Talk:A Christmas Carol

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2024

Hi, I would like to make a page about who narrates the novella, a christmas carol, by charles dickens Sigmakebabsi (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any reliable secondary sources that speculate on the point? - SchroCat (talk)

Stave Two description

The paragraph in Stave Two, “Scrooge, upset by hearing a description of the man that he has become” could be changed to “Scrooge, upset at what losing his engagement to Belle cost him”, as Dickens makes it clear in the writing that Scrooge is upset over the thought that Belle’s children could have been his. Dickens writes that the delighted children show Scrooge how much he has missed; they could have been his. “W]hen he thought that such another creature, quite as graceful and as full of promise, might have called him father, and been a spring-time in the haggard winter of his life, his sight grew very dim indeed.” 80.45.146.138 (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It could, but he was also upset by the description of what he had become. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede listing of the ghosts

I'd added 'Christmas Present' and 'Christmas Yet to Come' as the proper names in the lede, per direct links, to 'Christmas Past', 'Present' and 'Yet to Come', which was reverted. Reading 'Yet to Come' seemed jarring as the name of a ghost (which is how the sentence again reads). Adding 'Christmas' as the ghost's proper names, per their direct links, seems an appropriate addition. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Repeating the same word three times in very close succession is jarring. There is no loss of understanding in having abbreviated names. - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Yet to Come" is not the name of the ghost. It is "Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come", which could be abbreviated to 'Christmas Yet to Come" per the present wording ("ghosts of..."). Truncating it from six to three words skips over accuracy in favor of a comic-like Casper-companion name. Following the direct links here, at least for four of the six words, seems a better and more familiar descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s fine as it is. The repetition of ‘Christmas’ three times in close succession is just poor writing. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless they are, as in this case per the links, proper names. Will await other comments on these issues, thanks for discussing. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are proper name we wouldn’t repeat. We wouldn’t write that the ghosts were ‘called John Smith, Sarah Smith and James Smith’, as it would just be bad writing, whether linked or not. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It should only say "Christmas" once. Repeating it three times is just longer and adds nothing. Concise writing is good writing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The Ghost page contains this paragraph, stable since at least December 19, 2009 (15 years of haunted bliss):

"Famous literary apparitions from this period are the ghosts of A Christmas Carol, in which Ebenezer Scrooge is helped to see the error of his ways by the ghost of his former colleague Jacob Marley, and the ghosts of Christmas Past, Christmas Present, and Christmas Yet to Come."

What some call bad writing others call accuracy and the correct truncated use of proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion, maybe. That page isn't terribly well written and hasn't been through two review processes, however. The word "Christmas" being repeated four times in a one-sentence paragraph is bloody awful writing, and an indication of how poor the article is. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thousands of edits have occurred since 2009. The paragraph quoted uses the proper names of the novella and its characters, and tweaking it to form-fit anything else removes the accuracy already present. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

5.8 million people have read this page since it became an FA (which was a little time after the current wording was added). No-one else has had a problem with the wording of the names, and of the 500 or so edits in the intervening period, no-one else has thought it needed changing. Two high-level community reviews and that many uncomplaining readers leads to a fairly strong consensus that will take more than you not liking it to overturn. There is no point in making the prose lumpy and poor while it is currently of a higher standard than a poorly written C-class article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

And 7.3 million have read the Ghost page since 2009, which has had many thousands of edits since then. That is also a strong consensus. At a minimum, how about adding 'Christmas Present' and 'Christmas Yet to Come', which was my original and simple edit to add a bit less truncating of two proper names into the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

How about leaving it at the higher standard, as it went through the FAC review? There is no point in degrading to sub-standard writing. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

To me truncating the proper names down to their nubs defines sub-standard in terms of accuracy. Using 'Christmas' three times in a row doesn't seem quite as painful for the readers as you let on. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a good thing the reviewers at PR and FAC disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggested in the now aborted section below that by following Dickens' stave titles we can both be accurate and avoid repetition:

• Stave I: Marley’s Ghost

• Stave II: The First of the Three Spirits

• Stave III: The Second of the Three Spirits

• Stave IV: The Last of the Spirits

So, 'ghost' for Marley and 'spirit' for the others.

