Did Scrooge or Marley deserve eternal damnation? - Scrooge (1951) Discussion

[–] dannieboy20906 9 years ago

I don't think they are eternally damned but sentenced to an indefinite period of penitence (purgatory) for their failure to embrace mankind. Marley's Ghost says so much to Scrooge in their dialogue: "Our business is mankind. Those of us who do not walk among our fellowmen during our lives are sentenced to do so after our deaths and we must wear the chains of (indifference?) that we forged in our lifetimes."

Jacob Marley when on his death bed tells Scrooge "We were wrong...save yourself."

I don't think he means to save himself eternal damnation, but the eternal guilt of not doing more for his fellow man. He could suffer for his sins as punishment, but he would never be able to go back to life and do more for his fellow man.

reply

[–] Clusium 8 years ago

I don't think they are eternally damned but sentenced to an indefinite period of penitence (purgatory) for their failure to embrace mankind.

Maybe in this version, it can be argued that Marley & those other ghosts that were throwing "spirit money" at that homeless woman & her baby, were more likely in Purgatory, but, in other versions of A Christmas Carol, it pretty much indicates that he went to Hell.

Moreover, not only do other movies also imply that Scrooge was going to end up in Hell if he didn't change his ways, but, this particular version strongly implies that it would have been his eternal fate as well.

Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!!

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

I don't think the money throwers were in purgatory. Purgatory implies that the people in it will get out of it eventually and then go to Heaven.

But Marley makes no mention of anyone who suffers from his fate ever getting out of it.

Moreover, if people with that fate were able to get out of it simply by virtue of enough time passing, then whether Marley's ghost comes to Scrooge or not would be a moot point, because Scrooge would be able simply to wait out his time in purgatory and then go to Heaven.

reply

[–] Clusium 8 years ago

Like I said in my previous post, I think that even if Marley & the other ghosts were in Purgatory (which in & of itself is also a state of suffering; just not eternal suffering, the movie strongly implied that Scrooge's fate was Hell after he died, were he not to repent of his greed & lack of empathy for those in misery while still on Earth.

Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!!

reply

[–] dannieboy20906 8 years ago

Maybe, but that's the movie.

The original quote from the novel (long short story, novella)is,

Scrooge: "But why do spirits walkd the earth, and why do they come to me?"

Marley's Ghost: "It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the world--oh, woe is me!--and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!"

Purgatory was an invention of the Catholics. It does not exist in the Bible. Hell is a little more confusing, but is not clearly described in either testament. It is not clear that whether Marley's punishment is temporary or permanent. Given all of that, I always thought of Dickens as a charitable person. I would expect him to be Anglican and that church took on nearly all of the Catholic catechism. They rejected only the primacy of the Pope.

Right after that Marley says that Scrooge's "chain" is longer than his and that his (Scrooge's) fate will be worse. Does that mean a longer time in purgatory or permanent damnation to hell?

I think you are probably right at least as far as the movie goes. However, a little ambiguity does not harm the story.

What the hell, I'm damned if I know what Dickens meant.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

[–] Clusium 8 years ago

That quote can be interpreted for either Purgatory or Hell. In actuality, Charles Dickens was Anglican (as you already noted), & according to Wikipedia, disapproved of Catholicism. Therefore, in all likeliehood, he envisioned Marley as being damned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Religious_views

Purgatory was an invention of the Catholics. It does not exist in the Bible.

No, Catholics didn't invent Purgatory. It is in the Bible, both in in the Old & New Testaments. In the Old Testament, it is in the Books of the Maccabees (which was edited out of Protestant Old Testaments, including the KJV), & in the New Testament, it is in St. Matthew, where Christ Warns the Pharisees about Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (He Said it was the Only Sin that was Eternal).

I think in the movie, he intends for it to mean that he is damned. Keep in mind that when we were watching Scrooge's memories being played out before him, by the Ghost of Christmas Past, by the time Marley dies, Scrooge is completely lacking in any kind of empathy whatsoever. Despite the fact that Marley was his best bud, he didn't care that he was going to die, only about continuing making money, & stays on at the office. Then when Marley finally does die, all he cared about was inheriting his money & his estate.

Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!!

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

It is in the Bible

Purgatory is certainly not in the Bible. As the other poster said, it is indeed a catholic fabrication - and an anti-biblical one at that.

Christ Warns the Pharisees about Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (He Said it was the Only Sin that was Eternal).

