Lewis Carroll then?
Huxley and Orwell both got scarily close to the truth for me - 1984 being almost a textbook for any shade of dictatorship *shudders
I know Carroll (Charles Dodgson) has the rep, but there's no real evidence to suggest he was a pedophile. He famously had a huge row with Henry Liddell (the real life Alice's dad) the Dean of Christ Church, BUT was nevertheless allowed to remain at Oxford as an unordained deacon (remarkable because it was a conditional position, yet he never took orders as he did not wish to become a priest - possibly because he did not want to preach having an insuperable stammer). Does that sound like the rational action on the part of the Dean of 3 young girls (Alice was the middle one - 11 at the time Dodgson was befriended by the whole family through Dodgson's friendship their eldest brother) if he'd molested his child(ren) in any way whatsoever?
This is not helped by Dodgson's diaries for those years covering the period he was the Liddell's close friend becoming 'lost'. In fact what had more likely happened was that Dodgson had either been 'courting' the girl's governess or
through her to the Liddell's eldest daughter 'Ina' named for her mother Lorina. That
evidence is far more in line with Dodgson being allowed to remain in Oxford and moreover unordained. So far from proposing marriage to 11 yr old Alice, he was possibly pursuing her older sister (still quite young at 14-15) or her governess or in fact Mrs Lorina Liddell the mother... With 2 adult women involved, one of them 'below stairs' effectively this is far more likely to have been the cause of a scandalous cover up where relations between Dodgson and Liddell's were permanently severed, rather than covering up for him perving on the 2 daughters which would surely have had him kicked out on his unordained ears and consequent public disgrace. This is all before he was published and making a name for himself as an author and, more importantly as a photographer, so all the easier for him to be 'outed' or rather disgraced and word put out on the quiet - Alice would never have made it to print if he'd done anything that was that horrible.
That's what is actually at the crux of the rumours. Photography was very much a scientific
artform in the mid-1800s and Dodgson was extremely talented as an amateur photographer. He could have turned professional and made a lot more money than as an author but it's his portraits of naked children, male and female that support the pedophile myth. Again you need to look at things in context of Victorian high society - they were mad for nude or semi-nude studies of their children in terms of purity and aesthetics and not as overtly erotic. They were also mad for portraits of their wives and husbands, similarly undressed and Dodgson the quiet shy well-educated student clergyman found himself in demand. In other words the Liddell parents asked
him to take photos of their children, semi-dressed. It was a fashionable thing to have done in the same ethos as the aristocracy in Renaissance Italy and the Low Countries clamoured for the services of Botticelli and Raphael to make nude paintings of their daughters (most famously Amerigo Vespucci's sister Sonya was the model for Botticelli's several Venus's and Flora).
Last word from Alice herself, passed down to her granddaughter - he was her eldest brother's friend who took their photographs and told them stories when they went boating on the river, but otherwise didn't mean that much to her or her family. That's all.