Talk:A Christmas Carol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
[edit] American Christmas Carol
There's also a perfectly hideous version done in I think the late 70s or early 80s with Henry Winkler as Scrooge. It might have been called 'An American Christmas Carol'. Anyone know it? Quill 22:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Separate articles for characters?
Quill said in part, at 23:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) on Talk:Tiny Tim (musician)#Dickens
-
- 2. ... 'What links here' ... [shows that] ... there are internal links [intended to point to] Tiny Tim, fictional character, ... that now incorrectly point to the musician.
- 3. Yes, we need a disambig at this point, because of the above, and because other fictional characters from A Christmas Carol have their own entries. Unless sometone thinks it's better (and is willing) to change those, merging Crachit and Marley and whatever else in the Christmas Carol article?
That portion of that post was off-topic there; i partially struck it out and added (bolded) replacement language, directing those concerned to here, bcz i believe it is more pertinent on this page, where its implications for A Christmas Carol and the existing individual character articles can be discussed centralizedly, and that continuation of the discussion at Talk:Tiny Tim (musician) would be counterproductive. -- Jerzy (t) 02:21, : The reasoning "because other fictional characters from A Christmas Carol have their own entries" is unsound. Tiny Tim and Bob Cratchit are mere McGuffins, and cannot support their own articles (unless someone's efforts, similar to what i mention above re Tim, discussing Tim's inferrable medical status, or how different actors have rendered him, should bear fruit). Most of the Jacob Marley material duplicates what is or should be in Ebenezer Scrooge,
[edit] Short story or novella
It seems to me A Christmas Carol is a bit long for a short story, but a bit short for a novel, so is not novella the better word? -R. fiend 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Dickens called it his "little book". I think so should we. --Stbalbach 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Ghost of Christmas Past
I was just curious as to what gender the ghost of Christmas past was supposed to be. I have noticed that its gender tends to be inconsistent and seems to vary in various adaptations of the story. Can someone help me out?
- Dickens usually refers to the ghost as "it", but when he used a personal pronoun, it is invariable masculine. From [1] :
It was a strange figure—like a child: yet not so like a child as like an old man, viewed through some supernatural medium, which gave him the appearance of having receded from the view, and being diminished to a child’s proportions.
- The dialog is completely dominated by male characters, but modern directors often have a female play this role.
-
- I'm currently in a production with a 12 year old boy playing the role. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Podcast
From thepenguinpodcast.blogs.com :
Welcome to a very special Penguin podcast. Starting today we're bringing you a complete Christmas story, A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, podcast in five installments. This classic tale, wonderfully read by Geoffrey Palmer, will only be available until the new year, so subscribe today to make sure you don't miss an episode.
I wish we could archive this... --vossman 15:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- It was a "gift", as the site said; A Christmas Carol read by Geoffrey Palmer is available commercially on CD and cassette, it's not normally free. We could, I suppose, post the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0141805242 for the CD version. Canonblack 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other audiobooks
It may be worth noting that Patrick Stewart's abridged adaptation is again available from Simon & Schuster (two cassettes or two CDs) and Jim Dale recorded an unabridged audiobook in 2003, released by "Listening Library" and distributed by Random House (three CDs, don't know about a cassette version, but I'd guess one exists). --JohnDBuell 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikisource and the story.
As wikisource already has the story (it is public domain), should we link it more prominently, than just the image saying wikisource has more information about it? I think we should link to that _instead_ of the external (as in external to all wikiprojects) pages that we links right now. In other words:
- Remove the links to the external sources for the story
- Add a (more prominent) link to wikisource's media on this.
Any comments on this? --Vidarlo 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a little redundant. What the official wiki-style on this? --vossman 16:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- the official wikipolicy, but I'd rather guess it it is to use wikisource if we have it. After all, While I can splies in this context, since it is a one-man piece of work, which I guess wikisource and Project Gutenberg got right. So I think we should use the wikisource and remove the other links to the story. But I won't do that edit before I've got some more comments on this... --Vidarlo 10:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Agreed. --vossman 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] "Abandoned warehouse"??
