98 replies to this topic

[Nick Alexander]

SDG, on 24 November 2009 - 03:30 PM, said:

Who ever argued that Scrooge's business had "no right to exist"? Contra whom would such a point need to be made? If that were all Levin were arguing, why would he bother writing the article?

I can't speak for Levin, but from what I got out of the article, is that many people demonize Scrooge for attibutes that aren't there, and attributes that are there that the critics happen to share. Even Andy pointed to CEOs as Scrooge-like, to which I think is too broad a brush, especially in light of the current tax laws.

Quote

Scrooge's first offense, according to Dickens, is that he refused to give to charity

Nope. His first offense was in refusing his nephew's invitation, calling Christmas a "humbug", not celebrating Christmas, and barely heating his establishment.

Quote

that he considered his taxes sufficiently grievous provision for the less fortunate. That the money Scrooge did not give to charity might (or might not) be lent to individuals who would benefit from the loan does not obviate the need to make charitable provision for those needier still in no position to secure loans. This is Dickens' point, it is Andy's and my point, and it seems to be the point Levin contests. If you aren't defending that, what are we talking about?

We're talking about the demonization of big business (again, Whitman's comments about CEOs), at the expense of the other elephant in the room, big government. Dickens certainly acknowledged the insufficient response of the government to the poor in Victorian England, but in this story, he wasn't saying the response was to correct these problems from a government-level (to which paying taxes would have been sufficient), but to encourage personal charity towards one's neighbor. And at this moment, Obamacare is being debated in the Senate, which, if passed, is likely to force individuals to cut back on personal charitable giving, and trusting the big government to be a solution to all.

In a free market, if I didn't like how Scrooge did his business, or that he didn't give to charitable organizations, I had the freedom to look elsewhere for that loan. But if a big government does not sufficiently care for its own, I do not have the choice to withdraw my tax revenue. As far as I see it, Dickens is very clearly advocating for personal responsibility towards the poor, in cooperation with limited government.

Quote

Scrooge's larger defect is that he suffers from a general atrophy of human feeling and sentiment. He has no capacity for generosity either toward others or toward himself. He regards Cratchit, and other human beings, solely in economic terms, rather than valuing them as persons.

Agreed. This is a terrible fault, one which the article did not address.

Quote

Levin argues that Tiny Tim's needs are no greater than the hypothetical Sickly Sid who might benefit from Scrooge's use of the money with which he is not helping Cratchit. But Scrooge has not made that calculation. He never bothered to learn about the circumstances of the one man whose livelihood most directly depends on his own disposition. Had he bothered to take a human interest in those around him, he would have seen the world differently. He didn't because he hadn't.

For Dickens, Christmas is among other things a celebration of largesse and solidarity. Scrooge's defect is an incapacity for largesse and solidarity. Levin's argument seems to be "Largesse and solidarity are overrated; self-interest is enough." It isn't.

What I get out of Levin's argument is that Scrooge sees largesse and solidarity as integrated in the business that he runs, and the taxes he pays. And where we would agree is that Scrooge needs to, well, like people again (starting with himself). That his business, while having helped many in need, does not institute a lot of grace. The *challenge*, however, is learning how to institute this same grace and generosity and love of neighbor in a way that still keeps the business alive, so to keep everybody involved gainfully employed. That the 12-26-Scrooge allowed Cratchit's salary to be doubled meant that the funds were there all along, and he would have to work the books so to make sure everything remains solvent (the story is not concerned with how). That is, we hope that to be the case. We don't consider the solvency of his business as an essential ingredient to the story. Which is why I appreciated the article.

Nick

[Andy Whitman]

Nick Alexander, on 24 November 2009 - 03:55 PM, said:

We're talking about the demonization of big business (again, Whitman's comments about CEOs), at the expense of the other elephant in the room, big government. Dickens certainly acknowledged the insufficient response of the government to the poor in Victorian England, but in this story, he wasn't saying the response was to correct these problems from a government-level (to which paying taxes would have been sufficient), but to encourage personal charity towards one's neighbor. And at this moment, Obamacare is being debated in the Senate, which, if passed, is likely to force individuals to cut back on personal charitable giving, and trusting the big government to be a solution to all.

