FaithTraveler.com
Back to Home Page

"Scrooge & Cratchit" and "Satan's Pow'r"

This is my review of a short story. The author's response to my review, sent to me by email in January 2003, follows at the bottom.

A story has been making its way around the Internet recently. A friend sent me an email about it. The story is titled "Scrooge & Cratchit" written by Matt McHugh and is described as "a sequel to Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol." Since this is one of my all-time favorite stories, especially around the holidays, I was eager to check it out. I downloaded it for free from the author's website scrooge-and-cratchit.com

First off, let me say that I really enjoyed the story. It was very well written, the kind of thing I wish I could write! It focused on Scrooge and Bob Cratchit and their relationship after the miraculous "transformation" of Scrooge as told in the original. It was very true to the characters and faithful to the spirit of the original. It gave a strong sense of the people and places of London 150 years ago, but did not seem out-of-date at all. In fact, the problems faced by Scrooge & Cratchit seemed very modern and easy to relate to. All this helped make it a worthy "sequel" indeed.

However, as I read it, there were a few things that bothered me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first until I came across a particular passage. At one point, a group of men sang the famous Christmas hymn "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen." As I read that, something seemed wrong about it. I found an old music book I have and sure enough, the words had been changed. The correct words for the first verse should be:

God rest ye merry gentlemen,
Let nothing ye dismay,
Remember Christ our Savior
Was born on Christmas day,
To save us all from Satan's pow'r
When we were gone astray;

But in his story, Mr. McHugh changed the words Satan's pow'r to sin and death, like this:

To save us all from sin and death
When we had gone astray;

I began to wonder why a writer who seemed to have been so careful in re-creating the spirit of a beloved classic would choose to alter such a famous song. What was the point? After all, both versions make sense from a Christian point of view. Personally, I think the original is much stronger. "Satan's pow'r" sounds so vivid and frightening, and it has that old-fashioned abbreviation that suggests old English speech very well. As I looked through the story some more, I began to find other things that struck me as odd.

For example, at one point, Scrooge says "I well know that the Almighty's capacity to forgive far exceeds man's power to offend." At first, this line didn't bother me. But as I thought about it, I was troubled by what it could imply. Certainly the grace and forgiveness of God is truly great for those who seek it, but I do not believe that it extends to unrepentant sinners automatically, as this line seems to suggest to me. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but in the original story, Scrooge is redeemed because his experience with the spirits has moved him to a true change of heart that is at once joyous and profound. In fact, in the original Dickens makes it very clear that those who die with unredeemed sins on their souls must endure a terrible penance in the afterlife. Witness the tormented lamentation of the chain-dragging ghost of Jacob Marley in the original.

Speaking of Marley, there's another item in Mr. McHugh's story that surprised me. I don't want to give too much away, so I'll just say that Jacob Marley makes a brief appearance and is described as young and robust, finely dressed, and with "an expression of mild amusement on his face." This is very different from the wailing specter we see in the original. Again, why? Is the suggestion that Marley is not suffering for his sins anymore? Or that, perhaps, his fearsome appearance was just an act to frighten Scrooge into his change of heart?

There were a few other characters that seemed slightly irreverent. A greedy old pastor and a silly young deacon -- though these didn't bother me much, as I have met many greedy pastors and silly deacons over the years! Still, these in combination with some of the other things gave the story a tone that a traditional Christian might argue with. Again, this doesn't mean I didn't like the story, or that I thought it was immoral in any way. Quite the contrary. However, it got me to thinking about what I believe and how that might differ from the author's point of view. In some ways, the fact that this story made me stop and think about my faith has made me enjoy it all the more.

So, I say thank you, Mr. McHugh for sharing your take on this classic tale. Nothing could ever match the power of the original, but "Scrooge & Cratchit" is certainly a worthwhile read for anyone who loves "A Christmas Carol."

You can find the story at scrooge-and-cratchit.com


Faith Traveler
December 2002
faithtraverler.com


Response to the above review from Matt McHugh,
the author of "Scrooge & Cratchit"
Received by email January 7, 2003

To Faith Traveler:

This is regarding the "Scrooge and Cratchit" review you have published on your website. Let me begin by thanking you for your interest and efforts; it's flattering enough merely to have one's work read, let alone reviewed--never mind analyzed with such startling attention to detail. Your ability to focus on the minutiae of the story without being unduly distracted by its overall effect or intent demonstrates your flair for an approach to criticism popular among many social commentators who proudly brand themselves, above all things, Christian. I think you have a real future in that niche.

As for the specific points you raise that struck you as odd, I must plead guilty as charged. I certainly did change the wording of "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen," as you cannily spotted. That was not an attempt to improve upon the original but to tweak it to better fit a theme I had conceived as central to the story itself (I do apologize for taking such liberty with a beloved, public-domain work but I was "in the zone" as it were). I've never been particularly copacetic with the notion that one's wrongdoings were the product of Satanic influence. We all have ample capacity to manifest our own sins and I didn't want the implication that Scrooge's bad behavior was a result of anything but his own doing. A subtle distinction perhaps but critical to my thinking for a tale of guilt and redemption involving the mind and heart of one man rather than the personified forces of the Christian cosmos.

Beyond this, your review cites several other details in my story and refers to them in aggregate as contributing to a "tone that a traditional Christian might argue with." Again, I must reiterate that I am first and foremost flattered that you read my work with a level of attention sufficient to draw such a conclusion. Although, I have to admit, even with the supporting examples you provide from the story, I haven't the foggiest idea what you're taking about--or arguing with, as the case may be. Ultimately, of course, such things tend to be quite personal and subjective and as liable to spark debate among individuals of differing perspectives as would an attempt to define, say, the term "traditional Christian."

In the end, as I have several times implied, I am very gratified by your interest in my work. In your review, you state that the story made you "stop and think." Most writers would be pleased to prompt either reaction in a reader, but to get the double-whammy from a cleverly pseudonymed Christian literary pundit is high praise indeed. I will make of a point of checking your website for more insights on the world at large "coming soon" from Faith Traveler.

Sincerely,
Matt McHugh
mattmchugh.com