What Christ said was that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was the only sin that was unforgivable. However, that statement is in no way an affirmation of purgatory. Forgiveness from God or lack thereof always occurs before a sinner reaches God's Judgement Seat. According to Christ, once someone dies, he or she first goes to God's Judgement Seat, and after that, he or she goes to Heaven or Hell permanently, period. God's decision about that is final. No one goes to purgatory. And no one can be pardoned out of Hell.

Nothing in this film affirms the existence of purgatory either. On the contrary, this film affirms the Bible all throughout itself.

reply

[–] Clusium 8 years ago

Purgatory is certainly not in the Bible. As the other poster said, it is indeed a catholic fabrication - and an anti-biblical one at that.

Purgatory is indeed in the Holy Bible. It's the Protestants who edited the Bible, not the Catholics!!

However, that statement is in no way an affirmation of purgatory.

Yes it is an affirmation of Purgatory. Christ Said Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that neither Receives Forgiveness in this life, or the next.

Judgement Day comes at the end of time. Only then, does Purgatory cease to be.

Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!!

reply

[–] Navaros 7 years ago

Purgatory is indeed in the Holy Bible.

That is not true.

Yes it is an affirmation of Purgatory.

No, it is not.

Christ Said Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that neither Receives Forgiveness in this life, or the next

Christ said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that cannot be forgiven. He did not say, however, as your quoted statement there implies, that all other sins are forgiven...just that other sins can be forgiven. But that forgiveness, if it happens, never comes after a soul has already come before God's Judgement Seat and then been cast into Hell.

Nowhere did Christ say that there is a waiting room level of Hell called "Purgatory." That is blasphemous bunkum.

Judgement Day

Judgement Day and Judgement at God's Judgement Seat, before which each soul appears as quickly as it leaves this earth, are two different things entirely. You seem to be conflating them.

Only then, does Purgatory cease to be.

Purgatory cannot cease to be, because it has never existed. Except in the imaginations of catholics who believe in the blasphemous fabrications of their dogma-makers, who invented "Purgatory" for the purpose of lining their own coffers by duping their followers into believing that they can for themselves and their dead relatives "pay their way out of Hell." 

In other words, "Purgatory" is a scam designed to fool people into making fake catholic "authorities" filthy rich at the expense of the members of their congregations whom they fleece.

Incidentally, the show "The Sopranos" does an excellent job of exposing that scam for what it is.

reply

[–] jsk32870 7 years ago

On the contrary, this film affirms the Bible all throughout itself.

I guess that depends on how you choose to interpret the bible. There are some new testament passages which seem to indicate that man can do nothing to 'save' himself, that salvation is only possible from God. Martin Luther certainly believed that. And that, of course, goes entirely against the spirit/message of this film.

The message in the film seems to be - interestingly enough, as Dickens was not Catholic - that one must engage in good works to be saved. Marley is not heard uttering 'sola fide' at any point lol. He makes it clear that he should have done more to help others ("mankind was my business"), and because he did not, he now suffers his fate. And furthermore, his offer of redemption for Scrooge is for him to change his ways (not mentioning his faith), which Scrooge immediately does beginning the next day (apologizing to those he hurt, buying gifts, raising salary, donating to the needy, etc.).

Just an observation. Not looking to delve deep into dogma/theology so if anyone wants to respond with all sorts of bible quotes, please don't. Opinions ~ fine. Bible lessons ~ not so much.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7401) a year ago

I know this person can't respond to me now, but I don't agree with them about that passage in Matthew stating that condemming the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin is proof of pergetory existing.

Jesus also said in most of the gospels that anybody that rejects him and rejects his father God might as well meet a graphically violent death. Which more sounds like he's talking about Hell for those who don't believe he's the son of God.

Also I never read Macabees til recently and I could not get into it. Unlike other old teatament books it seems to be more talking about historical things and doesn't even mention God in the first chapter. I myself can't blame Christians for rejecting it. Plus it supposedley was written when Christ was alive.

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

Does that mean a longer time in purgatory or permanent damnation to hell?

Neither. Rather, it means that both Scrooge and Marley would be doomed to walk among mankind forever, but that while doing so, Scrooge would suffer to a greater extent (i.e. Scrooge would carry more pain with him).

reply

[–] Clusium 8 years ago

Neither. Rather, it means that both Scrooge and Marley would be doomed to walk among mankind forever, but that while doing so, Scrooge would suffer to a greater extent (i.e. Scrooge would carry more pain with him).

