#Antisemitism is adaptable

[unsolicited-opinions]

Rebranding Yahood, Juif, Juden, Ebrei, Yevrei

[jewishbarbies]

so bluesky is…an adventure

[nonstandardrepertoire]

oh no transmasc/butch Barbra Streisand is. hot

[bisexual-slime]

my biggest shame is that my personal favourite book of mine, one I've read and reread around 10 times (I go back to it every few months or so), NOT the best book I've ever read btw just the one I love the most, is IT by stephen king. I hate him but man. this fucking book lives in my head rent free

[tittyinfinity]

As much as I love ace attorney the fact that they never edited out "the Jew bank" is very fucking unforgivable

Well the fact that they added it at all is horrible but you'd think they'd at least fix it before putting it into a fucking show years down the line

[yuri-alexseygaybitch]

1. Marxism is not a religion or celebrity cult where people "stan" Marx and the validity of his theories is proven by his exemplary personal life, it's a science of political economy that's been used, adapted, critiqued, and modified by billions of people for almost two centuries. It's called "Marxism" for the same reason it's called "Darwinism" - he's the guy that laid the theoretical foundations of a scientific theory.

2. Presuming this is about "On the Jewish Question" (one of Marx's earliest writings which predates The Communist Manifesto and indeed his own formulation of Marxism), the myth that it's a virulently antisemitic text has been repeatedly debunked (short version from Jacobin, long version from Jewish socialist Hal Draper). He was in fact arguing for the emancipation and granting of citizenship rights to Jews within the overwhelmingly antisemitic climate of early 19th century European politics.

[endearing-dalliance]

Another Blow Against Arcane: Antisemitism

Christian Linke posted the original pitch for Arcane, and I'm starting to understand why so many people turned them down before they finally got the project funded.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I got stuck on "svengalis". I wasn't originally going to harp on about this since I had never heard the term before, but I read up on it and OH BOY

apparently Svengali is the name of the villainous character from the French story Trilby. It actually inspired the Phantom of the Opera, which I thought was neat. Many smarter and more eloquent people than I have labeled the character and author antisemetic af

His main role in the story was that he really wanted to train Trilby, a beautiful young woman, but she rejected him. A bunch of stuff happens to her romantically that made her leave Paris with her brother. He later dies, and Svengali takes advantage to sink his claws into her. He hypnotizes her into having a split personality, and in that state she becomes a successful singer like he wanted. Unfortunately, it is physically and psychologically devastating, and she dies because she cannot live without him.

his name has come to mean someone who manipulates or controls another person, usually a young woman, to further his own agenda. There's even the "Svengali defense" that portrays a defendant as a pawn of a more influential criminal mastermind.

his physical description includes a tall and bony middle-aged body, thick black hair to the shoulder, beady and heavily lidded evil eyes, long hooked nose, thin and sallow (yellowish or grayish) face. He wore red and a long cloak, and was described as effeminate and continually filthy.

I know, coincidence right? Surely they didn't create, pitch, get funding for, and produce an updated version of a character that many people, including George Orwell, criticized as antisemetic. That subsequent adaptations have deliberately modified to be less stereotypical and offensive. This cannot be the character so many people enjoy and even admire at times, a symbol of revolution against an oppressive society that literally gases people.

Well fuck. On top of everything else, does this validate the Silco/Jinx shippers?

[alexthebordercollie]

Ford's autism

K so I don't think I need to defend the interpretation Ford is on the spectrum. People make jokes about him being autistic all the time. We all see it. What I want to do here is sort of connect together some character details and examine them through the lense of my own autistic experiences.

I wanna start with his hands. It's an observation I've seen from multiple people that Ford is insecure about his hands and often hides them behind his back or in his pockets. And yeah, he is obviously insecure about them. He even mentions his six fingers at times when they aren't really relevant to anything. It just showcases the space this physical deviation of his takes up in his mind. And yes, it makes sense that he's insecure about them because he was bullied for them growing up. I want to add to this observation.

Ford would have been bullied regardless.

