They lost contact with their higher being who was within them, and moved into a fear-based existence.  That is why life on this planet is so hellish.  It wasn’t always like this.  There was a time in human history when Earth was a natural planet.  Every person on the planet was connected to their higher being, and this was the source of all their needs.  Their higher being was the source of love, provision, protection, companionship, and a sense of being connected to something higher than themselves.  Importantly, people did not feel alone.  Everyone felt safe, connected, and whole.  But as the consciousness started to go down, people lost their connection to their higher being, and this is where the feeling of being alone started.  The more alone people felt, the more they looked outside of themselves for their needs to be met.  That is why women developed the obsessive idea that men could give them what they were looking for.  But a man can never replace your higher being.  The only way to end this cycle is to go back within and reconnect with your higher being. 

Radical self-love

Once you accept that you will never get what you are looking for from men, the logical next step is to separate yourself from men.  Men will abuse you, betray you, cheat on you, abandon you, infect you with diseases, beat you, rape you and even kill you, until you accept that what you are looking for cannot be found with them.  Unfortunately, this is what it will take to get women to start looking for oneness within.  Many women are arriving at this conclusion, but many others are resisting the radical step of cutting off men.  And I admit, it’s a hard concept to accept.  We have been conditioned to believe that men and women need each other and cannot survive without each other.  But that simply isn’t the case.  Women can live comfortably without men.  We can then use all that extra time and energy that we are not pouring into men to focus on ourselves and our spiritual growth.  This is an act of radical self-love.  It means saying that we will not allow anything into our lives that does not serve our highest good, and sticking to that no matter what others may think of us.

4B Movement

This brings us to the 4B movement, a movement that was started by women in South Korea due to misogyny, gender-based violence, and economic pressures.  4B means four nos:

bihon (no marriage)

bichulsan (no childbirth)

biyeonae (no dating)

bisekseu (no sex with men)

Once women accept that there is no such thing as a good man, it becomes pointless to continue searching for that needle in the haystack that probably doesn’t exist.   If you love yourself as a woman, you will not allow any person into your life who causes you pain and suffering.  The fact that women have such a hard time coming to such an obvious conclusion tells you just how conditioned we are to believe that we cannot do without men.  But if some women in South Korea can do this, then all women can do it.  More and more women are concluding that the only way to bring down the patriarchy and end the oppression of women for good is to withdraw our energy and attention from men.  It’s time we stopped chasing a fantasy that doesn’t exist.

Lewis Carroll – Predator : Part Two

Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper

Jack the Ripper was a notorious serial killer in the 1800s who committed a series of gruesome murders that were never solved.  His victims were all prostitutes who worked in the Whitechapel district of London, which is why the murders became known as the Whitechapel murders.  Jack the Ripper was suspected of having committed eleven killings between 1888 and 1891, of which five are considered ‘canonical’ Ripper victims, meaning they were definitely attributed to him.  The name Jack the Ripper came from a series of letters that were sent to the Central News Agency supposedly by the killer, mocking the police for their inability to catch him.   Jack the Ripper is still considered one of the worst serial killers in history due to the brutal nature of his murders.  There have been speculations over the years about who could have been the killer, with several names put forward as possible suspects. 

In 1996, Richard Wallace wrote a book, Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend, in which he proposed Lewis Carroll as Jack the Ripper.  His theory was thoroughly mocked and outrightly dismissed by people who called themselves experts on Jack the Ripper.  Even though today Lewis Carroll’s name is included in the list of possible suspects, he has always been considered among the least likely to have been Jack the Ripper.  This just tells me that the people who consider themselves ‘experts’ have no idea what they are talking about.  If they were indeed experts, then Lewis Carroll would have been considered among the most likely, if not the actual, culprit in the Jack the Ripper murders.  Once we look at the evidence, it should be obvious that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper, and any reasonable person should consider the case finally closed.

Let’s look at the evidence.