With all due respect, that sounds like permanent damnation to me, Navaros.

Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!!

reply

[–] jsk32870 7 years ago

There is a difference between 'permanent damnation to hell' and 'permanent damnation.'

When Navaros replied 'neither,' I'm guessing the distinction was being made on that point?

Because otherwise, there is little doubt the damnation appears to be permanent. Marley says to Scrooge (in the story)..."I cannot rest, I cannot stay, I cannot linger anywhere....and weary journeys lie before me!" And elsewhere says "No rest, no peace. Incessant torture of remorse."

It seems clear this is his punishment, and the punishment has no end. But it's not punishment in hell. The punishment is here, 'doomed to wander through the world.'

reply

[–] carlgt1 9 years ago

Well in the US these days the "pre-reformed" Scrooge would be considered a moderate Republican, compared to the typically insane greedy Libertarian Tea Party variety!

reply

[–] pawtrax67 8 years ago

Can people not make comments on things without bringing BS politics into it?

reply

[–] LesterFester 9 years ago

by liching1 » Wed Dec 24 2014...It is not settled in mind that the Scrooge ... was guilty of any terrible - unforgiveable sins. His greatest fault here seems to be a lack of generosity combined with spite. ... ---he was just a gruff and grouchy old miser. Same with poor Marley. So they lent money at high rates and did a few shady business deals --- They were certainly no worse than the maid, cook and undertaker (not to mention the fence) in the scene in the rag shop. But Scrooge did not commit any crimes that I could see or even any unholy trangressions ---just some moral misdemeanors

As his nephew points out --Scrooge's own worst enemy is himself. He does himself far worse damage than he does to anyone else. The things he does to set himself right at the end do not seem to be that desperate or drastic. He gives a little extra to the people who work for him ---- He treats his nephew and his nephew's wife better ---He affects a jolly air as he walks through the sewer that was Victorian London --throwing a few coins around as he goes.......maybe even lowers his interest rate on loans by half a percent or so ----If that's all that it takes to get to heaven then sign me up. ---At any rate --not a criticism of Dickens ===the story or the movie --just food for thought.

What is sad is that society vilifies those things it should uphold as praiseworthy. Scrooge, through his actions, does exactly the same things shown on the reality programs, 'Shark Tank' and 'The Prophit'. Scrologe seeks out profitable opportunities, lends money and expects a return on his investment. Does he charge too much interest? Possibly... But he reinvests and finds other avenues to put that incoming money to use. And what happens if Scrooge charges too much for an extended period of time? Others will see there is an opportunity to make money thereby bringing down the rates in the process. Then there is this notion that all problems can be solved by expropiating from some and giving to others without concequences. BS.

The question might be asked, 'Does Scrooge have character flaws?' To answer this a little disecting needs to be done. Since Dickens' novel was published, Scrooge has been looked upon as the most 'SELFISH' individual on the face of the earth. This is not true. In order for an individual to be classified as 'selfish' his actions must in the end benefit hin and his life (happiness). Scrooge acted with one purpose in mind: To attain and hold onto as much money as possble at the expense to his own health (he lives and works in an underheated s$#t hole).

The next question, 'Can a 'selfish' individual be compassionate or show empathy towards others?' Yes, if he chooses to do so and it has no effect on HIS wellbeing. What he has the right to object to is having his pockets picked.

So, I agree with your first paragraph.

As for your second paragraph?: That is what those who think they have the right to pick-your-pockets would want you to believe.

'Three can keep a secret ... if two are dead'

reply

[–] Limeginger 7 years ago

By Dickens' and many others' standards you, the reality show people you mention, "society" you refer to (et al.) all will be dragging around heavy chains and wailing with regret about not ever having gotten the point of living, after your own breath ceases...

reply

[–] Navaros 9 years ago

I commend you on your thoughtful and interesting OP.

To say Scrooge and Marley deserve eternal damnation might be a bit harsh, but on the other hand...

Scrooge did not commit any crimes that I could see or even any unholy trangressions ---just some moral misdemeanors

...to call some of the things they did "moral misdemeanors" is going too far the other way, and understating the wrongness of many of their behaviors.

I.e. Scrooge tossed Old Fezziwig out on the street and took away his livelihood and the love of his life/his main purpose for living. That's really bad.