I suppose I do believe that employees not only have an obligation to perform their work well, but that employers also have some obligation to their employees. This seems to be one of the points Dickens makes in A Christmas Carol as well. I realize it's a fantasy. If it was ever true, it hasn't been true for a long time. I'm not sure what big government has to do with any of it. I do know that the personal charitable giving doesn't seem to be cutting it for tens of millions of Americans.

Edited by Andy Whitman, 24 November 2009 - 04:07 PM.

[Nick Alexander]

Andy Whitman, on 24 November 2009 - 04:07 PM, said:

I suppose I do believe that employees not only have an obligation to perform their work well, but that employers also have some obligation to their employees. This seems to be one of the points Dickens makes in A Christmas Carol as well. I realize it's a fantasy.

Not really. Every year there are articles in BusinessWeek and segments on CBS Sunday Morning listing the best corporations to work for, listing all the great perqs of working at such an establishment. So long as the money was made honestly, and people are free to give of their own surplus, there is no problem. Now, not everybody works at such an establishment, but I'll tell you this--every time articles like this are put out there, more companies take it upon themselves to provide for their workers, as best that they can. It's not an absolute, but it is good business.

Quote

I'm not sure what big government has to do with any of it. I do know that the personal charitable giving doesn't seem to be cutting it for tens of millions of Americans.

There has been plenty of statistics to demonstrate exactly this point--that the vast majority of Americans, even those of a religious persuasion, do not tithe. I'll have to get the exact figures, but we're talking between 1 and 3 percent, across the vast majority of denominations. Imagine the good that can be done if this was increased!

Big government does not cut it for tens of millions of Americans either. It didn't work for Victorian England, and it won't work today.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Andy Whitman wrote:
: I suppose I do believe that employees not only have an obligation to perform their work well, but that employers also have some obligation to their employees.

Well, that's what contracts are for. They spell out what each party's obligations are.

: I'm not sure what big government has to do with any of it. I do know that the personal charitable giving doesn't seem to be cutting it for tens of millions of Americans.

Keeping in mind that, as Nick noted, the current predicament was caused partly by what we might call governmental charity (e.g., lending massive amounts of money to people who simply couldn't afford to pay it back, all in the name of ensuring that everyone, no matter how poor, could own their own home). Personal charity isn't the only kind that fails, or has its limits.

[Darryl A. Armstrong]

I'm just starting to read through George Orwell's comments on Charles Dickens, but this paragraph jumped out as apropos our current discussion:

Quote

The truth is that Dickens's criticism of society is almost exclusively moral. Hence the utter lack of any constructive suggestion anywhere in his work. He attacks the law, parliamentary government, the educational system and so forth, without ever clearly suggesting what he would put in their places. Of course it is not necessarily the business of a novelist, or a satirist, to make constructive suggestions, but the point is that Dickens's attitude is at bottom not even destructive. There is no clear sign that he wants the existing order to be overthrown, or that he believes it would make very much difference if it were overthrown. For in reality his target is not so much society as ‘human nature’. It would be difficult to point anywhere in his books to a passage suggesting that the economic system is wrong as a system. Nowhere, for instance, does he make any attack on private enterprise or private property. Even in a book like Our Mutual Friend, which turns on the power of corpses to interfere with living people by means of idiotic wills, it does not occur to him to suggest that individuals ought not to have this irresponsible power. Of course one can draw this inference for oneself, and one can draw it again from the remarks about Bounderby's will at the end of Hard Times, and indeed from the whole of Dickens's work one can infer the evil of laissez-faire capitalism; but Dickens makes no such inference himself. It is said that Macaulay refused to review Hard Times because he disapproved of its ‘sullen Socialism’. Obviously Macaulay is here using the word ‘Socialism’ in the same sense in which, twenty years ago, a vegetarian meal or a Cubist picture used to be referred to as ‘Bolshevism’. There is not a line in the book that can properly be called Socialistic; indeed, its tendency if anything is pro-capitalist, because its whole moral is that capitalists ought to be kind, not that workers ought to be rebellious. Bounder by is a bullying windbag and Gradgrind has been morally blinded, but if they were better men, the system would work well enough that, all through, is the implication. And so far as social criticism goes, one can never extract much more from Dickens than this, unless one deliberately reads meanings into him. His whole ‘message’ is one that at first glance looks like an enormous platitude: If men would behave decently the world would be decent.

