Do we need yet another take on "A Christmas Carol"?

As established in the previous blog entry, The Doctor and Dickens make a great duo. So why am I not 100% excited by the news that the Doctor Who Christmas Special will contain references to "A Christmas Carol"? Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm a little tired of "A Christmas Carol".

The two most famous and most read works by Dickens are probably "Oliver Twist" and "A Christmas Carol". I know it could be great deal worse. These are good stories. It would have been terrible if Dickens would have been chiefly famous for, say, "Martin Chuzzlewit". Still, "Twist" and "Carol" leave people with the impression that Dickens was first and foremost a Great Revealer of Social Ills, who wrote about poor folk, preferably orphans. Dickens did rail against (real and perceived) social ills, but this is only one aspect of his writing, and in my view not the best or the most interesting one. His books aren't rag-fests at all: they mostly have middle-class settings and middle-class main characters, who are more psychologically complex than people realise. We hear a lot about Dickensian "grotesques", but it is not the quirks that make a Dickens character interesting, but the personality that lies beneath. This is the author who said the last word on bitterness and what it does to you, but what is he known as? Someone who wrote about ragged, implausibly good children, who may or may not die.

What I like about "A Christmas Carol" is the fact that Scrooge's redemption is the most important thing in it. The ghosts don't haunt him for the sake of Bob Cratchit, or of Tiny Tim, or of any deserving poor who will benefit from his change of heart and sudden generosity. They haunt him for his own sake, to save his soul. The idea of redeeming someone by showing him glimpses of his past, present and future is pure genius, which is probably why the story has such potency and why there are so many versions of it about. There is also a hint of the old Dickensian "bitterness is bad for you" theme: Scrooge must learn not only to defeat his greed, but also his cynicism and misanthropy. Nevertheless, those who see "Carol" as a straightforward morality tale about how how we must be nice to the needy, especially at Christmas, are not that far wrong. Dickens's Christmas books generally are more sugary, more moralistic and more psychologically simplistic than his novels, and "Carol" suffers from this too. For one thing, Scrooge cracks far too easily: the first Christmas spirit already has him blubbing. And how did Mr Fezziwig's jolly apprentice become so cold and hard-hearted? We never get a satisfactory explanation. I read a short story sequel to "Carol" (included in the anthology "Death by Dickens") by Lillian Stewart Carl, where it is revealed that Mr Fezziwig's firm failed. Now that would explain a lot, wouldn't it? But it isn't in the original story. Dickens can do bitterness in his sleep, but like many authors he is less convincing on greed: it doesn't seem to be a very inspiring vice.

But the main problem with "A Christmas Carol" is something it can't help: it has become over-familiar. We have had countless straightforward film and TV adaptions, musical adaptations, stage adaptations, a version set in modern times, a Disney version, a muppet version, a Blackadder version were the central character goes from good to bad instead of the other way around (not that funny actually), a romcom version, and a flood of other popular culture references. I have read comics where both Peg-Leg Pete and The Big Bad Wolf get the Scrooge treatment, though with indifferent success. The only other story that gets rehashed almost as often at Christmas time is "It's a Wonderful Life", which also, to give it its due, has a great premise. (It would be fun, once in a while, if a bad character got the you-have-never-been-born-treatment instead of the ghosts. In many instances, life would not turn out better for the good characters if their nemesis did not exist: quite the reverse.)

In a word, we could need a little rest from "A Christmas Carol". Why not give "The Haunted Man", another Christmas book by Dickens, a try? It is bleak at times, but it all turns out well in the end. I'm not sure I buy the argument - that the bad things that happen to us make us better people and are a crucial part of the web of life - but it is forcefully argued all the same. I'd give "The Chimes" a miss, though.