Seeing double Book

I'm having a difficult time deciding how to rate this book. Some parts seemed accurate, some not so accurate, and others I knew nothing about before hand, and I couldn't decide whether they were ridiculously inaccurate or ridiculously accurate. All of it was fun to read: I enjoy literary criticism because it gives me the perspective of someone who hopefully knows more on the subject than I.

This includes mini biographies and short criticisms of the following Golden Age authors: Charles Kingsley, C. L. Dodgson, George MacDonald, Louisa Alcott, Richard Jefferies, Kenneth Grahame, E. Nesbit, Beatrix Potter, J. M. Barrie, and A. A. Milne. Many other authors are mentioned briefly, but these are the ones around which the book revolves.

Humphrey Carpenter views the first four authors on the above list as "destroyers." They paved the way for the Golden Age authors by destroying previous notions about literature (children's literature, in particular). Basically, they began the movement but did not fully realize it. The remaining six authors were "creators."

Most interesting to me was seeing how these authors are similar, and what the common thread is that connects their works. I do think some of Carpenter's opinions are a bit hasty and unjust --- including his opinions of George MacDonald. He doesn't comprehend MacDonald AT ALL, and that's all there is to say on the subject. I'm just afraid Carpenter also misunderstands some of the other authors, and I may never give them a fair chance because I read Carpenter's book before reading any of their books (those authors would be Charles Kingsley, Richard Jefferies, and J. M Barrie: I do intend to read The Water Babies and the Peter Pan books, but Richard Jefferies style would almost certainly NOT suit me, and I'll probably avoid his books.)

I was also interested in his suggestions that the Alice books are an outright mockery of God, that C. L. Dodgson had an unwholesome infatuation with beautiful young girls (as George MacDonald perhaps did too, according to him), and that MacDonald had a sadistic streak ( Of him, Carpenter says: "At times, indeed, he bears a resemblance to one of his wife's aunt's, of whom it was said that 'she could never lie comfortably in bed if she might not believe in hellfire and everlasting pains.'" That is irrefutable evidence that Carpenter knew nothing about MacDonald.). It was all extremely entertaining, and I scarcely believed a word of it.

Even though I don't agree with Humphrey Carpenter on many points (and the bit on Charles Kingsley and his wife Fannie was beyond what I'm comfortable reading about), this was entertaining and served as a reminder of some books I need to read!