 |
 |
by Lorna Derksen
LESS
THAN ONE month after publishing A Christmas Carol
in 1843, Dickens raged at pirates who altered his story to produce
their own cheaper versions. Yet since then, the story of Scrooge
has continued to evolve beyond Dickens’ pages. If he had any
inclination of creating a classic story, Dickens could never have
known that he had also created a character whose life would far
surpass his own imagination. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s The
Trial of Ebenezer Scrooge (2001) provides front row seats
to a heavenly trial that shows us a side of Scrooge we would never
have imagined. Surprisingly, the kind and generous Scrooge we are
shown is clearly that of A Christmas Carol. How could we
have so misread this classic tale?
Ebenezer Scrooge is as dead as a purgatorial ghost when we meet
him in the Court of Heavenly Justice. He is accused of being a miserly,
greedy, self-serving wretch – in short, his old self –
and thus unworthy of entry into heaven. In his defense his lawyer
Tiny Tim Cratchit denies such unjust claims. He instead proclaims
that Scrooge has been wronged throughout his life and vows to exonerate
his character through reliable witnesses and undeniable evidence.
Ali Baba testifies to Scrooge’s difficult childhood proving
that he was merely the victim of others’ cruelty. Dick Wilkins
thanks his friend, a young adult Scrooge, for easing the burden
of subjugation under their demanding and ruthless employer, Fezziwig.
A fellow businessman and Scrooge’s partner, Jacob Marley,
both demonstrate that, unlike the friendless wretch we assumed him
to be, Scrooge had friends including a significant bond with Marley
who cares for his dear friend’s welfare, even after death.
The
defense scores significant points when statistics from the 1840s
prove Scrooge to be a generous employer to Bob Cratchit by the standards
of the time. Rather than being miserly, Scrooge’s laundress
suggests he lived within a moderate income. Had we been reading
A Christmas Carol with a keen eye, barrister Cratchit suggests,
we would have noticed how it is Scrooge who alerts us to the presence
of Want and Ignorance under the skirts of Christmas Present. Truly,
Scrooge was aware of and cared for the needy. Our ignorance as readers
is placed squarely on Dickens’ shoulders. It was he who chose
to emphasize the unpleasant aspects of Scrooge’s character
while hiding Scrooge’s true feelings and intentions. By trial’s
end, Tim Cratchit has convinced all that Scrooge is a good man deserving
of entry into paradise.
However, appearances are not to be trusted in The Trial of Ebenezer
Scrooge. Amidst the startling evidence, we trip onto a plot
outside the courtroom that is much more insidious than the exoneration
of Scrooge’s character. Nightly visits to Scrooge’s
cottage from Tiny Tim and a menacing spectre reveal the ultimate
goal behind the trial. Scrooge has sold his soul to the devil; the
corrupt Tiny Tim is colluding with Mephistopheles to ensure Scrooge’s
soul enters heaven. But every night when he returns home from court,
Scrooge regrets the direction his choice is taking. Here his spirit
servant girl, little Eppie, to whose aid he came in his last year
of life, keeps him company. More truly, she keeps Scrooge tethered
to his heart as Tim and the ghost work out their deceptive scheme
around him. When Eppie begs Scrooge to read to her from Christopher
Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, we see clearly her role as
the good angel in Faust’s drama prodding Scrooge to reconnect
with his heart and make
a choice for life. With each reading and with each encounter with
Eppie, Scrooge’s heart is challenged to tell the truth. In
the end, with Eppie’s pleading on the final day of the trial,
Scrooge repents.
It took me two readings to buy into Bueno de Mesquita’s new
interpretation. Initially I felt like accusing the author of falsely
testifying on behalf of Scrooge’s character just as prosecutor
Cratchit accuses Dickens of falsifying the facts in his original
tale. What right does he have in manipulating this classic? I could
not understand why the original story of Scrooge’s conversion
held such little appeal for the post-modern author that he would
alter the story so significantly. |
|
 |