[Andy Whitman]

Peter T Chattaway, on 24 November 2009 - 05:02 PM, said:

Andy Whitman wrote:
: I suppose I do believe that employees not only have an obligation to perform their work well, but that employers also have some obligation to their employees.

Well, that's what contracts are for. They spell out what each party's obligations are.

I don't know what business contracts are like in Canada. But having just signed one in the U.S. within the past couple weeks, I can tell you that I can be dismissed at any time, for any reason or any non-reason. I am completely at the whim of my employer. This is standard practice here. There's no use protesting it. If I don't like it, there are plenty of other people out there who would love to have my job. This is not precisely what I had in mind when I wrote that I would like to believe that employers also have some obligation to their employees.

[Cunningham]

I don't have anything very constructive to add to this thread except to say that reading it has been one of the great pleasures of my day.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Andy Whitman wrote:
: I don't know what business contracts are like in Canada. But having just signed one in the U.S. within the past couple weeks, I can tell you that I can be dismissed at any time, for any reason or any non-reason.

Are you saying that this is spelled out in the contract, or that contracts are unenforceable?

: This is not precisely what I had in mind when I wrote that I would like to believe that employers also have some obligation to their employees.

Until you signed that contract, you were not an employee. Therefore, the employer had no obligation to you whatsoever. And then, once you signed that contract, the contract itself stipulated what the obligations on both sides were. If you are now saying that the employer (i.e., the person who gives money in exchange for services) is somehow obliged to go BEYOND the contract, while the employee (i.e., the person who gives services in exchange for money) is NOT similarly obliged to go beyond the contract, then I am not sure on what basis you are making this claim.

If I rent a car, am I suddenly obliged to do more than what the contract stipulates, simply because I am the one providing money rather than services to the exchange?

[Andy Whitman]

Peter T Chattaway, on 24 November 2009 - 06:59 PM, said:

Andy Whitman wrote:

Quote

I don't know what business contracts are like in Canada. But having just signed one in the U.S. within the past couple weeks, I can tell you that I can be dismissed at any time, for any reason or any non-reason.

Are you saying that this is spelled out in the contract, or that contracts are unenforceable?

I'm saying it's spelled out in the contract. I'm saying the document I signed states that I can be dismissed at any time, for any reason, at the whim of the employer.

Quote

This is not precisely what I had in mind when I wrote that I would like to believe that employers also have some obligation to their employees.

Quote

Until you signed that contract, you were not an employee. Therefore, the employer had no obligation to you whatsoever. And then, once you signed that contract, the contract itself stipulated what the obligations on both sides were. If you are now saying that the employer (i.e., the person who gives money in exchange for services) is somehow obliged to go BEYOND the contract, while the employee (i.e., the person who gives services in exchange for money) is NOT similarly obliged to go beyond the contract, then I am not sure on what basis you are making this claim.

The obligation is somewhat one-sided. Essentially, the company agrees to pay me until they don't agree to pay me. That could be tomorrow, or next week, or next month. Based on what I've seen in the corporate world over the past decade, it almost certainly doesn't mean next year or for the next two years. Everybody's a hired gun, trying to string together enough work with enough companies to make it until they can mercifully get off the merry-go-round. Whee. Company loyalty? Only the very foolish or the very naive would believe in such a concept, although, incredibly, it is still preached in occasional rah-rah corporate pep talks.

In an ideal world (heh), an employee who is doing a good job (as deemed by the employee review process) for an employer who is not under financial constraints to rid themselves of employees, ought to have some assurance of ongoing work. That assurance is not there in the U.S. This is a sea change in the world of employment in the past twenty or thirty years. Everybody's heard of people who started work right out of school and who worked for the same company until retirement. That idea is now quite quaint and outdated. I know very, very few people in the IT world in the U.S. who have not been laid off (another quaint term that essentially means "we're done with you now; have a good life") multiple times in their careers. These layoffs have had nothing to do with job performance. They've been entirely economically motivated, usually as a way to achieve short-term profits.