  1. Lewis Carroll identified himself as Jack (aka the Knave) in Alice in Wonderland

When I first encountered the idea that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper, I dismissed it outright, as most people do.  But gradually, as I started entertaining the possibility, I wondered to myself, why Jack?  Where did this name come from?  And then it hit me.  Did you know that in a pack of cards, the ‘J’ stands for Jack?  I didn’t know this until quite recently.  The J, which is also known as the Knave, actually stands for Jack.  The K stands for King, the Q for Queen, and the J for Jack.  In Alice in Wonderland, the main characters are derived from characters in a pack of cards.  There’s the Queen of Hearts, the King of Hearts and the Knave of Hearts.  The Knave is the one who undergoes a trial in the last chapter of Alice in Wonderland for stealing the tarts that the Queen of Hearts had baked.  For those who know the real story of Lewis Carroll, we know that something happened to cause a rupture in his relationship with the Liddell family.  If you read the first part of this series, then you know that the rupture was most likely caused by Carroll being accused of molesting the sisters.  This is what he is referring to when he talks about a trial in which the Knave is accused of stealing the tarts.  By identifying himself as the Knave, Lewis Carroll is telling us that he is Jack.  This is where the name Jack comes from.  This, to me, is the smoking gun.

2. Lewis Carroll alludes to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in his diaries

In November 1888, at the height of the Jack the Ripper murders, Lewis Carroll refers to himself as Dr Jekyll in his diary.  Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a Gothic horror novella by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson, first published in 1886.  It explores the duality of human nature through the story of Dr Henry Jekyll, a respected London physician who creates a potion to separate his good and evil impulses. The result is Edward Hyde, a smaller, younger, and physically repulsive man who embodies Jekyll’s repressed vices and violent tendencies.  As Jekyll uses the potion more frequently, Hyde grows stronger and increasingly uncontrollable. Jekyll loses the ability to transform back at will, and Hyde begins appearing involuntarily. The novella is narrated through the perspective of Gabriel John Utterson, Jekyll’s lawyer and friend, who investigates the mysterious connection between Jekyll and the brutal crimes committed by Hyde. The story culminates in Jekyll’s desperate attempt to reclaim control, ultimately failing as he becomes permanently trapped as Mr Hyde.

The phrase “Jekyll and Hyde” has since entered the common language to describe someone with a sharply contrasting public and private persona—respectable outwardly, yet cruel or immoral in private.  So why would Lewis Carroll refer to himself as Dr Jekyll in his diaries, during the same period when the Whitechapel murders were taking place in London?  It’s obvious.  It’s because his alter ego, Jack, was the one carrying out the gruesome murders.

3. Lewis Carroll’s love of letter writing and ability to change his handwriting at will

Lewis Carroll loved writing letters.  He had hundreds of child-friends, to whom he wrote thousands of letters during his lifetime.  He kept a meticulous register of all the letters he wrote, estimated to have been 98,721 letters over 37 years.  This love of letter writing is something he shared with Jack the Ripper. 

The Jack the Ripper letters were sent to various recipients, primarily in London:

  • Central News Agency – The infamous Dear Boss letter (25 September 1888) and the Saucy Jacky postcard (1 October 1888) were both addressed to this news agency, located in London’s City district. 
  • Scotland Yard and Police Officials – A significant portion (67%) of the hundreds of Ripper letters were sent to law enforcement, including Scotland Yard, Sir Charles Warren (head of the Metropolitan Police), and Inspector Abberline. 
  • George Lusk – Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, received the From Hell letter (16 October 1888), which contained a human kidney. 
  • Newspapers and the Public – Some letters were sent to other news outlets, private firms, schools, or private citizens, while others had unknown recipients. 

If Lewis Carroll was indeed Jack the Ripper, then it’s not surprising that he would send hundreds of letters to gain notoriety.

Lewis Carroll also had an uncanny ability to change his handwriting at will.  For this, we need look no further than the handwritten copy of Alice’s Adventures Underground, which he gave as a gift to Alice Liddell.  The entire book was written in a childlike handwriting, which was not Lewis Carroll’s normal handwriting.  The fact that he could accomplish such a feat means that he could have written the Dear Boss letter.  Lewis Carroll alludes to this in the last chapter of Alice in Wonderland, in which a set of verses supposedly written by the Knave is read during the trial.  One of the jurymen asks:

“Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?”

“No, they’re not,” said the White Rabbit, “and that’s the queerest thing about it.” (The jury all looked puzzled.)

“He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,” said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

The final clue concerning the letters is found in Lewis Carroll’s habit of underlining certain words for emphasis when writing letters.  We can see this in the letter he wrote to Alice Liddell after he borrowed her copy of Alice in Wonderland.  In the Dear Boss letter, which is one of the few that were confirmed to be from Jack the Ripper, we see the same habit of underlining certain words for emphasis.