Scrooge also took food off of the table of Fezziwig's former employees who he kept on, and Bob Cratchit and his family, and his maid, by underpaying them. Again, those things are also really bad.

And Scrooge neglected Fan's wish that he take care of her son, although he didn't even hear it...but him not hearing it is also his fault because he was too busy raging at Fan's husband. Fan's husband may have felt terrible forever and unfairly blamed himself too as a result of Scrooge doing it first.

Fan's son happened to turn out well, but he would have had a much easier time in life if Scrooge took care of him a bit.

Not all of the bad things Scrooge did are super bad, but enough of them are that he does not deserve to be let off the hook easily.

reply

[–] jzc008 9 years ago

I think any judgement we may make on whether Scrooge deserved eternal damnation is affected by contemporary views which are probably more tolerant than those in Victorian England.

Scrooge's threatened punishment was because of the misery he caused others due to his obsession with monetary gain for himself. Times were harsher back then and generally speaking without a private income people had to work or rely on charity, the workhouse or prison to be a able to survive. He appears to be unaware of the extent of his actions on others hence the need of the various spirits to spell it out to him.

What is not clear to me is was his dramatic change of heart because of a newfound genuine concern for his fellow man before it was too late or was it that he was frightened of dying prematurely when he was shown his grave by the last spirit. Probably the story intended the former but he showed little evidence of compassion until he awoke having thought that he had died.

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

What is not clear to me is was his dramatic change of heart because of a newfound genuine concern for his fellow man before it was too late or was it that he was frightened of dying prematurely when he was shown his grave by the last spirit. Probably the story intended the former but he showed little evidence of compassion until he awoke having thought that he had died.

In this version of Scrooge, the film most certainly does show plenty of evidence of Scrooge becoming compassionate as the spirits take him along. And by the time he gets to the grave, it's very obvious that he does not fear death itself; he merely fears dying before he has done any good on the earth.

However, many/most other versions of the Scrooge story certainly do indeed have the very problem you've described in that quoted text. That's one of the reasons with this Sim version is superior to them.

reply

[–] marktayloruk 8 years ago

To be fair-Fezziwig refused to move with the times.He admitted it.

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

To be fair-Fezziwig refused to move with the times.He admitted it.

I agree that Fezziwig admitted that, but what's your point?

Are you implying that Fezziwig's refusal to move with the times justifies Scrooge taking over his business and thus taking away his livelihood? Because it doesn't.

reply

[–] jsk32870 7 years ago

Two things.

This whole episode with Fezziwig isn't even in the original story. Fezziwig is only remembered as Scrooge's first employer, and how kindly he treated his employees (contrasting how poorly Scrooge treats his), and that's it. All of this other business with Fezziwig (and Jorkin, for that matter) is an invention of the producers of this film.

Second - we are not shown what happens to Fezziwig. Earlier in the film Jorkin talks to him about selling and that he'll never get a better price, but Fezziwig says no, he wants to stay on 'to preserve a way of life, that one knew, and loved.' We see that Scrooge and Marley eventually bought him out, apparently a hostile takeover. But it is incorrect to assume Fezziwig was left penniless. We don't see Fezziwig on the street, he is in a carriage. The real loss here is that his 'way of life' is over, the 'little happy world' he created, how kind he was to his employees. We see that when Scrooge keeps on a staff member but lowers his wage. But Fezziwig still got paid for the business he sold to Scrooge and Marley. Whether he uses that capital to start another business or to retire, we don't know, but he is not left a pauper.

reply

[–] novastar_6 8 years ago

He does himself far worse damage than he does to anyone else.

And yet he's directly responsible for Tiny Tim dying in an unaltered future. And there's no telling how many other deaths both he and Marley were responsible for in their treatment of their fellow men, who they might have helped who instead starved to death or froze to death while they sat on their money always scheming to rake in more. It goes back to that saying about all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, they could've done so much, they chose not to, they only looked out for themselves and everyone around them paid the price for it.

reply

[–] coldnaps 8 years ago

Well said, nova

reply

[–] devildog1982z 8 years ago

And yet he's directly responsible for Tiny Tim dying in an unaltered future.

What a crock, Scrooge was his father's employer. If anyone had a hand in his death it would be his own father. He had more children than he could reasonably support. He also could've sought other a better position with another employer. Scrooge himself started out in a similar position when younger, but it appears Bob is a bit of a lackluster employee.