My edit was instantly reverted by Randy Kryn as “going backwards’: yes, indeed, to the stable instance of those words that he changed for the first time yesterday. Dickens’ own usage make it clear that those are correct. The argument that ’spirit’ is not part of the 'proper name' (whatever that is) of the Christmas apparitions is neither here nor there - the lead shouldn’t focus on the naming of names, but in explaining what the spirits are, with wikilnks out to the character articles. As has been mentioned, the use of 'proper names' makes the text very clunky, an archetypal situation where the use of piped links helps.

I suggest this for discussion: who is visited by the ghost of his former business partner Jacob Marley and three spirits representing Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I could live with this one as well as the current version; both are good. - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

'Christmas present' and 'Christmas Yet to Come' are the accurate proper name forms instantly identifiable to readers. Per direct links they are identified by Wikipedia and by common use (see the n-grams) as ghosts, not spirits. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

So you keep saying, but others are disagreeing with you and none of the 5.8 million readers have been confused by it either. Maybe omitting 'Christmas' three times in a row doesn't seem quite as painful for the readers as you let on? - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) (Addendum: Ssilvers, as one of the other people to comment on this point, do you have any thoughts on Michael's suggested change to the text? - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC))

I'm in favour of having each one preceded by "Christmas". Having it before only "Past" implies that the correct version of the other two is without the prefix. Seasider53 (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

So change to lumpy horrible prose? I'm not sure that's a benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It is neither horrible nor lumpy, the word is "accurate". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Laboured" and "awful" is what you're looking for. There is no need to dumb down the names and patronise readers with such remedial wording. Again, we wouldn't write that the ghosts were 'called John Smith, Sarah Smith and James Smith': that's sub-standard and remedial writing. Only using the word 'Christmas' once in no way affects the accuracy of the text - that's a straw man argument. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

'Christmas Present' and 'Christmas Yet to Come' smarten the names, not dumb them down. Would your example be 'Ghost of John Smith, Sarah, and James'? That's comparable to how the truncated version reads to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

They smarten nothing. Repeating the same words is patronising to readers and makes for a poor reading experience.

You may write it that way, but I would do it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If we're talking about accuracy, the first two Spirits announce themselves "I am the Ghost of Christmas Past/Present" but the third doesn't announce itself as anything and merely points onward when Scrooge asks "I am in the presence of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come?". It is idle, therefore, to insist that in the lead we should repeat "the Ghost of" for all three on the grounds that they are proper names. SchroCat is in the right in this argument. There is, of course, a place for repetition – an effective rhetorical device in the right circumstances – but I don't think it is wanted here. The opening para of the lead reads smoothly and clearly as it stands, and I think we're better off with this version, agreed at FAC with no concerns expressed about the phrasing by any of the six reviewers. Tim riley talk 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Afterthought: as an Anglican I hope it isn't disrespectful to mention that in church we are given "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", rather than the blessing of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost". Tim riley talk 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Tim riley, hello, and please note that nobody is suggesting repeating the full name "Ghost of...", just that 'Christmas' should be added to "Present" and 'Yet to Come' per their direct links. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the same stands. The text is fine without spelling out each title at full length. Tim riley talk 14:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Might be worth an RfC. I'm interested in what a broader base of editors thinks. I used to think I knew good from bad, but maybe it has changed. Seasider53 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