The problem was never really his hands. When you're on the spectrum people around you can tell that you're weird. Uncanny. Something is different and feels wrong about you to NT people, especially kids. They will pick any shallow superficial thing they can find as an excuse to bully you and justify the sense of revulsion they feel around you but can't articulate. If Ford had been born with normal hands they just would have made fun of him for something else, it would have been his glasses, or the movies he liked, or hell maybe some good old-fashioned antisemitism. Literally, any excuse they could find.

I know growing up I tried for years to change the things about me that I was made fun of for and it never made things any better. The bullying never stopped. "Fixing" things about myself didn't work because the thing that was actually "broken" was something fundamental to who I am. That realization as a kid was soul-crushing. That there was nothing I could do that would ever make me "normal", that would ever make people like me. I felt like an alien born on the wrong planet.

Ford continues to latch onto his hands as a sore spot because they're something simple and obvious he can point to as an excuse for why he's so outcast. He probably knows by this point that the hands aren't actually the problem. I'd argue this journal entry and his comment about "another failed social interaction" shows that he's aware his hands aren't actually the problem. But, it is a lot easier to fixate on those than to dwell directly on that sinking feeling that at the core of you're being you are fundamentally weird, wrong, unlovable. Ford's a genius. If his polydactyly bothered him that much he could have removed the extra digits. The hands aren't the problem, they're a symbol of a more fundamental kind of pain.

Looking at it through this context also makes the gloves Fiddleford gives him an extra sweet gift given what they represent. A kind of wholehearted acceptance of who Ford is and even a willingness to adapt to his unique needs just to show him love and affection. I think something that hurts me so much about their relationship is that Ford had someone who very clearly loved him as is and would have never wanted him to be someone or something else, and Ford was too stubborn to fully appreciate that.

The same is true of Stanely by the by. He never had a problem with his brother being weird. Another relationship with someone who loved Ford as is but who Ford took for granted. He needs these kinds of relationships in his life. People who embrace and accept him for the weirdo he is. He needs them desperately, which gets me to my next point.

Ford's ego. So it's also a common observation that Ford has a massive ego. He's kind of an ass, to put it mildly. But I have had someone in conversation frame it like the pressure to prove themselves was just on Stanley and Ford just spent his whole life being hyped up and told he was hot shit. This isn't true, or at least it's a flattening of his experiences.

Ford was praised for his genius. This is true. But his own father only gave a shit when said genius showed signs of netting material gains for the family. It only mattered cause Ford could be useful. Furthermore, this genius never netted him social acceptance from his peers growing up. He was still a bullied, weirdo, loser most of his childhood. Add that seeing Stanley kicked out would have drilled into Ford's head that if he couldn't make something out of himself his family wouldn't want him either. Stan was an unspoken threat of what this family does to failures.

Gonna bring up my own personal experiences again. Having set the stage for how it feels growing up on the spectrum. That feeling of alienness that you can't really explain. I loved to write and draw from a very young age. Moreover, as I got older I realized that when I drew, people were nice to me. The only time I got social acceptance was when people were admiring or praising me for my art. So I did it more and more, I devoted myself feverishly to my art. I loved it anyway and would have hyper-fixated on it regardless but the positive reinforcement turned art from something I loved to a need. I NEEDED to be an artist. I needed to be the best at my school. I needed all eyes on my work because it was the only way I could make friends. The only way I could prove that I had value. That I deserved a place in society.

I see that in Ford. I see his ego not as shallow narcissism but as an overwhelming need to prove his value as a person. To be loved and accepted and believing that no one will want him if he isn't brilliant. If he doesn't change the world. If he isn't useful. This is also why he couldn't bring himself to destroy his research even knowing it was the safest and most responsible option. Burning down everything he worked for would mean finally giving up on the fantasy of ever being accepted or valuable.