4. Lewis Carroll had a split personality

Lewis Carroll was the pen name for Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, a lecturer of mathematics and an ordained deacon at Christ Church College, Oxford University.  The interesting thing about Charles Dodgson was that he went to extreme lengths to distance himself from Lewis Carroll.  Letters addressed to Lewis Carroll that came to him would be sent back.  To enforce this separation, Dodgson created a printed document known as the “Stranger Circular”, which he sent to collectors and inquirers.  It stated clearly: 

“Mr Dodgson is so frequently addressed by strangers on the quite unauthorised assumption that he claims or at any rate acknowledges the authorship of books not published under his name, that he has found it necessary to print this, once and for all, as an answer to all such applications. He neither claims nor acknowledges any connection with any pseudonym, or with any book that is not published under his own name.”

This might at first appear as a humorous personality quirk, but I believe it went much deeper.  I believe Lewis Carroll suffered from a split personality, which meant that he could separate his identity as Lewis Carroll from his other identity as Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.  In his mind, these were two separate and distinct people.  Once we understand this, it becomes easier to understand why he would take on the identity of Jack the Ripper.  This was another split in his persona that came from an intense desire to commit the crimes that Jack the Ripper committed, which he could not do as either Lewis Carroll or Charles Dodgson.  Jack the Ripper was born for purposes of committing murder, which meant that Charles Dodgson could continue living his normal life without acknowledging his criminal identity, just the same way he tried to live his life without acknowledging his identity as Lewis Carroll.

5. Medical Knowledge

Jack the Ripper was believed to possess medical knowledge because of the way he carried out his murders.  He removed internal organs—such as kidneys and uteruses—from several victims, and the precision and speed of the mutilations suggested familiarity with human anatomy.  However, Dr Thomas Bond, who conducted a detailed post-mortem analysis, concluded the killer had no formal medical or surgical training, noting the ragged, unskilled nature of the cuts—inconsistent with a surgeon or even a butcher.  He believed the killer lacked technical precision, despite knowing organ locations.

While Lewis Carroll obviously did not have medical training, we know that he was interested in vivisection, even writing two influential essays about it: “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection” (1875) and “Vivisection as a Sign of the Times” (1875).  This suggests that he studied the subject extensively.  Another clue can be found in the fact that Lewis Carroll had an extensive medical library.  We know this because after his death, his prized Medical Collection was bequeathed to his nephew Bertram James Collingwood, 1871-1934, a physician whose father had died just days before Dodgson.

The above is consistent with Jack the Ripper, who, while not having technical precision, knew where organs were located.

6. Mysterious clergyman who went to look for Mr Lusk

While researching Jack the Ripper, I came across an interesting fact that was reported by one of the witnesses.  Miss Emily Marsh reported encountering a mysterious man dressed in clerical attire on October 15, 1888, at her father’s leather shop on Jubilee Street, Mile End Road, shortly after 1:00 PM. The man inquired about the address of Mr  George Lusk, president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and asked to be directed to him.  When Miss Marsh suggested he visit Mr Joseph Aarons, the committee’s treasurer, the man declined, saying he did not wish to go to a pub. She then read aloud from a newspaper article that listed Lusk’s address as Alderney Street, Globe Road, without a house number, which the man then wrote down in his notebook. 

The man was described as about 45 years old, six feet tall, slimly built, with a sallow complexion, a dark beard and moustache, and wore a long black overcoat, a soft felt hat, and a Prussian or clerical collar. He spoke with what Miss Marsh perceived as an Irish brogue.  She and her father, along with a shopboy named James Cormack, gave a detailed description of the man, who left without calling on Lusk.  This encounter occurred one day before Lusk received the infamous “From Hell” letter and a preserved human kidney.  The letter did not have the house number on the address.

We know that Lewis Carroll was six feet tall, slim and had a sallow complexion.  The beard and moustache were obviously a disguise, which Lewis Carroll must have been good at from his photography work (he had all sorts of costumes that his subjects would wear at his studio).  But the most important clue is that the man had a clerical collar.  We know that Lewis Carroll was an ordained deacon and that he used to wear a clerical collar.  This is what one of his child-friends, Princess Alice, said about him:

“As a little girl, I once arrived at a children’s party and saw a pale old clergyman in black clothes. I glumly assumed that he would spoil everything. Yet, the party soon became Mr Dodgson’s party.”

What this means is that the tall clergyman who went to look for Mr Lusk was in fact Lewis Carroll.

