Talk:A Christmas Carol/Archive 1

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)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078764/

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,

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)

It's 100 pages, and thus precisely fits the definition of novella. It's also on the List of novellas. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per this, I have cut down the ELs today. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

These have been creeping in again, so I added a warning not to add links to the text of the work, saying that it will be regarded as spam and removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"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)

"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)

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)

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.

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)

I believe his objection is the claim that staves is a plural of staff. I'm not so sure that's correct myself. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

The story was published in 1843, and there is no evidence in the story to suggest that it is anything other than contemporary to that year. The reference to "a mere United States' security" (or treasury bond, as we would say today) is also telling, as it is used clearly in context as a metaphor for worthlessness. The proximate event to an 1843 date would have been the Panic of 1837 and the subsequent five year depression that rendered the referenced bonds nearly devoid of value. Sensei48 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Looks likes it's done. walkingonthesun SPEAK UP!! 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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}

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}'

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}

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)

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)

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)

There was a split tag for this section, but no accompanying discussion. I went ahead and split out the section as List of A Christmas Carol adaptations. As it stood, this section was growing quite large and overshadowing content about the novella itself. -- MisterHand 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

When a story has been adapted as often as “A Christmas Carol”, people often combine details from the adaptations with the original story. I have made changes to this entry to bring it back to Dickens’ original work. MacPhilbin (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

---

Links to characters

A recent editor made some redundant links to character articles. I reverted this edit, but then noticed that the characters names are linked only in the list of principal characters. This seems okay to me, though the general convention on wikipedia seems to be to link (only) at the first mention. Any opinions on whether we should stick to the links in the character list, or go with first mention? Doctormatt 17:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please review the article?

I reverted to the last bot version of the article, since some 1diot put numerous small nonsense changes into the article. However, I think a fresh pair of eyes should have another look just in case I overlooked something or got it wrong.

Thank you! HagenUK (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

novel, novella, or short story?

Which is it? Whichever it is should be mentioned in the first one or two sentences of the article. The fact that Dickens called it his "little ... Book" is insufficient information. Thank you! Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Per definition of novella, and per List of Novellas, it's a novella, so I updated the article accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Adaptations and sequels

I made some minor changes in this section although it looks extensive when looking the comparison between versions. I bulleted the example adaption and moved the generic information before the list. I hope everyone likes the change. - DevinCook (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

12/21/07 Edit: Justification

I have made two changes thus far -

1) removing the following sentence:

Most modern adaptations refer to the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come as the "Ghost of Christmas Future" instead.

The phrase "Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come" is from Scrooge's own lips in the text of the story; virtually every film adaptation - including the 1999 Patrick Stewart version and the 1984 George C. Scott vehicle - use this term. In forty years of working with, teaching, directing, and viewing versions of this story, I have never heard the term "ghost of Christmas Future" - until seeing it in this Wiki article.

2) The 1951 Alistair Sim film has likely been seen in the US more frequently than any other version, but it is bluntly not "critically" acclaimed. This version plays both Scrooge and Marley for a kind of bumptious comedy at many points, effectively de-fanging the bitter social criticism that Dickens clearly intended. Both the 1938 Reginald Owen version and the 1984 Scott film do a far better job of remaining faithful to the spirit of the story and have been recognized as such by critics.

In any event, the statement quoted above is blatant POV. I've adapted it to a factual statement - and will not make the same mistake by inserting my own unsourced POV stated above into the main article.

Serious problems remain with the text of this article. It is a noble first effort but in need of substantial revision on other points as well. To work. Sensei48 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

12/22 - This sentence needed to be removed:

This is a little joke Dickens has carried out throughout the story; it adds humour to the story and links in, because a stave is something you will find in a piece of music, and a "carol" is a type of music/song.

1) Ungrammatical and stylistically inappropriate use of "you."

2) To define "carol" as a song in an article that also deals with Christmas belabors the obvious.

3) Nothing Dickens does in this story is a "joke" in any sense of the word, and there is far less of the humor that characterizes many of his other serious works. The dominant recurring literary device is irony, not humor, as each Spirit throws Scrooge's own unthinking and insensitive words from the story's opening - "Are there no prisons? Are there no Union work houses?" and "If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" - in his face at precisely the moments that the better elements of Scrooge's nature are working toward his "reclamation."

I'm going to hazard a guess here that impressions that any of the story - or any element of it, such as using "stave" instead of "chapter" - is humorous in intent derives from several of the film versions and not from the story itself, which, though finally optimistic, emotional to the edge (or past it) of bathos, and intentionally uplifting, is simply not humorous. A simple re-reading of the text [2] will confirm that. Sensei48 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not enough information

In the section with The ghost of Christmas Past, it makes NO refrenses to Fezziwig, or Scrooges friend.(Dick-something, right?) Also, the line, "you're more gravy than grave to me", should be added back. Also, it's the most retold Christmas story in the English speaking world. (That's important too)~ The Russian Lunch Lady

What's the order?

In some adaptions, such as Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol, the ghost of Christmas present comes before the ghost of Christmas past. I need to know the order they came in, or why in some versions they came before or after. Also, the part where he goes and sees the ghost of christmas present, he sees his nephew before Bob Crachit, but this says he saw Bob Cratchit first. And the ghost of Christmas yet to come is too short; there is no mention of the actions or how they effect Scrooge. ie, how Scrooge is disturbed his bed curtains were torn down. ~ The Russian Lunch Lady

Overlong summary

This article is listed at WikiProject Novels as being in need of attention to style, and considering the novella's length, the plot summary is also far too long and detailed, being more a retelling than the concise overview it should be. I will use the Project Novels template to do some reordering of the existing material without cuts, and will also work on a the plot summary to keep the important narrative thread but make things a bit tighter than they are now. -- Karenjc (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it a little bit, but not much. I imagine it could be cut down more though. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of cn

I removed the cn tag on the sequels comment because the wikilinked list of adaptations and sequels, which is right there, lists several. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Overzealous editing

I have reverted the latest drastic edit which removes colourful detail, and reduces the text to a boring precis. Such a rich and classic work should be treated with respect for the modern reader who may be unaware of the story. Peterlewis (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Removes colourful detail"? It has already been noted that the summary was too long. If you disagree with my edits, change the pieces you disagree with rather than reverting the whole thing. The article was in need of cleanup. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called Carl.bunderson's edits overzealous at all; in fact, I have built on his good start and trimmed the summary still further while trying to keep it in character. The thing is, the plot summary is supposed to be a precis, not a detailed re-telling, and if you compare it with other Wiki articles about novels, particularly articles that have been judged "good", then this really was far too long. IMO it still is, but I'm reluctant to go further until the current version has had a chance to settle. Peterlewis is right that it is a rich and classic work, and the stuff that people love best is the hardest to get right. -- Karenjc (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Karen. And forgive my ignorance, but for what does IMO stand? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"In my opinion". I would have put IMHO, but I'd be in danger of mixing my Dickens, and Uriah Heep wan't really 'umble at all :) --Karenjc (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually lol'ed a bit. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)