The sad thing is he's so single-mindedly fixated on this personal goal of proving his worth to the world that when people do come along that love him unconditionally he takes them for granted. These people are statistical anomalies in his life. Nice to have around, but not enough to fix the bigger problem. They aren't reflective of society at large. They aren't enough to prove that he, personally, is loveable. Just that on occasion he meets another weirdo. For a while it's nice. Like a campfire in a barren tundra. But he has to keep moving, he can't stay. Warmer lands are ahead if he can just get to them. If he can just keep moving.

This also is why Ford was so susceptible to Bill. Bill told Ford what he wanted to hear. That he was destined for greatness. That, the fundamental wrongness he felt all his life was something incredible other people just couldn't see. Bill promised Ford exactly what he wanted, but not what he actually needed. Ford never needed the world at large to accept him. He just needed a few good people.

I also think his chemistry with Bill was connected to his autistic experiences as well. Bill is literally an alien. There's no pressure to mask around him. To try and "act normal". Ford can just be himself with Bill and not have to think about it. And sure, he could be himself around Fiddleford, but Fidds is still human. The anxieties of human social expectations are still present. Like when Fidds get him a gift for the holidays and Ford feels a bit guilty that it didn't even occur to him to do the same. He doesn't have to think about these social nuances with Bill.

That said I'm sure Bill isn't what his world would have considered neurotypical anyway. Not that Ford would know that. But Bill was also a strange freak in his own society. Just as outcast, possibly more so. I think Bill sees a bit of his own experiences reflected in Ford. I think he relates to him on a level. Not that he would ever admit it outright due to his own ego. I think Bill's fixation on him after the breakup also stems from Ford rejecting the path that Bill chose for himself. Bill still lives with some sort of deeply repressed guilt for what he did. Imagine how validating it would have been to see someone else like him burn their own world to the ground for the same reasons Bill did. But no, Ford's a better man than him, and Bill can't stand it.

Ok, I don't know how to end this long-ass monologue so I'm gonna call it here I guess. I just wanted to spill some thoughts of mine about Ford as a character. If anyone else wants to add to this with other examinations of Ford's character through this lense go right ahead. I'm just saying as an autistic person myself I understand every choice Ford made. I could relate to why he did the things he did even if I know those were mistakes and even acknowledging that he's kind of an asshole. Ford is a strange man who makes an eerie amount of sense to me.

[spot-the-antisemitism]

Hey, you'll never guess who just posted a link to an antisemitic propaganda film on their blog: https://www.tumblr.com/feygaleh/774207536182198272/i-found-a-really-good-antizionist-documentary-that?source=share

haven't seen it but it sound great! Girlypop my feygaleh in hashem that's the protocols of the elders of zion

proof that's it LITERALLY the protocols

it's the film adaptation the protocols

two very different perspectives

this is like the third grifter who reccomends this documentary without watching

the slander kids (YES they said they slandered bad people to get them cancelled faster) published it and had to have a palestinean ask them to take it down

[susandsnell]

Very interestingly, I seem to recall reading somewhere that there have been Oliver Twist adaptations (possibly even a production of the musical?) that worked in Mr. Riah, Dickens' antisemitism apology tour Jewish character from Our Mutual Friend, as a minor/background figure to offset the Fagin baggage that's present even where he's presented more sympathetically than the book. (This seems to be part of a wider tradition of adaptations doing a Dickens Shared Universe where characters turn up in works different from their origin, often to bring out some deeper theme or reflection on how his work evolved.)

Venerable men of his own persuasion had come to pray beside him, but he had driven them away with curses.

It's interesting that Dickens notes this. It can't be a "See, there are good Jews who aren't like Fagin!" thing, because someone with that mindset wouldn't have written Fagin as such a racist caricature of a monster in the first place. (It's for this reason that I've never seen Scrooge as an antisemitic caricature- when Dickens wants to be antisemitic, he will let you know.) Although he did later on have a change of heart, edit the antisemitism out in later editions and included sympathetic Jews in at least one other work. Is that train of thought starting here? Between this serialized installment and ones before, did Dickens start to feel a bit bad about what he had written?