7. Lewis Carroll’s frequent trips to London

It has been said that Lewis Carroll could not have been Jack the Ripper because Lewis Carroll was vacationing at Eastbourne at the time.  This overlooks the fact that Lewis Carroll frequently travelled by train to London to meet with publishers, to meet with relatives and to go to the theatre.  We know that he used to make trips to London to attend the theatre even when he was vacationing at Eastbourne.  So, the idea that he could not have committed the murders because he was at Eastbourne is baseless.  London already had a very well-established railway system in the 1800s, so nothing would have been easier than to take the train to London, commit the crimes, then take the train back to Eastbourne.  The distance between London and Eastbourne is around one hour by train, and this was a trip he frequently undertook.  Therefore, this supposed alibi is not an alibi at all.  It would not be the first time that a serial killer travelled to a different town or city to commit a crime.  Many serial killers do this.

8. Lewis Carroll’s hidden sadistic nature

Consider the passage below, which Lewis Carroll wrote to Enid Shawyer, a child-friend, dated April 7, 1891.

“So you think you’ve got the courage to come for a walk by yourself with me? Indeed! Well, I shall come for you on April 31st at 13 o’clock, and first I will take you to the Oxford Zoological Gardens, and put you into a cage of LIONS, and when they’ve had a good feed, I’ll bring you to my rooms, and give a regular beating, with a thick stick, to my new little friend. Then I’ll put you into the coal-hole, and feed you for a week on nothing but bread and water. Then I’ll send you home in a milk-cart, in one of the empty milk-cans.”

Some might say that this is just a humorous letter, but someone else would rightly ask, why would anyone write such a letter to a child?

This is what he wrote to Isa Bowman on September 17, 1893.

“Oh, you naughty, naughty little culprit! If only I could fly to Fulham with a handy little stick (ten feet long and four inches thick is my favourite size) how I would rap your wicked little knuckles. However, there isn’t much harm done, so I will sentence you to a very mild punishment—only one year’s imprisonment. If you’ll just tell the Fulham policeman about it, he’ll manage all the rest for you, and he’ll fit you with a nice pair of handcuffs, and lock you up in a nice cosy dark cell, and feed you on nice dry bread, and delicious cold water.”

Did he love his child-friends, or did he want to imprison them in dungeons and feed them on bread and water? 

The last proof of hidden sadism can be found in his book, Alice in Wonderland.  Have you ever wondered what the chapter about the baby turning into a pig was all about?  I wondered about this for a long time because it didn’t make any sense, and seemed to be an example of the nonsense he was so famous for.  But I discovered that the chapter had a deeper, darker, more sinister meaning.  To understand what the passage was all about, we need to first understand who the duchess was.  The duchess, just like the Queen of Hearts, was Mrs Liddell, a woman Lewis Carroll loathed, which we can tell from how she is portrayed in the book.  What many might not know is that Mrs Liddell lost a baby in infancy in 1863, around the time when the rift with Lewis Carroll occurred.  The chapter about the baby turning into a pig and trotting away was alluding to the fact that Mrs Liddell was such a bad mother that she allowed her child to die due to neglect and mistreatment.

Let’s take a look at a passage from that chapter.

“Oh, don’t bother me,” said the Duchess; “I never could abide figures!” And with that, she began nursing her child again, singing a sort of lullaby to it as she did so, and giving it a violent shake at the end of every line:

“Speak roughly to your little boy,
And beat him when he sneezes:
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases.”

CHORUS
(In which the cook and the baby joined):
“Wow! wow! wow!”

While the Duchess sang the second verse of the song, she kept tossing the baby violently up and down, and the poor little thing howled so that Alice could hardly hear the words:—

“I speak severely to my boy,
I beat him when he sneezes;
For he can thoroughly enjoy
The pepper when he pleases!”

CHORUS
“Wow! wow! wow!”

“Here! you may nurse it a bit, if you like!” the Duchess said to Alice, flinging the baby at her as she spoke. “I must go and get ready to play croquet with the Queen,” and she hurried out of the room. The cook threw a frying-pan after her as she went out, but it just missed her.

Alice caught the baby with some difficulty, as it was a queer-shaped little creature, and held out its arms and legs in all directions, “just like a star-fish,” thought Alice. The poor little thing was snorting like a steam-engine when she caught it, and kept doubling itself up and straightening itself out again, so that altogether, for the first minute or two, it was as much as she could do to hold it.