Corporate America is run by the kind of reptiles who wrote that article about A Christmas Carol, the Scrooge apologists who wonder what the hell is wrong with a lump of coal. Shouldn't that be sufficient? You'll have to pardon me if I respond less than enthusiastically.

Edited by Andy Whitman, 24 November 2009 - 07:22 PM.

[mrmando]

Nick Alexander, on 24 November 2009 - 02:28 PM, said:

Scrooge, to his credit, eats alone, in an underheated dwelling, and his dinners constitute an undigested bit of meat or cheese.

Now who's prooftexting? -- and not very well. Scrooge, we're told, takes his usual melancholy dinner in his usual melancholy tavern. We're not told how well the tavern is heated, nor how much or how little he eats, nor what constitutes the meal. We can be fairly certain, however, that Cratchit is not taking his dinner in that tavern, nor in any other tavern. Scrooge does have a bowl of gruel at home -- because he's got a cold in the head, just as you or I might have chicken soup for the same ailment. The "undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato" refers to Marley's ghost ... Scrooge is hypothesizing that he's hallucinating because of something he ate -- which means either that part of his meal disagreed with him, or that he [gasp!] ATE TOO MUCH.

Quote

The people who work under Scrooge are treated just as fairly as he treats himself.

Wrong. Whereas Scrooge no doubt deprives himself of certain comforts, let's note that his fire is still bigger than Cratchit's, and he keeps the coal-box in his own office.

Quote

And those who do not like the environment don't have to work there--they could be sending out resumes to other valid places of employment.

I think both you and Levin are overlooking Victorian/Edwardian British notions of employment portability vis-a-vis class status. Underlings like Cratchit weren't free in any meaningful sense to quit their jobs and start spreading resumes around London. Think of Leonard Bast in Forster's Howards End. Leonard's a clerk at an insurance company, more or less the same economic/social status as Cratchit. He gets some bad advice and gives up his job voluntarily ... and because of that, no other prospective employer will touch him.

One possible reason for Cratchit's large family is that when the kids get old enough, they can start putting something in the kitty. Martha already has a job, and we're told that Peter will soon get one. Bob's kids are more than simply a drain on his resources. Things might actually be looking up for Bob aside from that nasty chronic illness that Tiny Tim has. And inasmuch as we might pity Bob because his kid is sick, we are also clearly meant to see that he is generally happy in spite of his circumstances ... happier than Scrooge by a good long shot.

Quote

A basic reason why the market fell apart is because unethical lenders focused an inordinate amount of attention to giving out loans to lower-income families that could not possibly pay them back.

Perhaps, but they sure didn't do it out of a charitable disposition toward those families. They did it to make more money.

As to whether Scrooge's miserliness is a form of greed, here are two other characters from British literature:

Quote

He fetched another cup from the shelf; and then, to my great surprise, instead of drawing more beer, he poured an accurate half from one cup to the other. There was a kind of nobleness in this that took my breath away; if my uncle was certainly a miser, he was one of that thorough breed that goes near to make the vice respectable.
——Stevenson, Kidnapped

Your patient's mother, as I learn from the dossier and
you might have learned from Glubose, is a good example. She would be
astonished—one day, I hope, will be—to learn that her whole life is enslaved to
this kind of sensuality, which is quite concealed from her by the fact that the
quantities involved are small. But what do quantities matter, provided we can
use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience,
uncharitableness, and self-concern? Glubose has this old woman well in hand. She
is a positive terror to hostesses and servants. She is always turning from what
has been offered her to say with a demure little sign and a smile "Oh please,
please...all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest
weeniest bit of really crisp toast". You see? Because what she wants is smaller
and less costly than what has been set before her, she never recognises as
gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be
to others.
——Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Edited by mrmando, 24 November 2009 - 09:45 PM.