Plot synopsis section, third para, first sentence: "Scrooge leaves the counting-house and returns to his home, an abandoned warehouse, kept dark and cold by the miser." Where did somebody get the idea that Scrooge lives in a warehouse? The book describes it thus:
He lived in chambers which had once belonged to his deceased partner. They were a gloomy suite of rooms, in a lowering pile of a building up a yard, where it had so little business to be, that one could scarcely help fancying that it must have run there when it was a young house, playing at hide and seek with the other houses, and forgotten the way out again. It was old enough now, and dreary enough, for nobody lived in it but Scrooge, the other rooms being all let out as offices.
This suggests rather plainly a lonely, crumbling old townhouse, set off the street by a narrow paved area, enclosed by other houses. Not a warehouse. Canonblack 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- [EDIT] I've taken this on myself, since there's been no response in three weeks. My copy of the book corroborates my changes. Canonblack 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate the work you have done on this article. I am the source of the labeling of Scrooge's lodgings as an abandoned warehouse, because it appeared that the house was built in an area of London that was used for business. A dutch merchant decorated the hearth that Scrooge sat eating his gruel before he saw Marley and there were bells that communicated with the "offices" that were in the same building as the logdings. I have been offline for so long that I was unable to respond to your courteous invitation to change this. drboisclair 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- According to the Norton Annotated Edition (ISBN 0393051587):
- Gwen Major suggested in "Scrooge's Chambers" (The Dickensian, winter 1932-33, p.11-13) that it was a house that once stood at 46 Lime Street, in the Langborn Ward. Her description of this house closely follows that in the story: by the 19th century, it had become offices for many firms (including three wine merchants), and it stood far back and alone up a narrow courtyard, known for its old gates; the building had once been a private residence, and most of the rooms were said to have been left in much the same condition as in the time of Charles I. After the building was demolished in 1875, it was appropriately replaced by a bank.
- That's a fairly decent sourced "educated guess". As for the Dutch tiles in the fireplace, the Norton Edition says it originates from a house called Brook on the Chatham, where Dickens lived as a boy. Hope that helps. --Stbalbach 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- According to the Norton Annotated Edition (ISBN 0393051587):
-
[edit] "Ghosts" vs. "Spirits"
I don't know if this varies in different editions of the book, but my copy refers to the three spirits as "Ghost of..." not "Spirit of...". Thus, I read The Ghost of Christmas Past, not The Spirit of Christmas Past, and so on. Am I mistaken, or do I have a faulty edition? Shouldn't this be changed? I have just added additional text to the plot synopsis to include the other two spirits (only Marley's ghost and ...Past were included previously) and I have used the wording "Ghost", but the linking articles are all titled "Spirit...". Thoughts? Canonblack 03:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- [EDIT] I've taken this on myself, since there's been no response in three weeks. My copy of the book corroborates my changes. Canonblack 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Restoring 2004 A Learning Carol
These do not have to be "notable" any more. Why not allow all of the adaptations to be shown? drboisclair 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Anymore? How so. This is an encyclopedia article, not a "list of" article. You need to justify why this version (someones internet podcast) is important and notable enough to warrant the readers attention. There have been thousands of adaptations of TCC. If you want to make a complete list of, then that's a different kind of article entirely. -- Stbalbach 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- The word "notable" was taken off of the caption of the list of adaptations to make room for any adaptations that editors may wish to include. This is an exhaustive online encyclopedia, which gives thorough information to all who would like to know it. If this adaptation is generally available, it should be listed so that the scholar might have access to it. I suppose if it is unavailable to anyone it should be omitted. Those who put it on there might provide a link. drboisclair 09:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree this online encyclopedia can have exhaustive information, but the purpose of a general article is to provide context and summary for the reader. An exhaustive list would be a "list of" article, which is an entirely different kind of encyclopedia article. Anyway, both are just day-dreams right now; neither is it a summary of the important works, nor an exhaustive list, I'll let it go and see what develops. -- Stbalbach 17:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] At what clock hour does the Ghost of Christmas Past come?