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

He also could've sought other a better position with another employer. Scrooge himself started out in a similar position when younger,

But consider: what did Scrooge have to do in order to get a better position than Bob's? He had to abandon his first employer, Fezziwig. That's was Scrooge's first sin and the start of his descent into evil. That evil snowballed more little by little. Scrooge would have been better off, morally speaking, if he had never taken that first step of abandoning Fezziwig.

For Bob to take a better position, he'd have to take a similar first step by abandoning Scrooge & Marley, and thus follow in Scrooge's bad footsteps.

So while you see Bob as a "lackluster employee," I see him as a "loyal employee." Moreover, Scrooge arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him. That's Scrooge's fault, not Bob's. And it's certainly not a reflection of Bob doing bad work.

He had more children than he could reasonably support

He could support them enough for them to survive. The one exception is that he could not afford to pay for the best care for Tiny Tim's illness, which was an unexpected expense that he couldn't possibly have foreseen - so it's not his fault for planning badly or anything like that.

reply

[–] strntz 8 years ago

Moreover, Scrooge arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him.

I read somewhere that 15 Shillings a week was actually pretty respectable salary for the times. Cratchitt was not indentured or under any long term contract, so if he was underpaid for his performance, someone would have grabbed him. I'm sure Scrooge hated paying Cratchitt that much, but without paying a going rate, Scrooge wouldn't have a clerk. Not only did he pay Cratchitt going rate, he also paid him for the Christmas holiday despite his protestations.

Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

reply

[–] devildog1982z 8 years ago

But consider: what did Scrooge have to do in order to get a better position than Bob's? He had to abandon his first employer, Fezziwig. That's was Scrooge's first sin and the start of his descent into evil. That evil snowballed more little by little. Scrooge would have been better off, morally speaking, if he had never taken that first step of abandoning Fezziwig.

Who's to say that Scrooge "would've been better off morally"? You? He bettered himself, that is no sin "morally speaking". You yourself have probably done the same in your lifetime.

For Bob to take a better position, he'd have to take a similar first step by abandoning Scrooge & Marley, and thus follow in Scrooge's bad footsteps.

So? How is that wrong? Because you say it is? Again, how is it that Scrooge took bad footsteps?

So while you see Bob as a "lackluster employee," I see him as a "loyal employee." Moreover, Scrooge arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him. That's Scrooge's fault, not Bob's. And it's certainly not a reflection of Bob doing bad work.

Again, how is this Scrooges's problem? Where is the evidence that he "arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him"? Because I'm not seeing it. If Bob so "deliberately underpaid" then why didn't he look for a better position elsewhere? He wasn't an indentured servant or in bondage, he was perfectly capable of pulling up stakes and moving on. Last of all, if Bob was doing such great work then Scrooge would've done all he could do keep him. Bob was just happy to collect a paycheck.

He could support them enough for them to survive. The one exception is that he could not afford to pay for the best care for Tiny Tim's illness, which was an unexpected expense that he couldn't possibly have foreseen - so it's not his fault for planning badly or anything like that.

Oh, so now you're saying Scrooge was paying him a decent wage to support his family? Well which is it? Also how is it not Bob's fault for planning badly? Is it not his money, his finances? At some point in his career he should've been saving something, planning ahead. That's what people do. Let's make no mistake here, Bob was in the growing middle class, he wasn't among the poor. He was a somewhat educated man with some skills, he was by no means a pauper. Scrooge's only sin here is maybe his indifference. Not being in his nephew's life and being too proud to accept his concern and turning away from his fiance's love.

For Bob Crachet he get's a pass.

reply

[–] Navaros 7 years ago

Who's to say that Scrooge "would've been better off morally"?

This film itself says that. In fact, that's one of its fundamental main points!

Scrooge started out as a good guy, but yet the more he "bettered himself" by becoming rich, the more he had to step on the heads of other people, a.k.a. the more evil he had to become.

Everything about this film hits that point as hard as it can possibly be hit.

How is that wrong? Because you say it is?

Again, it's wrong because that's the whole point of the film! By responding to these questions, I feel like I've fell into a Theatre of the Absurd stage play!

You might as well be asking..."Why are carrots orange, because you say so?"

how is this Scrooges's problem?

Because Scrooge was exploiting Bob's labor whilst not giving Bob enough money to help Bob and his family live a good life...even though Scrooge could have easily afforded to.

Where is the evidence that he "arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him"?