[Nick Alexander]

Andy Whitman, on 24 November 2009 - 07:21 PM, said:

I'm saying it's spelled out in the contract. I'm saying the document I signed states that I can be dismissed at any time, for any reason, at the whim of the employer.

...Everybody's heard of people who started work right out of school and who worked for the same company until retirement. That idea is now quite quaint and outdated. I know very, very few people in the IT world in the U.S. who have not been laid off (another quaint term that essentially means "we're done with you now; have a good life") multiple times in their careers. These layoffs have had nothing to do with job performance. They've been entirely economically motivated, usually as a way to achieve short-term profits.

Two things. Those people who worked at a company for twenty, thirty years? Had to sign the exact same type of contract. Those who have job security? Teachers with tenure, semi-successful self-employed, and anybody whos last name is "Kennedy."

Second thing: the goal is profit. Not short-term profits, but profit, period. No profit, loss of capital, out of business.

I, too, work in IT. It's a crazy line of work. It's better suited for temps, because it's largely project oriented, and then maintenance. Do you want consistency? Choose another line of work. (Sorry for my bluntness, but as someone in IT, I feel justified in saying it).

Quote

Corporate America is run by the kind of reptiles who wrote that article about A Christmas Carol, the Scrooge apologists who wonder what the hell is wrong with a lump of coal. Shouldn't that be sufficient? You'll have to pardon me if I respond less than enthusiastically.

Actually, if you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I'm not apologizing for Scrooge, especially in regards to how he treats fellow human beings. I'm making a distinction between his terrible attitude towards his fellow man, and how it applied to his most particular line of work (banking). His same attitude towards others would be a colossal flop if he were to be a McDonald's franchisee, or an inner-city high school teacher, or in technical support. And regardless of how confident you are in job security in your (our) line of work, the bottom line is that Dickens very capably demonstrated that Scrooge's fault was not that he was crooked, or head of a Ponzi scheme, but that he did not care for his fellow man. Dickens is making a plea that a person can sustain a long term business venture, while still being a great steward of the earned income one receives, both for his employees, and his community.

[Nick Alexander]

mrmando, on 24 November 2009 - 07:36 PM, said:

Nick Alexander, on 24 November 2009 - 02:28 PM, said:

Scrooge, to his credit, eats alone, in an underheated dwelling, and his dinners constitute an undigested bit of meat or cheese.

Now who's prooftexting? -- and not very well. Scrooge, we're told, takes his usual melancholy dinner in his usual melancholy tavern. We're not told how well the tavern is heated, nor how much or how little he eats, nor what constitutes the meal. He does have a bowl of gruel at home because he's got a cold in the head. The "undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato" refers to Marley's ghost ... Scrooge is hypothesizing that he's hallucinating because of something he ate -- which means either that part of his meal disagreed with him, or that he [gasp!] ATE TOO MUCH.

I am writing from memory, so I knew I would get a little bit wrong. But even so, a tavern. Not quite the five-star dining establishment one expects from a CEO, don't you think? As for eating too much, I'm sorry, but we live in a country where many people of all financial stripes can eat too much.

Quote

Quote

The people who work under Scrooge are treated just as fairly as he treats himself.

Wrong. Whereas Scrooge no doubt deprives himself of certain comforts, let's note that his fire is still bigger than Cratchit's, and he keeps the coal-box in his own office.

I'll re-check this, but my point is still valid: he deprives himself of certain comforts. Can you say the same for Gordon Gekko or Bernie Madoff?

Quote

Quote

And those who do not like the environment don't have to work there--they could be sending out resumes to other valid places of employment.

I think both you and Levin are overlooking Victorian/Edwardian British notions of employment portability vis-a-vis class status. Underlings like Cratchit weren't free in any meaningful sense to quit their jobs and start spreading resumes around London. Think of Leonard Bast in Forster's Howards End. Leonard's a clerk at an insurance company, more or less the same economic/social status as Cratchit. He gets some bad advice and gives up his job voluntarily ... and because of that, no other prospective employer will touch him.