The article currently states that all three Ghosts of Christmas came at one o'clock in the morning.
I'm pretty sure I remember, from reading the book, that Scrooge was told that the first ghost would come at midnight, not one o'clock. After Scrooge finished with the first ghost, only a few minutes had passed on his home clock, and the Ghost of Christmas Present then came to him. After this, Scrooge saw the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come as the clock struck one, meaning that the last ghost came at 1 a.m.
I made this change, but got reverted. I don't have a copy of the book (I read it in school), but if anyone does, could they check this out? Thanks. User009 03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah that was me, there were so many vandalisms on the page by anons, and since your a "red user", I couldn't tell what was real or not so just reverted the whole bunch back to a known good article version. I've restored your edits. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is odd. I just finished reading and distinctly remember the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present coming at one, while the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come arrives as the bell finishes tolling midnight - when Christmas Present leaves. Aesmael 00:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I checked and you are right. Will change it back. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
My class recently read the play, and that clearly states that all the ghosts come a 1:00 a.m.
[edit] Staves?
'In keeping with the title "Christmas Carol" Dickens divides his literary "piece of music" into five "staves" (plural of staff, an element of written music) on which he will put his "notes.'
What a piece of rubbish. This was obviously written - no, 'concocted' - by someone who is not a musician. I repeat and I repeat: IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THEN DO NOT WRITE. You cretins! — 62.1.24.97 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
- Why are you ranting? Dickens did indeed divide A Christmas Carol into "Stave One", "Stave Two", "Stave Three", "Stave Four", and "Stave Five", instead of chapters. And "stave" is an archaic form of the word "staff", a stanza of a poem or song. — Walloon 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm amazed how often people on Wikipedia assume something they never heard of is "rubbish" simply because it is on Wikipedia, not because they have learned something new. -- Stbalbach 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Date story is set?
Does anyone know when this story is set? Might be good information. Goyston 16:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Having just read it again, I can say that no dates are mentioned in the story. It seems to be set in Dickens' own time. The only thing, besides subtle cultural references perhaps, which sets it, I think, is this passage:
- "I don't think I have," said Scrooge. "I am afraid I have not. Have you had many brothers, Spirit?"
-
- "More than eighteen hundred," said the Ghost.
-
- "A tremendous family to provide for!" muttered Scrooge.
- which clearly sets the story in the 19th century. There is also
- This was a great relief, because "three days after sight of this First of Exchange pay to Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge or his order," and so forth, would have become a mere United States' security if there were no days to count by.
- which seems to suggest that this is Scrooge's thought, so again setting the story some time after the founding of the U.S. A careful historical analysis of the details of the story might date it more specifically. Cheers, Doctormatt 19:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-protect article?