As soon as she had made out the proper way of nursing it (which was to twist it up into a sort of knot, and then keep tight hold of its right ear and left foot, so as to prevent its undoing itself), she carried it out into the open air. “If I don’t take this child away with me,” thought Alice, “they’re sure to kill it in a day or two: wouldn’t it be murder to leave it behind?” She said the last words out loud, and the little thing grunted in reply (it had left off sneezing by this time). “Don’t grunt,” said Alice; “that’s not at all a proper way of expressing yourself.”

The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. There could be no doubt that it had a very turn-up nose, much more like a snout than a real nose; also its eyes were getting extremely small for a baby: altogether Alice did not like the look of the thing at all. “But perhaps it was only sobbing,” she thought, and looked into its eyes again, to see if there were any tears.

No, there were no tears. “If you’re going to turn into a pig, my dear,” said Alice, seriously, “I’ll have nothing more to do with you. Mind now!” The poor little thing sobbed again (or grunted, it was impossible to say which), and they went on for some while in silence.

Alice was just beginning to think to herself, “Now, what am I to do with this creature when I get it home?” when it grunted again, so violently that she looked down into its face in some alarm. This time there could be no mistake about it: it was neither more nor less than a pig, and she felt that it would be quite absurd for her to carry it further.

So she set the little creature down, and felt quite relieved to see it trot away quietly into the wood. “If it had grown up,” she said to herself, “it would have made a dreadfully ugly child: but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think.” And she began thinking over other children she knew, who might do very well as pigs, and was just saying to herself, “if one only knew the right way to change them—” when she was a little startled by seeing the Cheshire Cat sitting on a bough of a tree a few yards off.

Exactly how much did Lewis Carroll hate Mrs Liddell to write such a cruel passage about the child she lost? 

9. Lewis Carroll’s reincarnation as C. S. Lewis

My final submission is going to be controversial for those who don’t believe in reincarnation.  If that is you, you may skip this section altogether. 

C. S. Lewis was born ten months and 15 days after Lewis Carroll’s death, in November 1898.  The two men share several uncanny similarities:

  • Both Lewis Carroll and C. S. Lewis studied at Oxford University – one at Christ Church College and the other at Magdalene College.
  • C. S. Lewis was a lay theologian of the Anglican church, while Lewis Carroll (Dodgson) was an ordained deacon of the Anglican church.
  • Both of them wrote popular children’s fantasy books – the Alice books and The Chronicles of Narnia. 
  • They both created fantasy worlds, i.e. Wonderland and Narnia, in which animals could talk to humans.
  • In both Wonderland and Narnia, the protagonist is a little girl (Alice and Lucy), and authority figures include an evil woman (the Queen of Hearts and the White Witch)
  • C. S. Lewis was born in Ireland, while Lewis Carroll had Irish ancestry through his grandfather and great-grandfather.

You may be asking yourself, so what if C. S. Lewis was Lewis Carroll reborn?  Well, apparently, C. S. Lewis insisted on being called Jack from the age of four and would not answer to any other name.  He used the name Jack for the rest of his life and said it was because he hated his real name (Clive Staples).  Isn’t this just a little bit too much of a coincidence?

Do you agree with me that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper?  Let me know in the comments.

How to Start Your Writing Career – Advice from a New Author

A lot of people aspire to become writers, but many have no idea where to start.  I believe everyone has a story to tell, so potentially anyone could become a writer.  But how does one become a writer?  How does one launch their writing career and become that published author they have always dreamt of becoming?  I was in this same boat for a very long time, wanting to be a writer but never quite hitting that sweet spot where an idea forms in your mind and inspires you so much that you not only start writing but are able to write enough to result in a book.  I always had the firm belief that I had a book in me that wanted to come out, but all the ideas I came up with sounded hollow and unconvincing.  That was until last year when I was finally able to write and publish my first book.  So, what changed?  What finally made it possible for me to feel inspired enough to write and complete a whole book?  Well, this is what I wanted to share with all of you aspiring writers.

I always had the firm belief that I had a book in me that wanted to come out, but all the ideas I came up with sounded hollow and unconvincing. 