Not familiar with Howards' End. I will say that one does not have to give up their job voluntarily--no employment adviser in their right mind would ever suggest that! Instead, keep their options open, put out feelers, send out resumes, and do so outside of work. I'm not saying this is any easier in Victorian England, but surely it has been done.

Quote

Quote

A basic reason why the market fell apart is because unethical lenders focused an inordinate amount of attention to giving out loans to lower-income families that could not possibly pay them back.

Perhaps, but they sure didn't do it out of a charitable disposition toward those families. They did it to make more money.

Yep. But they also did it because of certain laws that were passed that forced them to relax their policies. Nobody is immune...

[mrmando]

Nick Alexander, on 24 November 2009 - 07:46 PM, said:

As for eating too much, I'm sorry, but we live in a country where many people of all financial stripes can eat too much.

Perhaps we do, but Scrooge did not. And anyhow, today on Warren Olney's "To the Point" show, Warren moderated a pissing match between two idiots (I've conveniently forgotten their names, but you could look them up) arguing over whether as few as 10 million or as many as 55 million people in this country were currently suffering from "hunger," or whether some are hungry and some just suffer from "food insecurity." As if what you choose to call it made any difference to those people's stomachs.

Quote

I'll re-check this, but my point is still valid: he deprives himself of certain comforts. Can you say the same for Gordon Gekko or Bernie Madoff?

No, but we can say it for Ebenezer Balfour, or Wormwood's patient's mother, or Ebenezer Scrooge. Miserliness is a particular species of greed, but it's still greed, as Lewis shows. And anyway, your point was not that Scrooge deprives himself of certain comforts. That was MY point, dammit. Your point was that Scrooge deprives himself as much as he deprives others, which is clearly not true.

I've mentioned in the Christmas Carol thread that Patrick Stewart, in his TV version of the story, plays the line "What's Christmastime to you but a time for paying bills without money? ... a time for finding yourself a year older and not an hour richer?" to suggest that the year in question actually has not been a good one for Scrooge's business, and that he may not be as financially successful as Levin would like to think. At least we have no indication from the story that Scrooge thinks himself a success. However much wealth he has or doesn't have, he is clearly not satisfied with it.

Quote

Not familiar with Howards' End. I will say that one does not have to give up their job voluntarily--no employment adviser in their right mind would ever suggest that! Instead, keep their options open, put out feelers, send out resumes, and do so outside of work. I'm not saying this is any easier in Victorian England, but surely it has been done.

You're also not saying it was any harder. But the fact is, it was much harder. Well nigh impossible, as a matter of fact.

Quote

Yep. But they also did it because of certain laws that were passed that forced them to relax their policies. Nobody is immune...

Forced? Forced, you say? Laws did not force any bank to offer junk loans. Laws made the junk loans possible, but it was still up to individual banks whether to offer them or not. Unfortunately, when one bank starts drumming up a lot of new business with bad loans, it's hard for other banks to resist the temptation to follow suit.

Quote

Quote

Scrooge's first offense, according to Dickens, is that he refused to give to charity

Nope. His first offense was in refusing his nephew's invitation, calling Christmas a "humbug", not celebrating Christmas, and barely heating his establishment.

Well, then, refusing to give to charity is his second offense, since it's the next thing he does after his nephew leaves the office. Bravo, sir. That hair was finely and truly split.

Edited by mrmando, 24 November 2009 - 08:53 PM.

[Nick Alexander]

mrmando, on 24 November 2009 - 08:14 PM, said:

Nick Alexander, on 24 November 2009 - 07:46 PM, said:

As for eating too much, I'm sorry, but we live in a country where many people of all financial stripes can eat too much.

Perhaps we do, but Scrooge did not. And anyhow, today on Warren Olney's "To the Point" show, Warren moderated a pissing match between two idiots (I've conveniently forgotten their names, but you could look them up) arguing over whether as few as 10 million or as many as 55 million people in this country were currently suffering from "hunger," or whether some are hungry and some just suffer from "food insecurity." As if what you choose to call it made any difference to those people's stomachs.