[dalekofchaos]

Respecting Sabra's Jewish identity but erasing everyone else's is Antisemitic

I find it hypocritical, vile and antisemitic that S*bra is the one character Marvel and Disney allowed to keep their Jewish identity. But characters like Wanda, Pietro(and fucking made Wanda and Pietro volunteer for fucking Neo-Nazis, NO WHEDON I WILL NEVER FUCKING LET THIS GO, oh and fucking then Wanda has a Christian cross in her room in the Avengers mansion and absolutely fucking nothing), Billy and Tommy and Moon Knight.

This is why I dread the day when the MCU lands the X-Men, because I know full well the day the X-Men become apart of the MCU, Magneto will not be played by a Jewish actor. Magneto's Jewish heritage will be erased and Magneto will not be a Holocaust survivor because Marvel has this weird and downright Antisemitic behavior when it comes to adapting Jewish characters. I also fully expect Kitty Pryde's identity to be erased as well.

This is the character they decide to respect their Jewish heritage.

This why this company is under boycott right now— because they think that jewish representation is using a character who’s functionality is to be a propaganda tool for an apartheid state that’s been committing genocide for over 75 years and it’s not even like she has any character traits besides being racist and directly tied to israel… it’s so unnecessary and evil.

I mean when you are played by someone who was exempt from service but joined anyway, makes her more vile than G*l G*dot. And despite the fact everyone has been boycotting them over her inclusion, they still decided to keep her.

So many well fleshed out Jewish characters get their identity erased or spat on by Marvel productions and Disney as a whole during adaptations.. but it’s okay because now we have captain apartheid, exactly the thing nobody asked for

[princesssarisa]

@warrioreowynofrohan

"A Christmas Carol": Canon vs. Fanon

@ariel-seagull-wings, @reds-revenge, @thealmightyemprex, @the-blue-fairie, @thatscarletflycatcher, @faintingheroine

Since my overview of the various Christmas Carol adaptations isn't finished yet, and since the Christmas season doesn't officially end (as per the Church calendar) until this coming Friday, I thought I would share another Christmas Carol-related post. A long one, addressing the always-important subject in fiction fandoms of "canon vs. fanon." Certain details that are widely believed and used in adaptations, but which aren't really true, or necessarily true, in the book.

Belle is Fezziwig’s daughter. As far as I know, this is only true in the musical Scrooge: the original 1970 film, the 1992 stage version, and the 2022 animated remake Scrooge: A Christmas Carol. The book never says any such thing. Fezziwig does have three daughters, but we don’t know if Belle is one of them or not.

Belle left Scrooge because he repeatedly insisted on delaying their wedding until he had earned more money. In The Muppet Christmas Carol, the direct catalyst for Belle ending their engagement is that Scrooge insists on postponing their wedding for “another year.” A few other versions also allude to Scrooge’s insisting on delaying their marriage. But the book says nothing about wedding-postponement; Belle only speaks of Scrooge having lost all his “nobler aspirations” in favor of “the master-passion, Gain,” and of knowing that if they weren’t engaged already, he would never choose to marry a girl as poor as she is.

Bob Cratchit has to plead for Scrooge to give him Christmas Day off. This is probably another misconception that stems from The Muppet Christmas Carol, where Scrooge initially tries to give Bob and the other bookkeepers just half an hour off on Christmas morning, and Bob is forced to persuade him not to open the office on Christmas because all the other businesses will be closed. But the equivalent scene in the book doesn't play out this way. Scrooge complains about having to give Bob the day off, but he makes no attempt to avoid doing it. Since some employers in 19th century London did make their employees work on Christmas Day – for example, the milliner whom Martha Cratchit works for – the fact that Scrooge does give Bob the day off without being asked, despite complaining about it, is probably an early hint that he's not all bad.

Character names. Mrs. Cratchit's first name is never given as "Emily" – that name comes from The Muppet Christmas Carol. Fred's surname is never said to be "Holywell" – that name comes from the 1984 TV adaptation with George C. Scott. Scrooge's ex-fiancée is named Belle, not Isabel – unless you're talking about the musical Scrooge or Mickey's Christmas Carol. Somehow or other, these specific names from adaptations have stuck in people's consciousness and been applied to all versions of the characters, when Dickens never wrote them.