In recent days, in the lead-up to Christmas, there have been several blankings and vandalism of this page. Perhaps it would be good to put the article into semi-protection until the holiday passes so that at least users need an account to vandalize it. It's hard to believe that a substantial edit would take place to this solid article within the next 2 weeks anyway, at least not one from an anonymous user. Johnashby 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I took the initiative and added the article to the list of requests for semi-protection here. Johnashby 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] comment
Just a note to say that this is what Wikipedia is really about: working with other folks here to improve upon each other's writings, resulting in (I hope) a superior article. Thank you! -- Modemac
God bless you, every one... :-) Tiny Tim
[edit] comment
The first paragraph of this article states that this was originally written as a "potboiler"-meaning, primarily to get the author out of debt. From what I’ve read this is an error. Even the footnote provided as its source does not state that A Christmas Carol was a potboiler; in fact, the author of the source writes many more pages on more dominant reasons for the book being written. Charles Dickens had wrote two unsuccessful works and his reputaion and estate were in the pits. However he chose to go into debt by financing the entire production of A Christmas Carol in 1843. He had the book beautifully designed with "gilt edges" and many other fanciful features, yet chose to list the sale price at a very low 5 shillings a copy.(Hearn, M.P. The Annotated Christmas Carol, 2004, pg. xlii) during the first release of 6,000 copies his profit was only a "paltry 250" pounds-not enough to pay even a fraction of his debts (Hearn, M.P. The Annotated Christmas Carol, 2004, pg.lxxx)
Also, throughout that year, Dickens was speaking at places such as the Athenaeum (a charitable institution) about how England must change the way it treats its poor. He expressed to several friends and colleagues that he wished to write an "Appeal to the People of England on behalf of the Poor Man's Child"(Hearn, M.P. The Annotated Christmas Carol, 2004, pg. xxxii,xxxiii) . This came out as the literary work "A Christmas Carol". "A Christmas Carol" was the method in which he chose to convey "The social and manly virtues he desired to teach"(Hearn, M.P. The Annotated Christmas Carol, 2004, pg.cvii) It seems to me that Dickens, as any artist often does, needed money. But that does not justify calling his book a "potboiler". It seems to me that he was motivated by other means first and foremost-but I am not a Dickens expert (just read one book). So, if anybody can tell me other wise, please let me know.--(ZBM.) {unsigned}
[edit] Alistair Sim Christmas Carol
Suggest a link to the Alistair Sim Christmas Carol! There are links to the others... I couldn't find that one or I would have linked. Jimaginator {undated}'
[edit] film version
Just a note. The Kelsey Grammer film version was an adaptation of a stage version originally starring Walter Charles as Scrooge. -M.H. {unsigned}
[edit] usury
To further elaborate on Charles Dickens literary device of poverty, some mention should be made of Scrooge's occupation as proprietor of a countinghouse and consequently usury. A paragraph should also be added regarding what many perceive as the story's anti-semitism. It's fairly obvious, especially when put in the context of Victorian England. It is about a moneychanger/usurer, a "Jewish" profession throughout most of history. Additionally, he does not celebrate Christmas, which Jews do not do. Both Ebenezer and Jacob are Old Testament names. And of course, Scrooge is notoroiously cheap, as Jews were, and often still are, perceived to be.{unsigned}
- Except he does celebrate Christmas most of his life until he becomes bitter toward it. I think it's fairly obvious the character is a Christian or grew up Christian, and not a Jew.{unsigned}
- I also disagree. It might be that some movies or other interpretations have made it seem like that, but having read the original text, it's absolutely clear that Scrooge was a Christian but "went bad". His family (nephew) are Christian. With so much anti-semitism around, I think there's a danger of seeing it everywhere.
- Seperately, regarding the plot, Scrooge is a "bad person" for only a small portion of the story, and by the end, is a very good person; our protagonist and hero. We smile with him. Scrooge is the reader. Deipnosopher 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] declining christmas
In fact, contemporaries noted that the story's popularity played a critical role in redefining the importance of Christmas and the major sentiments associated with the holiday. Few modern readers realise that A Christmas Carol was written during a time of decline in the old Christmas traditions. "If Christmas, with its ancient and hospitable customs, its social and charitable observances, were in danger of decay, this is the book that would give them a new lease," said English poet Thomas Hood in his review in Hood's Magazine and Comic Review (January 1844, page 68).[3]
The Hood quote doesn't seem to support the assertion which it follows at all. Note that it's a conditional sentence: "If Christmas were in danger of decay..." 87.206.136.183 15:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dramatic adaptations
I've added a section detailing Dickens' own series of public readings. I think this needs to be included as the great success of the initial Christmas Carol readings inspired Dickens to repeat the performance over the years, and eventually embark on his series of public reading tours. Information about this can be found in the Peter Ackroyd biography. Clear air turbulence 18:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is this article centred around a movie of a chrismas carol?