We live in a country where the obesity crisis has affected our poorest communities. That is because it isn't about how much they eat, but what they eat. Instead of eating healthy foods, they go for fast-food, heavily processed foods, foods high in saturated fat and trans-fats and high fructose corn syrup. You may say that they did not have fast food of this sort in Victorian England, and you would be correct, but my point still stands: One can eat the same amount of a non-healthy food as a healthy food, and still come out obese. Take THAT with your "undigested bit of beef" and "underdone potato".

The bigger point? Scrooge has many faults, but gluttony was not among them. Sorry, but his wiry chin stands in great contrast... to Fezziwig!

Quote

And anyway, your point was not that Scrooge deprives himself of certain comforts. That was MY point, dammit. Your point was that Scrooge deprives himself as much as he deprives others, which is clearly not true.

You may want to re-read page two of your Scholastic paperback: "The cold within him froze his old features,... He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog days; and didn't thaw it one degree at Christmas. External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth could warm, no wintry weather can chill him." In other words, while he did have a bigger fire (good eagle eye there), it had zero influence on him.

Quote

I've mentioned in the Christmas Carol thread that Patrick Stewart, in his TV version of the story...

Bzzzt!! Wrong answer. Stewart's version is notoriously bad, in the fact that it attempts to modernize Dickens' prose. Even the Muppets have a more faithful version. We couldn't even sit through it, that's how banal it was, and we watch six or more versions of this every season.

Quote

Forced? Forced, you say? Laws did not force any bank to offer junk loans.

Um... you may want to re-read about the Community Reinvestment Act, which fined banks for turning down a percentage of loans in lower-income communities.

Quote

Well, then, refusing to give to charity is his second offense, since it's the next thing he does after his nephew leaves the office. Bravo, sir. That hair was finely and truly split.

Well, you DO know something about splitting hairs, since you found the passage about the slightly larger fire in Scrooge's office.

Edited by Nick Alexander, 24 November 2009 - 09:57 PM.

[mrmando]

The "Cost of Living for a Senior Clerk (1844)" table is most interesting, since it's within a year of the original publication date of A Christmas Carol. Bob is a clerk whose annual wage works out to exactly 39 pounds, whereas the annual cost of living for a "senior clerk" in his day is 150 pounds. Perhaps Bob isn't a senior clerk, but then again he's the only employee Scrooge appears to have. Apparently Scrooge isn't raking in more money than can be handled with two rakes.

Not only is Bob happy, we never get the indication that he is particularly dissatisfied with his job, nor even that he dislikes Scrooge, tight-fisted though the latter may be. To suggest that Cratchit leave his situation is to answer a question that neither Dickens nor Cratchit is asking.

Edited by mrmando, 25 November 2009 - 12:56 AM.

[mrmando]

Nick Alexander, on 24 November 2009 - 09:55 PM, said:

The bigger point? Scrooge has many faults, but gluttony was not among them.

Depends on how you define gluttony ... see the Screwtape quotation again. The point is that while Scrooge chooses to maintain what we might call a somewhat lowly standard of living, it isn't as lowly as the one to which he consigns his clerk, your inaccurate protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Quote

Sorry, but his wiry chin stands in great contrast... to Fezziwig!

Fezziwig, who in contrast to Scrooge had a large number of employees and the wherewithal to throw them a party. Scrooge has but one employee and feels that he can't even afford to give that employee a scrap of coal. Do you think Scrooge is really more successful and has contributed more to society/the economy than Fezziwig? It's after the Fezziwig episode, indeed, that Scrooge's conscience is first pricked regarding how he treats Bob.

In the Victorian era, fat was a status symbol. Fat men were presumed to be fat because they could afford to eat well. A wiry, muscular man might be physically fit, but it would usually be presumed that he was a manual laborer and therefore probably not very well off. Discussions about processed junk food may contribute to our understanding of poverty in 21st-century America, but they are, as you suspect, entirely irrelevant to any discussion of A Christmas Carol. Both you and Levin assume similarities between our society and Dickens' which simply do not exist.

Quote

"The cold within him froze his old features,... He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog days; and didn't thaw it one degree at Christmas. External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth could warm, no wintry weather can chill him." In other words, while he did have a bigger fire (good eagle eye there), it had zero influence on him.