Write about something you’re passionate about

For my first book which I published last year, I wrote a very personal story about a journey I had been going through for almost two years.  I had never previously imagined that when I finally wrote a book, it would be about a personal experience I was going through.  I always thought my first book would be a fictional novel and all my efforts towards coming up with an idea had always been geared towards fiction.  I was completely taken by surprise when one day I started writing my story, without even consciously thinking that I was writing a book and to my surprise, I had a lot to say and the words just kept flowing.  Before I knew it, my writing was actually turning into a book.  My recommendation therefore, especially for a first book is that you write about something you feel passionate about, something you are emotionally invested in and something you feel very strongly about.  It could be a personal experience or it could be anything that produces a strong emotion in you.  Even if it’s a fictional story, let it center around something that is close to your heart.  Once the ball is rolling i.e. you’ve written your first book, it will become much easier to write your next book.

You don’t necessarily have to write a long book in the beginning

My first book is only 100 pages long.  I know there’s a lot of pressure to write 70,000 – 100,000-word books, but for your first book just allow yourself to write whatever length of book you are able to write.  The idea is to start and you have to start somewhere.  As you become more experienced, you will be able to write longer books but this may not be the case in the beginning.  I read the story of a prolific writer who currently writes amazing fictional novels, but his first book was only 50 pages long.  Whatever length of book you write, go ahead and write it and publish it.  Once you publish your first book, you will then start feeling like a writer and you can officially start calling yourself a writer and this will inspire you to start writing much better books.  I am currently writing my second book and for sure it will be much longer than my first book.

Don’t have unrealistic expectations

You’ve always dreamt of being a writer and wowing the world with your first book which will instantly become a best-selling novel, selling millions of copies and probably turning into a major motion picture.  This is a valid dream and there is nothing wrong with having such a dream.  There are people out there who have had their first book instantly become a best-seller, so it is not entirely an impossibility.  However, if you wait until the day you will have that million-dollar idea that will instantly become a best-seller, then you might wait for a very long time.  The thing is, just start writing even if the idea you have is not the best idea.  It could even be a lousy idea.  Remember the guy I mentioned above whose first book was only 50 pages long?  Well, by his own admission, the book was actually not a very good book at all.  But the important thing is that it was what got him started on his writing career and now he is able to write much better books with much better plots.  We learn from experience, and if you don’t start writing that lousy book, how will you ever graduate to writing million-dollar books?  I am not trying to burst your bubble – it is possible for your first book to become an instant best-seller.  I’m just saying don’t count too much on that happening, but go ahead and write anyway.  Maybe your third or sixth or tenth book will become the big hit, who knows.  By the way, my first book was not a best seller either.  You know, just incase you were thinking I am one of those few exceptions.

Take advantage of self-publishing platforms such as Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing

These days, becoming a published author is much easier than it used to be.  With self-publishing platforms such as Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing, anyone can become a published author.  You don’t have to go through difficult publishers who will be completely uninterested in your very unique ideas, or who will take your manuscript and dump it somewhere in a dark corner of their office.  Now all the power lies in your hands.  Your book doesn’t have to meet anyone’s approval except your own.  You are in control and no one can stop you from becoming the published author you have always dreamt of becoming.  Of course, this doesn’t mean that you just publish some junk and call it a book.  You do want people to read your book, otherwise what’s the point of writing?  So, give it your best shot, write as good a book as possible and make sure your book doesn’t have typos.  As a self-published author, no one is going to be monitoring the quality of your book except yourself, so work hard to make sure your book is of the best quality possible.

Just start writing

We’ve all heard this particular piece of advice and it’s a very annoying piece of advice when you’re an aspiring writer because what exactly does it mean?  If I could just start writing, wouldn’t I have started writing by now?  Well, that’s the reason I put this at the end, so as not to unnecessarily annoy you too early.  What this means is that you could have the best idea in the world, but unless you actually sit down and start writing you will always be an aspiring writer and never a writer.  The thing is, writing is actually work and sometimes it’s hard work.  The idea in your head is not automatically going to jump from your head into the computer.  You will have to sit down and coax it out and put it down in written form.  It takes some kind of discipline.  I can’t tell you I always enjoy the process of writing.  In fact, I downright hate it sometimes.  And don’t get me started about editing my work after having written it down.  Sometimes I look at some of the stuff I’ve written and I wonder whether I had smoked something when I was writing it.  What the hell was I trying to say?  My point is, writing is not always going to be fun, and you will mostly have to force yourself to sit down and just write.  But the reward is in finally publishing your completed work.  It’s incomparable, that feeling of finishing a book and publishing it.  So, don’t expect to be carried away by some writer’s inspiration where you find yourself writing non-stop for a month without the need for food or rest.  Be ready to put in the work.