(the rest of the building having been let as office space)
covers the spirit with the large candle snuffer she carries and he is returned to his room with the clock being set back to 12 midnight
I have read the book and cannot remember either the office spaces being talked about or covering the ghost of christmas past with a candle snuffer and so I was wondering whether some of the information on this page is from a film version (if so, should I or someone else should remove it as this page is about the novel). Also, as mentioned further up the talk page, I do not think the ghost of christmas past is reffered to as a female but I can see it is portrayed as such in a film on the ghost of christmas past page. Should the female reference also be removed? Aphswarrior 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The quote from the book is:"It [the building] was old enough now, and dreary enough, for nobody lived in it but Scrooge, the other rooms all being let out as offices." So the "office space" bit is accurate. The candle snuffer reference is: "...he seized the extinguisher-cap, and by a sudden action pressed it down upon its head." Earlier in the text: "...a great extinguisher for a cap, which it now held under its arm." So the snuffer is accurate, too. Finally, the ghost of Christmas past is not female. The ghost is most often referred to as "it", but there are a few places where "he" is used, e.g. "Scrooge muttered, with an unusual catching in his voice, that it was a plmple, and begged the Ghost to lead him where he would". So "she" is incorrect, as is the mention of the clock being set back to 12 midnight. I'll change those: the article should be based on the text. Cheers, Doctormatt 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hmm we've had previous discussions about the chronology of events, I thought we had it right. The clock does get set back (although it is unsaid). Comments? -- Stbalbach 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there is no indication that "the clock" gets set back. Scrooge is having a very strange experience: the text says he went to bed after 2 AM, yet the bell of the nearby church strikes twelve for the first ghost. He checks his own clock (or watch: repeater could be either), and finds it is indeed twelve. It strikes one before the second ghost (and he does not check his clock). Then it strikes 12 again as the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come appears, and he again does not check his own clock. Since the ghosts clearly have signficant control over space and time, at least as far as Scrooge's experience is concerned, I see no reason to think that they set any clock back. I think we should simply take the text as it is: the bell strikes. Perhaps they reset the church clock (which would confuse the neighbors), perhaps Scrooge has moved backward in time, perhaps it's a dream or hallucination. We don't know. -- Cheers, Doctormatt 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Sounds good. -- Stbalbach 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Aphswarrior (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Sounds good. -- Stbalbach 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there is no indication that "the clock" gets set back. Scrooge is having a very strange experience: the text says he went to bed after 2 AM, yet the bell of the nearby church strikes twelve for the first ghost. He checks his own clock (or watch: repeater could be either), and finds it is indeed twelve. It strikes one before the second ghost (and he does not check his clock). Then it strikes 12 again as the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come appears, and he again does not check his own clock. Since the ghosts clearly have signficant control over space and time, at least as far as Scrooge's experience is concerned, I see no reason to think that they set any clock back. I think we should simply take the text as it is: the bell strikes. Perhaps they reset the church clock (which would confuse the neighbors), perhaps Scrooge has moved backward in time, perhaps it's a dream or hallucination. We don't know. -- Cheers, Doctormatt 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm we've had previous discussions about the chronology of events, I thought we had it right. The clock does get set back (although it is unsaid). Comments? -- Stbalbach 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] cut-down version
added "This is a highly cut-down version of the text." to the "beautifully illustrated" scan at archive.org - I only realised after I had read and annotated it! It's changed in some places too. Compare just the first few paragraphs with the source on Gutenberg. If someone has an archive.org account, please tell them Deipnosopher 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added a review (though it has yet to appear...). You are quite right: it's a terrible version. I think we should remove the link to it in the article. Anyone object? Doctormatt 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The more I compare it with the original, the more I agree Deipnosopher 12:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the other archive.org copy is fine. I which I could figure out how to print it, in monochrome to avoid wasting color cartridges, without the paper coming through as grey, and thereby reducing the contrast of the text. But hey! Nothing's perfect Deipnosopher 12:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Archive.org, google books, etc.. all have many versions to choose from - I picked these two as representative for Wikipedia as they seemed the best looking in terms of scan quality and pictures -- I did not realize the one was abridged. Who would have thought, it's already a short story as it is. -- Stbalbach 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