An RfC seems like overkill, considering Randy is the only person arguing for his version. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I agree with them. It seems like we're being unnecessarily contrary. Seasider53 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that an RFA is overkill for such a minor matter. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "just that 'Christmas' should be added to "Present" and 'Yet to Come' per their direct links": but "Christmas Present" and "Christmas Yet to Come" are not the direct links. The direct links are "Ghost of Christmas Past", "Ghost of Christmas Present" and "Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come". It's difficult to take the argument seriously when you keep repeating that you want the names per "the direct links", but then don't actually want them per the direct links, but a different version of a shortened name. I really don't think there's much point in continuing this pointless thread given there's no real take-up of changing. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While this discussion continues, I have reverted the sentence to its FAC review approved version (2018 until yesterday). It can be changed if there is consensus to do so, but I don't see that at the moment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've sent a "thank" to MichaelMaggs for the above, very sensible, comment. In my view "If it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here. Tim riley talk 19:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the novella influenced by Douglas Jerrold?

The lede says it was, the text below says it may have been. 'Was' and 'may have been' have two very different meanings, and stating that it was in Wikipedia's voice, then changing that it may have been in the 'Influences' section, leaves an inaccuracy hanging Schrodinger's-catlike for one of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It’s not an inaccuracy. From memory the source said ‘likely’ influenced by Jerrold (or similar), stressing the probability. I’ll have to dig out the source again to confirm. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure which one is inaccurate. "Likely" is somebody's guess, so the wording should not be 'was' if the source says 'likely'. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've tweaked the body to bring it in line with one of the sources used. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have the sources, does the second source agree? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ghosts" for "spirits" in lede per accuracy

My edit changing 'spirits' to 'ghosts' in the lede was reverted because: avoiding repetition. "Ghosts" is accurate here. The text now reads: "spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come", even though the links go to Ghost of Christmas Past, Ghost of Christmas Present and Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. This is an obvious fix, per the direct links. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from it not being ‘obvious’, I put back the word ‘ghosts’ several minutes ago. Avoiding close repetition is a good thing. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'ghosts' edit. Marley should also be described as a ghost and not a spirit ("Marley's ghost" is the common and well-known term, and per the novella itself, if I'm not mistaken). Repetitive use would be something like three repetitions in a row for a descriptive term, not two, if the two are accurate ('Christmas' is within the ghosts' proper names, notice the uppercasing, so three reps seem fine there). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, close repetition of the same word is just bad writing. Dickens used the words ghost and spirit interchangeably in the novel, so we’re all good to follow suit here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

See the n-grams for Marley's descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we make the prose lumpen and awkward when there is no loss of meaning? Dickens used several synonyms for ‘ghost’ (in different formats to the misleading ngram), and there is no loss of understanding there either. - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In expository writing (unlike, say, legal writing), it is good to mix up the synonyms so that there is less repetition. As long as the meaning is clear, as it is in SchroCat's version, ghost of this, spirit of that and apparition of the other are much more interesting for the reader than ghost of this, ghost of that and ghost of the other. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Marley's ghost" is a well-known phrase, famous enough to be instantly identifiable as coming from this novella. 'Ghost of...' is part of the characters proper names, so 'Christmas Present' and 'Christmas Yet to Come' are already truncated. Removing 'Ghost of...' from the proper names is already enough of a culling (as in the Ghost article, where this descriptor has been stable since 2009). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

By following Dickens' stave titles we can both be accurate and avoid repetition:

• Stave I: Marley’s Ghost
• Stave II: The First of the Three Spirits
• Stave III: The Second of the Three Spirits
• Stave IV: The Last of the Spirits

So, 'ghost' for Marley and 'spirit' for the others. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point, yet when listing the ghosts separately, as the paragraph does, 'ghosts' is accurate per direct links to their pages as well as per the n-grams. What is your opinion of using 'Christmas Present' and 'Christmas Yet to Come' as truncated names rather than 'Present' and 'Yet to Come'? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again) Let's not start mixing up the discussions from different sections, shall we? Michael, if you have any thoughts on the point, please don't post them here, but in the discussion a couple of sections above. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)