This question too is blatantly absurd. The evidence is in many scenes throughout the entire film. I.e. Scrooge makes fun of Bob by explicitly announcing Bob's very low wage and how it is not enough to provide for a good life for himself and his family. Then there's Bob's meager "feast" at his house on Christmas day (that one scene hits this point multiple times in and of itself). Oh yeah, then there is the fact that Tiny Tim dies (in the original reality), again because Scrooge doesn't pay Bob enough money.

Are your questions supposed to be serious? I don't understand how you could possibly miss these blatantly obvious points of the film. It's not like the film makes these points subtly or only once.

If Bob so "deliberately underpaid" then why didn't he look for a better position elsewhere?

Because, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Bob is loyal to Scrooge. Bob in this film is the ideal Christian man. He loves Scrooge unconditionally even though Scrooge treats him like garbage. Bob's loyalty to Scrooge & overall goodness is meant to contrast with Scrooge's disloyalty to Fezziwig & overall evilness - which it does brilliantly, as I've pointed out.

now you're saying Scrooge was paying him a decent wage to support his family?

Scrooge gave Bob enough money to let him and his family survive, but no more than that. I wouldn't exactly call that a "decent" wage.

Also how is it not Bob's fault for planning badly? Is it not his money, his finances? At some point in his career he should've been saving something, planning ahead.

To save anything requires a surplus of money with each paycheck. Bob had no surplus, because Scrooge did not pay him enough to have any. Therefore, Bob's lack of savings is Scrooge's fault, not Bob's.

Bob was in the growing middle class, he wasn't among the poor.

I don't agree there. Bob was among the working poor. He wasn't a pauper, no...paupers had less money than Bob. Bob was just poor to a lesser degree than a pauper. But Bob was still poor. And Bob was poor because of Scrooge.

reply

[–] novastar_6 8 years ago

If anyone had a hand in his death it would be his own father.

And yet no ghosts went to visit Bob to tell him his son would be dead by next Christmas, they went to Scrooge, the one who could actually do something about it.

reply

[–] devildog1982z 8 years ago

And yet no ghosts went to visit Bob to tell him his son would be dead by next Christmas, they went to Scrooge, the one who could actually do something about it.

The "ghosts" went to Scrooge because the author had an agenda and wrote it that way. Fairy tales are nice to believe, but the real world doesn't work that way. It was Bob's kid. Remember Bob? The one you said "could support them enough for them to survive". So it is now Scrooges's responsibility to take care of Tiny Tim's illness?

reply

[–] novastar_6 8 years ago

So it is now Scrooges's responsibility to take care of Tiny Tim's illness?

That's the way fate chose to intervene, so in a word, YES.

reply

[–] devildog1982z 8 years ago

That's the way fate chose to intervene, so in a word, YES.

In a fairy-tale perhaps, in the real-world, in two words, HELL NO.

reply

[–] elgatony 7 years ago

http://41.media.tumblr.com/b1cd08729abefd3f7b5418634f1f120c/tumblr_mocgggN7di1su9syao1_500.jpg

Jamie Lee Curtis survived Halloween, the Fog, Prom Night and a Terror Train & now she can't poop!

reply

[–] Navaros 7 years ago

it is now Scrooges's responsibility to take care of Tiny Tim's illness?

Yes it is, because Scrooge caused Tiny Tim to die in the original reality, by way of not paying Bob enough money to purchase proper medical care for Tim.

reply

[–] jsk32870 7 years ago

I understand where you are going with this, however, it really does not make a lot of sense.

Put yourself in a similar situation. Pretend you have a sick child and you can't afford to pay for his or her medical care on your current salary. Do you sit by for the next year, wait for the child to die, then shrug your shoulders and say, 'oh well, my boss wouldn't give me a raise, so, sorry about that kid. It's all his fault.'

I'm not even going to ask if you would actually agree with that, because morally, you just can't.

You can certainly make the argument that Scrooge should have paid Bob more and, had he done so, Bob could have afforded better treatment for Tim. But it is seriously weak to suggest there was nothing else that could be done to address the situation other than Scrooge opening his purse-strings, and therefore, Scrooge and Scrooge alone is to blame. Bob can look for another job. Bob can look for a second job. Peter can look for a job, or the Mrs. perhaps, the kids appear to be getting older. Or perhaps Bob can check with the solicitors who were collecting donations at the beginning of the film. Let me repeat: YOUR KID IS DYING. What wouldn't you do, or try to do, to remedy this situation? Blaming it on your boss and his miserly ways is morally unacceptable, I'm sorry. Especially since Scrooge is well known for being a miser, Bob was fooling himself if he thought that Scrooge was going to be paying a lot when he took the job. I'm sure Scrooge's reputation preceded him long before Bob was even hired.