Fan died in childbirth. The 1951 film has firmly planted this assumption in many minds: that Scrooge's sister Fan died at Fred’s birth and Scrooge despises his nephew because he blames him for her death. But Dickens’ Ghost of Christmas Past only says, “She died a woman, and had, as I think, children,” and Scrooge replies “One child.” No one ever says she died in childbirth.

Mrs. Fezziwig is fat. “One vast, substantial smile” is the way the book describes her; this is all we have to indicate whether or not she’s fat.

Marley’s Ghost dwells in hell. Few of us can forget the dark comedy sequence in 1970’s Scrooge where Marley’s Ghost welcomes Scrooge into hell during his vision of Christmas Yet to Come. Nor is that film the only version to imply that Marley resides in hell and that Scrooge will too unless he redeems himself. Even in The Muppet Christmas Carol, the deleted last verse of the song “Marley and Marley” implies that the ghosts are going back to hell after visiting Scrooge. But the book’s theology is nowhere near so traditional. Marley never mentions hell: he only speaks of wandering the world. In Dickens’s Carol, it seems that hell is on earth. The souls of sinners are punished not with fire and brimstone, but by being forced to wander and helplessly witness the suffering of the living, which they either caused or failed to alleviate when they themselves were alive.

Mrs. Dilber is Scrooge’s charwoman. First of all, Mrs. Dilber is the laundress in the rag-and-bone shop sequence. Despite several adaptations giving the charwoman her name instead, the latter goes unnamed in the book. Secondly, there’s no indication that either thieving woman works for Scrooge, rather than for the person handling his affairs after his death. Scrooge himself shows no sign of knowing the thieves. (Though to be fair, it’s not out-of-character for Scrooge to pay so little attention to his own charwoman and laundress that he doesn’t recognize them, and their insulting remarks about him can be seen to imply that they knew him personally.) Memorable though Mrs. Dilber’s role is as Marley’s and later Scrooge’s charwoman in the 1951 film, it isn’t her role in the book.

Scrooge buys a goose for the Cratchits on Christmas morning. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard Scrooge’s gift of poultry referred to as a goose. I even remember once reading a review of one of the film versions where the critic complained that the screenplay “Americanized” the gift by changing it from a goose into a turkey. But these are Dickens’ words: “It was a Turkey!” When people misremember it as a goose, they’re confusing it with the goose the Cratchits eat in the Christmas Present sequence. Scrooge’s turkey popularized turkey for Christmas dinner after A Christmas Carol became a success and helped lead to its replacing goose as the most ubiquitous Christmas poultry.

Scrooge’s chief vice is that he hates Christmas. It should go without saying that this is a gross oversimplification. Scrooge’s greed and miserliness, his cold indifference to the poor, his shabby treatment of Bob Cratchit and neglect of Bob’s needy family, his rejection of his own nephew, and his general bitterness and self-isolation from the world are all more significant than his disdain for Christmas. The latter is only a symptom of a much larger problem and his ultimate vow to “honor Christmas in [his] heart” means to embrace the spirit of love and good will, not just to celebrate the holiday.

Scrooge changes his ways out of fear. Again and again in pop culture, we hear the claim that Scrooge is “frightened into changing.” But if fear were all it took, then only Marley’s ghost would need to visit to warn him of damnation, or else only the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to show him his bleak, lonely death. The Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present would serve no purpose. That statement overlooks the fact that reliving his past softens his heart by reawakening old emotions and reminding him of what his greed cost him, that seeing others’ present joy at Christmas makes him want to share it, and that observing the Cratchits and Tiny Tim teaches him to care about them and want to help them.

Scrooge constantly says “Bah! Humbug!” Believe it or not, he only utters those iconic words together twice. Several other times he says “humbug” by itself, but only twice, in just one scene, does he precede it with “Bah!”

