In Scrooge's Defense

[Travis Retriever]

In Defense of Scrooge by Michael Levin

More on Scrooge by Guest

The Case for Ebeneezer by Butler Shaffer

Outstanding articles that really made me think about how people portray the old miser.
My only complaints is that the first two are rather poorly written and hard to parse at times.  While in the last one, Shaffer talks about (or at least implies that) 19th century Great Britain as a free market capitalist society.  It wasn't.  While it was certainly more free then than it was now, it was by and large a mercantile society.

[MrBogosity]

The Shaffer article would be easier to take seriously if he'd spelled "Ebenezer" correctly.

[Travis Retriever]

The Shaffer article would be easier to take seriously if he'd spelled "Ebenezer" correctly.

And beside that, did you think it was any good? Why/Why not?

[Travis Retriever]

Nitpicking aside, I always think of these articles whenever people bring up Scrooge.
Gotta love how evil Dickens painted a person who really was actually not too bad a guy.
Or how that wasn't justice when the ghosts visited him, it was duress, like from a taxman.

A win quote from the Shaffer article:
"It is out of profound respect for those whose pursuits of their selfish interests have done far more to better the lives of others than have the combined efforts of all the self-styled altruists, saints, social workers, politicians, and other mischievous beings, that I have undertaken this defense of one of the most maligned financiers of this humanizing epoch. As you read my defense of Scrooge, and make a comparative judgment of my client and his accuser, Charles Dickens, I ask you to keep in mind the warnings of another 19th-century writer, Anatole France, who observed, 'Those who have given themselves the most concern about the happiness of peoples have made their neighbours very miserable.'"

[MrBogosity]

The point of Scrooge was that he worked and worked to make himself happy, and really was miserable. Notice that when Scrooge saw the ghosts in the world, what tormented them wasn't their chains, it was seeing people in need and not being able to help--because they didn't help when they had the chance. Scrooge's trip to his past rekindled the person he was before, and that was the point. In my opinion, he didn't really need the two ghosts after that.

It's an amazing story. I don't think we should think too much less of it just because Dickens knew fuck all about economics.

[Travis Retriever]

The point of Scrooge was that he worked and worked to make himself happy, and really was miserable.

Despite that being the way Dickens most likely meant for Scrooge to be, Levin showed that Dickens might have done it wrong, making him happy as he was, before the ghosts even showed up.

Notice that when Scrooge saw the ghosts in the world, what tormented them wasn't their chains, it was seeing people in need and not being able to help--because they didn't help when they had the chance. Scrooge's trip to his past rekindled the person he was before, and that was the point. In my opinion, he didn't really need the two ghosts after that.

Which kinda vindicates Shaffer's article's piont that Scrooge was under duress.  Why send two, much less three ghosts when only one was needed?  Especially one that threatened him with eternal punishment--hellfire--should he refuse?

It's an amazing story. I don't think we should think too much less of it just because Dickens knew fuck all about economics.

To be fair, I've never actually read the original by Dickens (though I have seen a bunch of remake movies mind you).  But then, you have to remember, my point wasn't to bash Dickens or even to smear a timeless classic (If it was, I would have named this thread something like, "Dickens the Red" or something like that), but rather to draw attention and debunk Dicken's portrayal of his hoarding ways and unwillingness to give (and *gasp* selfishness) as such a scorn-worthy and evil thing.
It was his money, shouldn't that be his prerogative?

PS:  Someone was online/up later than he usually is tonight.

[MrBogosity]

Despite that being the way Dickens most likely meant for Scrooge to be, Levin showed that Dickens might have done it wrong, making him happy as he was, before the ghosts even showed up.

No, Levin showed that a hypothetical person could be happy in that situation. But not everybody wants the same thing. How many people have chased a career or a passion--and been good at it--only to find it didn't make them happy at all?

Which kinda vindicates Shaffer's article's piont that Scrooge was under duress.  Why send two, much less three ghosts when only one was needed?  Especially one that threatened him with eternal punishment--hellfire--should he refuse?

What the third ghost did was make him confront his own mortality. It was NOT "Change your ways or you'll die;" it's, "No matter what, you WILL die. This WILL happen. What do you want your life to have been? What do you want people to say about you when you're gone?" If Levin had been right, if Scrooge really had been happy with his life, he would have been fine with that.

To be fair, I've never actually read the original by Dickens (though I have seen a bunch of remake movies mind you).

I'd read it just last week, so it's fresh in my memory.

It was his money, shouldn't that be his prerogative?

Yes, and punishing someone in the afterlife just because they kept the fruits of their labor is ridiculous. What of people who committed rape or murder? But I think Dickens was using Marley's chains to represent regret, the things he could have done but didn't.

PS:  Someone was online/up later than he usually is tonight.

My kids and I have gotten late-night adapted over the holiday. It'll be different once we go back to getting up ad 6am.