I think you have gone so far down the bunny trail that you are now reading hyperbole as though it were holy writ. Since when are we concerned about the fire's influence instead of its size? Golly, if the fire didn't influence Scrooge, why did he have one at all? Damned wasteful of him.

Quote

Bzzzt!! Wrong answer. Stewart's version is notoriously bad, in the fact that it attempts to modernize Dickens' prose.

Even a bad rendition of a song can have an interesting note or two. Despite the problems with Stewart's version as a whole, the text does in fact support that particular reading of that particular line. He found something there that no other actor had noticed.

Quote

Well, you DO know something about splitting hairs, since you found the passage about the slightly larger fire in Scrooge's office.

Found? Found, you say? It happens to be printed in me memory, lad, just as sharp and clear as it's printed in any Scholastic pocket edition.

Edited by mrmando, 24 November 2009 - 10:49 PM.

[Nick Alexander]

mrmando, on 24 November 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

Fezziwig, who in contrast to Scrooge had a large number of employees and the wherewithal to throw them a party. Scrooge has but one employee and feels that he can't even afford to give that employee a scrap of coal. Do you think Scrooge is really more successful and has contributed more to society/the economy than Fezziwig?

Did I say such a thing? Nope. The introduction of the character of Fezziwig, not only helps prick Scrooge's conscience, but also is Dickens demonstrating that one can have a successful business while still being generous to his employees, and to the community. Which has been my point all along.

Tired. Going to sleep. Bicker amongst yourselves...

[mrmando]

Nick Alexander, on 24 November 2009 - 10:51 PM, said:

mrmando, on 24 November 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

Do you think Scrooge is really more successful and has contributed more to society/the economy than Fezziwig?

Did I say such a thing? Nope.

You did say the following of Scrooge:

Quote

I'll tell you what it does mean; it means that for every penny that he saves, it's a penny that goes back into his business, which allows him to lend more to people who are in need of a loan. Which keeps him in business. Which allows him to continue keeping Cratchit employed. Which allows him to continue supporting the government via taxes.

Following that line of reasoning strictly would lead to the conclusion that the money Fezziwig spends on his Christmas party is money that he really should have plowed back into his business, instead. Indeed, Levin makes a very similar point about Fezziwig.

In one of the film adaptations (the Sim one, if memory serves), Scrooge becomes a shareholder in some venture that forces Fezziwig into bankruptcy and carts off what's left of his business. Now there's a wrongheaded interpretation; I don't believe Dickens means for us to see Fezziwig as a failure of any kind.

And anyway, Scrooge clearly does not put all his reserves back into his business ... if he did, he couldn't afford to suddenly raise Cratchit's salary and drop a bundle on the portly gentleman who had tried to hit him up for a donation the day before. As you yourself said, the money was there all along. He was neither giving it away nor reinvesting it. He was sitting on it.

Quote

The introduction of the character of Fezziwig, not only helps prick Scrooge's conscience, but also is Dickens demonstrating that one can have a successful business while still being generous to his employees, and to the community. Which has been my point all along.

No one is disagreeing with this major point (except, perhaps, you yourself, when you say things in support of Levin's argument that would seem to contradict your own point about generosity). The disagreements are over some other things you and Andy have said.

Edited by mrmando, 25 November 2009 - 01:19 AM.

[KShaw]

You all have inspired me. I'm off to sign up for whatever Brit lit course my university offers. Dickens, make me sharper, make me wittier, more caring and quicker in argument!

[mrmando]

For me, the most ridiculous thing Levin says is this:

Quote

But who, apart from Dickens, says that Scrooge is not enjoying himself? He spends all his time at his business, likes to count his money, and has no outside interests. ... So we conclude that, in his undemonstrative way, Scrooge is productive and satisfied with his lot, which is to say happy.

No, he's not happy, not by any measure that matters to the story itself. Money for Scrooge, pre-conversion, is a substitute for happiness, certainly not a means to it.

The careful reader will notice that Levin himself cannot make up his mind about whether Scrooge is satisfied or not.