It's interesting that when I saw the name of the thread, "Lewis Carroll's Photographs", I immediately thought; he's was a ********* isn't he? I suppose that history has given me that message. I'm not making any accusations here but somehow I got that idea about his motives.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
Well, I don't think there's any culture on earth that considers cold-blooded murder to be an acceptable medium for artistic expression. Nor rape. But what constitutes rape is so divergent as to render the term problematic at best, meaningless at worst. But it is a slippery slope to judge Carroll/Dodgson's photographs of Alice as pedophilic porn - they are very much of a piece with genre art of the time period where it was far more acceptable to show nude or semi-nude children in paintings and photographs. Children were considered innocent, therefore images of them had to represent innocence. Especially if there was a plinth and a column and a laurel wreath in the image or something to make an art-historical reference. And doing post-mortem forensic psychoanalysis of someone like Lewis Carroll is incomplete at best and fictional at worst because we can't ask him questions about his mindset. Certainly his writings leave some clue, but they're one-sided. Trying to draw conclusions about his sexuality from his fictional writing, especially when it is utterly fanciful and not overtly sexual, is getting into a lit-crit exercise. It is entirely possible for someone to write fiction not based in their personal experience, so it is entirely possible that even if Carroll had written an antecedent to Lolita, you couldn't call him a real-life Humbert Humbert. From the evidence we do have (Alice Liddell's mother was sufficiently uncomfortable with SOMETHING about Dodgson's behavior that she denied him access to the child), it is not hard to imagine that he would be classified a pedophile were he alive today.