Posted on 12/28/2004 8:50:02 AM PST by UnklGene
Take it easy. As always, it was extremely enjoyable.
That was not Scrooge's "fault." But the way he sacrificed every human ideal to that pursuit. Remember what the scriptures said about the LOVE of money being the root of all evil. THAT was Scrooge's failing.
That is a stretch even the Rubber Man can't make.
It is a critique of the educational system of England.
:) Just having a bit of fun. It was fun.
Well he may have come from a large marx era, Marx was quite large, but the era was not marxist because Marx himself (1818-1883) was not popular in his own time.
I hope you told her so. She was ten years old when she wrote it.
Even if I accept that premise as correct (which I don't -- it uses very selective examples designed to bolster the thesis while ignoring anything that doesn't [a mark of a good term paper]),
In what respect do you disagree with the thesis of the paper?
"That was not Scrooge's "fault."
Yes it was. He should never have hired Cratchett to begin with. And these ghosts terrorizing poor Scrooge. For shame. for shame. :) Denote sarcasm.
You're late. I've already quit arguing the point. I can see there just isn't many people with open minds on this forum. :) HA! Denote sarcasm.
You're right about the one book. My point was that Dickens was left of center. That's all I was saying.
Hooray.
Of course, Zola and other writers who came along after Dickens saw people as puppets of circumstances, but they were outside of the English tradition which was more individualistic and moralistic than collectivist or behaviorist. Portray the individual as fundamentally a product of the environment driven this way and that by economic forces, and you don't have much of a novel, or much of substance to convey to people.
Dickens did have much affection for some of his rising capitalists -- if they proved to be generous. Others, he hated: the miserly and selfish and hard-hearted. It's worth noting that he had no especial affection for the aristocracy, and often viewed them as lazy and parasitic -- not entirely, of course, but to a large degree.
And he never had much liking for the Tories of his day. In retrospect the way Dickens scourged Tories for factory conditions in Hard Times when the Whigs were equally responsible for such troubles, and some Tories tried to prevent or relieve abuses, looks quite unfair. But Dickens did tend to associate the Tories of his day with indolence, corruption, and hard-heartness, though his affection for the other side and his hopes from politics were both limited.
In subsequent generations, the gap between writers and capitalists deepened, so the tendency to associate Dickens with dislike for capitalism grew as time went on. Dickens relied too much at times on philanthropists who stepped in to set things right. When those benefactors didn't appear, people tended to look at things differently, and support for socialism and government intervention grew.
Yes, that is the one. I find Orwell to be one of the few honest leftists who ever existed.
I loved you post. Did you ever read "Flowering Judas" by I forget the author. But she shows the complete hypocrisy of a girl's devout dedication to the Marxist party. She's doing all of these noble works for the poor indians in South America, but her heart is so torn and insincere.
loved you post. Did you ever read "Flowering Judas" by I forget the author. But she shows the complete hypocrisy of a girl's devout dedication to the Marxist party. She's doing all of these noble works for the poor indians in South America, but her heart is so torn and insincere.
BTW Writer 33, I'll be looking for your book.
"BTW Writer 33, I'll be looking for your book."
Thank you.
Ah dunno. There are some people who insist that he was Secretly Behind Communism. Or was that Rockefeller?
Deconstruction marches on.
Orwell was violently anti-socialist/communist, even though his lifestyle didn't back that up.
Look at the Cheeryble brothers in Nicholas Nickleby
FWIW One of my fledgling FR posts in Jan/02 on a Tolkien/Power thread was in response to a poster who stated, "Leftism gets its start by suggesting that there are "things we have to do" that require that some be given power over others."
I turned to Dickens to illustrate my understanding of classic liberalism.
With great power comes great responsibility"...Stan LeeI'm not sure if you are equating 'Leftism' with Liberalism. Lately I've been spending my free fiction reading time on enjoying all the Dickens novels I can find. I recall reading that he was something of the 'classic liberal', before the word had assumed so many of the negative connotations that it has today.
My take on his beliefs is that there are "things we have to do" because in some cases we already have more power than others. In his stories this power comes in the form of money. For example in Nicholas Nickleby the use of power in the form of money is contrasted by the characters of Ralph Nickleby and the Cheeryble Twins.
For Ralph the pursuit of money is an end that supercedes any other considerations and is enjoyed only to the extent that it can be used increase itself and Ralph's power over others. He had started at the bottom and through hard work (but what a kind of work !) had increased his fortune and hardened his heart. He could say in his honesty "I am sixty years old too and am neither destitute nor helpless. Work. Don't make fine play-acting speeches about bread, but earn it". But he will not help beyond this advice for "Time is Money"
Contrast the Cheeryble "It was a wilderness to me once. I came here barefoot - I have never forgotten it. Thank God!" Money and power has come also to the Cheerybles but their hearts are filled with gratitude for the blessings of God and it leads them to use their power to help others. They are not foolish enough to be taken advantage of but investigate the circumstances surrounding an individual's plight and if found to be a sound case help to their best to provide shelter and work.
We each are given power. Whether it is the power of money, a strong arm or a quick mind. I can take credit for only so much of my fortune. Why have I remained healthy when others labor under disease or have died younger than I? What caused me to look left rather than right at the Job Center and find that great job?
To see that power has been given to me and to realize that the ultimate source of that power comes from a Higher Power than myself humbles me and with gratitude I ask how may I repay this grace.
Dickens was a student of the human condition and accurately demostrated how the surroundings one encountered shaped the life one lived and how one can escape those influences. He was no protector of the establishment nor a socialist radical. So I don't see him as that Left. In America he would likely have been a democrat which was Left compared to the Whigs but not much. I would say he was actually more a moderate certainly his take on the French Revolution was not that of a Leftist.
His ability to grab you by the heart and not let go has never been surpassed. Just think of Little Nell and one can almost tear up.
One of my goals is to read all his novels and I have a few to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.