A Love Affair with A Christmas Carol
I have to admit to having a special affinity for this particular ghost story. When I taught high school in Pennsylvania, I also served as the drama director for the school. One year, the production we put on was A Christmas Carol. It was one of our most successful productions. We added music and dancing and actual caroling between acts. We even attempted British accents (much to the chagrin of the one real British woman who attended). On the closing night of the production, my wonderful students presented me with a dozen roses and a copy of Charles Dickens's novella, signed by my entire cast and crew. I loved those kids (and stay in touch with several of them), and I loved putting on that play.
I have to be honest, I'm not really sure what to say in this blog about this story. How do you critique something that has become in itself such an institution? It's a staple of American society, and with the possible exception of It's a Wonderful Life, probably the most beloved Christmas story of all times (well, I suppose the nativity story might rank up there as well). How do you critique such a thing? I'm not sure it's possible. There's a reason that classics become classics -- they speak to us on a level that surpasses criticism.
Although I have said in previous posts that I dislike the Victorian style of writing, that style does not bother me in this book. I once heard it said that Charles Dickens would have been an incredible writer if he had not been paid by the word. To be sure, I think this is true. However, I didn't find the long, tedious descriptive passages so prevalent in most Victorian literature. While some of the sentences bordered on the insane (length-wise), I felt like even the digressions were amusing and found their way back on topic quickly enough that I didn't get bored. For instance, take the section on the second page where he uses the example from Hamlet to emphasize the need for the audience to believe that Marley was indeed dead. Some could see this as unnecessary, but I personally love it. It's relevant, well-used, and a bit comical. It's also SHORT! And, ultimately, I think that's why it doesn't bother me.
Furthermore, the descriptive passages that are present are often captivating:
"The sky was gloomy, and the shortest streets were choked up with a dingy mist, half thawed half frozen, whose heavier particles descended in a shower of sooty atoms, as if all the chimneys in Great Britain had, by one consent, caught fire, and were blazing away to their dear hearts' content" (72).
"And now, without a word of warning from the Ghost, they stood upon a bleak and desert moor, where monstrous masses of rude stone were cast about, as though it were the burial place of giants; and water spread itself wheresoever it listed--or would have done so, but for the frost that held it prisoner; and nothing grew but moss and furze, and coarse, rank grass" (88).
I also really enjoyed the conversational voice of the narration. I felt like my elderly uncle was telling me this tale, not like I was reading a book. His little asides and digression, like the one previously mentioned (Hamlet) or later in the book when he is describing Scrooge's nephew and says, "If you should happen, by any unlikely chance, to know a man more blest in a laugh than Scrooge's nephew, all I can say is, I should like to know him too" (90), it gives the feel of a real person behind the narration. It adds to the warm atmosphere of the book and also adds to the characterization of Fred.
The little issues that might have normally bothered me in modern fiction seemed more acceptable in this story. Where the overuse of exclamation points made me want to commit novelicide in Amityville, in this book I could chalk it up to the antiquated style. The same is true of the sometimes excessive repetition or stilted dialogue.
I think what it really comes down to, though, the reason this story is so well-loved, is that it delivers a holiday message that we never tire of. It is never too late. No matter how crotchety and curmudgeonly you may be, it is never too late to change your heart to one filled with love and laughter and kindness. And Christmas, being the magical time it is, can change even the "grinchiest" of Scrooges.
I have to be honest, I'm not really sure what to say in this blog about this story. How do you critique something that has become in itself such an institution? It's a staple of American society, and with the possible exception of It's a Wonderful Life, probably the most beloved Christmas story of all times (well, I suppose the nativity story might rank up there as well). How do you critique such a thing? I'm not sure it's possible. There's a reason that classics become classics -- they speak to us on a level that surpasses criticism.
Although I have said in previous posts that I dislike the Victorian style of writing, that style does not bother me in this book. I once heard it said that Charles Dickens would have been an incredible writer if he had not been paid by the word. To be sure, I think this is true. However, I didn't find the long, tedious descriptive passages so prevalent in most Victorian literature. While some of the sentences bordered on the insane (length-wise), I felt like even the digressions were amusing and found their way back on topic quickly enough that I didn't get bored. For instance, take the section on the second page where he uses the example from Hamlet to emphasize the need for the audience to believe that Marley was indeed dead. Some could see this as unnecessary, but I personally love it. It's relevant, well-used, and a bit comical. It's also SHORT! And, ultimately, I think that's why it doesn't bother me.
Furthermore, the descriptive passages that are present are often captivating:
"The sky was gloomy, and the shortest streets were choked up with a dingy mist, half thawed half frozen, whose heavier particles descended in a shower of sooty atoms, as if all the chimneys in Great Britain had, by one consent, caught fire, and were blazing away to their dear hearts' content" (72).
"And now, without a word of warning from the Ghost, they stood upon a bleak and desert moor, where monstrous masses of rude stone were cast about, as though it were the burial place of giants; and water spread itself wheresoever it listed--or would have done so, but for the frost that held it prisoner; and nothing grew but moss and furze, and coarse, rank grass" (88).
I also really enjoyed the conversational voice of the narration. I felt like my elderly uncle was telling me this tale, not like I was reading a book. His little asides and digression, like the one previously mentioned (Hamlet) or later in the book when he is describing Scrooge's nephew and says, "If you should happen, by any unlikely chance, to know a man more blest in a laugh than Scrooge's nephew, all I can say is, I should like to know him too" (90), it gives the feel of a real person behind the narration. It adds to the warm atmosphere of the book and also adds to the characterization of Fred.
The little issues that might have normally bothered me in modern fiction seemed more acceptable in this story. Where the overuse of exclamation points made me want to commit novelicide in Amityville, in this book I could chalk it up to the antiquated style. The same is true of the sometimes excessive repetition or stilted dialogue.
I think what it really comes down to, though, the reason this story is so well-loved, is that it delivers a holiday message that we never tire of. It is never too late. No matter how crotchety and curmudgeonly you may be, it is never too late to change your heart to one filled with love and laughter and kindness. And Christmas, being the magical time it is, can change even the "grinchiest" of Scrooges.
I agree. I've told you before about my hatred for Victorian literature (minus Henry James and M.R. James), but this didn't bother me. It "felt" Victorian in the very beginning, but then that style seemed to go away--or maybe I just didn't notice it anymore. Either way, I enjoyed this novelette/novella.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree we can give Dickens a pass on his overuse of adjectives and exclamation points due to the antiquated style, I'm not so sure I'm crazy about this novella. I think I enjoyed it because it was almost nostalgic reading it, considering it's so popular and is impossible to miss in our culture. Not to mention it was cool to experience the story in its original form. But if I were to read it today for the first time...I dunno. When you think about it, it's not overly exciting and I imagine it's obvious what's going to happen - Scrooge is going to change his outlook on money and Christmas. I mean, you have to admit that's pretty apparent from page one. But, I dunno. I guess none of us will get the chance to experience it with "fresh" eyes again.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I could have written a normal critique of this book, either. So I went on a sociopolitical tirade instead. :P I agree with you on the descriptions; having read my share of Victorian (and, going back even further, Restoration)-era literature, the minor excesses of this book pale in comparison to many others.
ReplyDelete*Edited comment due to brain fart. :P