Scrooge has the opportunity to help and chooses not to, that is his sin. Marley even says at one point "Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one life's opportunity misused! Yet such was I!"

But it is not Scrooge's responsibility to get help for Tim, that lies with Bob as the parent. Opportunity and Responsibility are two different concepts.

reply

[–] Big_AL-96 7 years ago

There is a very you good book that follows the story of Jacob Marley from child to death and hos time as a spectre.

In the book when he meets Scrooge he offers him a job but states that being engaged to a poor girl is not conducive to his business etc, so begins the process of bitterness. In essence Marley moulds Scrooge. He becomes more anti social and bitter than Marley, through Markey's guidance. On his deathbed at the end he realises the great ill he has done Scrooge and tries to tell him to change but all he manages is "we were wrong".
On passing he is saved, but he pleads with the spirit to allow someone to help Scrooge see the error of his ways. Marley is told he will have the fate of walking the Earth for this favour and if Scrooge does not repent he too will meet that fate that he was destined for.

I will not mention how it ends for Marley but it is a good read written in the style of Dickens and gives a good slant on the story, interweaving essential parts.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jacob-T-Marley-William-Bennett/dp/1609079159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480754420&sr=8-1&keywords=Jacob+t+Marley

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

reply

[–] Navaros 7 years ago

Thanks for that recommendation and summary, Big Al. You way you describe it makes it sound as though it must be a well-written story. 

reply

[–] Big_AL-96 7 years ago

Thanks you're welcome. It's in the main, well written, keeping very much to the Dickens style in Scrooge.

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

reply

[–] elena-28 7 years ago

Two cents concerning the OP's observation:

As his nephew points out --Scrooge's own worst enemy is himself. He does himself far worse damage than he does to anyone else. The things he does to set himself right at the end do not seem to be that desperate or drastic.

My take is that, to be one's own worst enemy is, indeed, a terrible thing, and one that reverberates through every action and thought. It affects your health, your energy, your outlook, and yes, what happens to the people who come within your orbit.

If Scrooge had not changed, this would have been the last year of his life, as well as the last year of Tiny Tim's. He would have left no legacy, emotional or otherwise, by which he would have a positive impact. He would have been alone in his last moments. His business, which he devotes his energy and life to, would have gone to other hands or disappeared (or maybe it would have gone to Fred, but the implication is that Fred and he have severed ties for good).

Changed Scrooge, because of his brighter, more energy-admitting outlook, lives years longer than he would have otherwise. He is healthier, happier, more invigorated. This reflects in what happens to everyone around him (most drastically, Tiny Tim, of course). Cratchit's work probably improves greatly, if only because his fingers won't be turning blue at the office. His business will likely be run differently: more negotiations with clients; recommendations from these clients to go to Scrooge for a fair shake at a loan (being generous and optimistic doesn't mean being an idiot). He may decide to be able to employ more clerks, instead of only Bob, which will create more employment. When he dies, he will probably leave the business to Fred, secure in the fact that he will have left behind something that people will remember and thank him for.

So, I do believe that yes, being his own worst enemy is a terrible thing. To himself. And by extension, to the people around him. By being his own enemy, he is damned because he has damned himself.

reply

[–] PhineasAppleby 7 years ago

That seems a bit cruel for Marley to have to put his eternal soul on the line to save his friend.

reply

[–] Big_AL-96 7 years ago

It does somewhat, but it was Marley's influence (according to this book) that made Scrooge the person he became and Marley realises that he has damned Scrooge to eternity because of him.

If you don't want to know the end of the book don't read the spoiler below.

Because of the repenting of Scrooge and the change in his ways and the unselfish act of Marley, he is also redeemed (again)

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 7 years ago

I don't think that either of them got eternal damnation.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

Scrooge had had a hard.childhood. He.was probably a natural workaholic and loner with few if any outside interests - perhaps he was on the autistic scale and naturally frugal anyway. I remember in some versions his sardonic remark that the two things the world couldn't forgive were poverty and the pursuit of wealth!

reply