Emma wrote:
"I think Rowan Williams' remark is both compassionate and sophisticated, which is typical of the man."

I agree. I'm in agreement with Dr Williams' position, and Emmas's, here. To take the argument towards the ludicrous, Gary Glitter's 'Do you want to be in my gang' is still a belting record (or not), irrespective of what we now know about his desires. Of course, I wouldn't now patronise his stage show. Likewise, 'Mein Kampf' is a gem of autobiography (or not - actually, it's shit), despite what we now know of Herr Hitler's career.

Orwell wrote somewhere, something like: "if Shakespeare were alive today, but we knew he was in the habit of molesting young children in railway carriages, would we let him get away with it, on the grounds he might write another King Lear?" From my point of view, no. But having written 'King Lear', in what way would that subsequent knowledge devalue the work of art? In no measure at all, is my view. I think the issue of his books being for children is a 'red herring' here.

Joe

What about the work of C.L.Dodgson. Rumour has surrounded his associations with 'little girls 'and although nothing has been proved these rumours persist. But the works of Lewis Carroll continue to be read.
More apposite is the case of the late Arthur Koestler. People still read his work despite the fact that he was accused of being a serial rapist.
So, no, I'm afraid.Life and Art do mesh together, which is what biography is all about,but art can also exist separately from the person who created it. When it goes out into the world it becomes an object of value to us, the consumers. Philip Larkin was a bigot and a racist, but he was also a great poet, and that's all that matters.

I don't think it's ever been suggested that Dodgson/Carroll abused children, as Mayne has - nor did anyone later say they'd been hurt by him.

Elbow

If Dodgson/Carroll had abused children, it's hard to know exactly it would have been talked about, though I'll guess we'll never know. There is evidence that he had sexual relationships with adult women.

On the other hand, there's an interesting book - whose name escapes me - discussing Victorian/Edwardian men like him and J M Barrie. Apparently (I've only read reviews) it explores the way that boys were brought up in the almost entirely female world of the nursery until around 7, and then very abruptly thrust into a male world: breeches, prep school (usually boarding), and expected to conform to a notably repressed and repressive male culture. They carried for the rest of their lives a feeling of having been cast out of Eden, and children - especially girls, who didn't suffer this abrupt transition, but were allowed to stay in female-dominated childhood much longer - became representatives of this lost Eden. No sexual element necessarily involved at all - though presumably sometimes it was.

In this context, I recently came across a Harrow headmaster's report, commeding a young Fox Talbot for the 'manly efforts which he has made to shake off the too potent thraldom of filial tenderness'. In other words, well done for trying so hard to stop caring about your mother! No wonder most 19th cent. men, unlike Carroll et. al., grew up to spend an awful lot of time and effort making it absolutely clear that women and their values couldn't possibly be important.

Emma

<Added>

oops! Should be '...it's hard to know exactly how it would have been talked about...'