[Gumba Masta]

Which kinda vindicates Shaffer's article's piont that Scrooge was under duress.  Why send two, much less three ghosts when only one was needed?  Especially one that threatened him with eternal punishment--hellfire--should he refuse?

It's probably just me but I always saw this more as Scrooge realising that the only mark he would've left on this world was a grave, with noone mourning or missing him.

Ps MY LIFE IS A LIE!

[Travis Retriever]

No, Levin showed that a hypothetical person could be happy in that situation. But not everybody wants the same thing. How many people have chased a career or a passion--and been good at it--only to find it didn't make them happy at all?

What the third ghost did was make him confront his own mortality. It was NOT "Change your ways or you'll die;" it's, "No matter what, you WILL die. This WILL happen. What do you want your life to have been? What do you want people to say about you when you're gone?" If Levin had been right, if Scrooge really had been happy with his life, he would have been fine with that.

I'd read it just last week, so it's fresh in my memory.

Yes, and punishing someone in the afterlife just because they kept the fruits of their labor is ridiculous. What of people who committed rape or murder? But I think Dickens was using Marley's chains to represent regret, the things he could have done but didn't.

Aw well, the articles still make a good point, imho about the idea of being greedy not being evil, I thank you, Mr. Contrarian.

As for the stuff about the third ghost not using hellfire as a threat, eh, I guess that's what's what happens when I use the Disney version with Mickey Mouse, Scrooge McDuck, Goofy, etc as my reference for that.

My kids and I have gotten late-night adapted over the holiday. It'll be different once we go back to getting up ad 6am.

Hah.  Yeah, usually you're on no later than 12:00 am, and that's pushing it.



PS:  I regret nothing!

[MrBogosity]

It's probably just me but I always saw this more as Scrooge realising that the only mark he would've left on this world was a grave, with noone mourning or missing him.

And even worse: with people glad that he's gone.

[MrBogosity]

Aw well, the articles still make a good point, imho about the idea of being greedy not being evil, I thank you, Mr. Contrarian.

They do, and they're worth reading, but I think they miss the point of the story.

As for the stuff about the third ghost not using hellfire as a threat, eh, I guess that's what's what happens when I use the Disney version with Mickey Mouse, Scrooge McDuck, Goofy, etc as my reference for that.

The Muppets actually did a brilliant job with it!

Yes, all the third ghost did was show Scrooge his grave. He didn't even fall in it like Albert Finney did (brilliant movie version, though).

[Travis Retriever]

They do, and they're worth reading,

but I think they miss the point of the story.

That's what happens when you get an economist to look at classics.

The Muppets actually did a brilliant job with it!

Lord T Hawkeye seems to think so too.  One of these days I'll HAVE to watch that movie.  It sounds a lot better than the Disney version or the much overplayed All Dogs Christmas Carol.

Yes, all the third ghost did was show Scrooge his grave. He didn't even fall in it like Albert Finney did (brilliant movie version, though).

Figures that Disney would go all fire and brimstone.
After watching some of the WWII propaganda that came out of them, can I really be surprised?

[MrBogosity]

Lord T Hawkeye seems to think so too.  One of these days I'll HAVE to watch that movie.  It sounds a lot better than the Disney version or the much overplayed All Dogs Christmas Carol.

A lot of stuff is just taken verbatim from the book. They changed a lot of stuff, though--instead of Jacob Marley, for example, it's Jacob and Robert (Marley & Marley) so they can be played by Statler and Waldorf. But it's really, really good.

If you're in the mood for a more serious dramatization, I heartily recommend both George C. Scott and Patrick Stewart; it's hard to know which of them did a better job of playing Scrooge.

One thing I think the economists missed: Scrooge happily pays taxes to support the government welfare of the time, and uses that as a reason not to donate. Compare that with today, where the more supportive someone is of the welfare state the less likely they are to donate to charity or give blood.

[Travis Retriever]

A lot of stuff is just taken verbatim from the book. They changed a lot of stuff, though--instead of Jacob Marley, for example, it's Jacob and Robert (Marley & Marley) so they can be played by Statler and Waldorf. But it's really, really good.

Statler and Waldorf are in it too? AWESOME!

If you're in the mood for a more serious dramatization, I heartily recommend both George C. Scott and Patrick Stewart; it's hard to know which of them did a better job of playing Scrooge.

Duly noted.

One thing I think the economists missed: Scrooge happily pays taxes to support the government welfare of the time, and uses that as a reason not to donate. Compare that with today, where the more supportive someone is of the welfare state the less likely they are to donate to charity or give blood.

Interestingly enough, Levin did notice this:
"More notorious even than his miserly ways are Scrooge's cynical words. "Are there no prisons," he jibes when solicited for charity, "and the Union workhouses?"

Terrible, right? Lacking in compassion?

Not necessarily. As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can't or won't help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort. "

[Gumba Masta]

Statler and Waldorf are in it too? AWESOME!

Oh and there's lots of singing in it too.
[yt]KBthi_An5qQ[/yt]