Scrooge fell in love with Belle while working for Fezziwig. It’s ubiquitous for adaptations of the Carol to show Belle at the Fezziwig Christmas party. Whether young Scrooge is shown proposing to her there, meeting her there for the first time, or just dancing with her, even the most faithful adaptations include her. It’s easy to forget that Dickens doesn’t feature her in that sequence at all! We don’t know if Scrooge met and fell in love with her while he was Fezziwig’s apprentice or later in his youth. The book never tells us.

Scrooge has a large hooked nose. It’s been ubiquitous to depict Scrooge this way ever since John Leech did in his original illustrations. Of course, Leech didn’t work in a vacuum either: nearly all greedy or miserly men in fiction tend to be depicted with large curving noses, probably because greed, miserliness, and large hooked noses are all anti-Semitic stereotypes (see “Scrooge is Jewish” below). But Dickens only describes Scrooge’s nose as “pointed.” He never mentions its size or anything else about its shape.

Scrooge is a crooked businessman. Occasionally, adaptations will hint that Scrooge engages in illegal business practices. But the book never implies any such thing. He's just an extremely conservative businessman, who strictly and coldly follows the rules of making profit, and follows the rules of decency and charity that his society enforces (e.g. paying his taxes to support the workhouses for the poor, giving his clerk a Christmas holiday with pay), but sees no point in doing anything beyond that. His harshest, most unfeeling speeches were typical conservative arguments in the politics of Dickens's England. He sees himself as having done nothing wrong, and the fact that Dickens calls him a "sinner" anyway reflects a perspective other than the law.

Scrooge is a fair and reasonable employer to Bob Cratchit. This argument is sometimes made by conservative critics. After all, Bob and his family live in a house, not a tenement (never mind that it’s a four-room house for eight people), they can afford a goose and plum pudding for Christmas dinner (never mind that their feast would have probably cost Bob a full week’s wages), and Scrooge gives him Christmas Day off with pay (just one day off a year, with extreme reluctance). As for Scrooge’s stinginess with the coal in his office, these critics say, why shouldn’t Bob just wear an overcoat and save the money? (Never mind that Bob has no overcoat.) And as for Tiny Tim, they say, most families lost at least one child in the days before modern medicine. (As if that somehow exempted employers from trying to save their employees’ children from preventable deaths.) Besides, they say, it was irresponsible of Bob and his wife to have six children in the first place. (To quote the Ghost of Christmas Present: “Oh God! To hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!”) It should go without saying that these arguments are precisely the kind of sentiments Dickens wrote the Carol to argue against.

Scrooge is Jewish. It’s no surprise that some people jump to this conclusion. Many aspects of Scrooge’s character mirror anti-Semitic stereotypes. He’s greedy, miserly, works as a financier, disdains Christmas, has a Hebrew name from the Old Testament (Ebenezer), and in pop culture is often depicted with a large, hooked nose (see above). It’s entirely fair for critics to complain about the Jewish “coding” in his character. But if Dickens had meant for Scrooge to literally be a Jew, he would presumably have called him a Jew, as he notoriously did with Oliver Twist’s Fagin. Old Testament names were common among Christians in 18th and 19th century England, Scrooge’s nephew Fred is a Christmas-loving Christian, and in the Christmas Past sequence, his sister Fan says they’ll be together “all the Christmas long,” indicating that his family celebrated the holiday in his childhood. There’s no real hint of Jewishness whatsoever.

Scrooge only pursued wealth for Belle’s sake until after she left him. Some critics try to defend young Scrooge against Belle’s accusation that “another idol [had] displaced [her]” by arguing that he only wanted to be rich for her sake, and that he only really turned to greed to fill the void after she ended their engagement. Several adaptations also emphasize that his motive (at least at first) was to provide for Belle. But Dickens’s young Scrooge never argues that he only pursues wealth for Belle’s sake – only that he’s grown “wiser” by striving to stave off poverty, and that despite it all he’s not changed toward Belle. Nor does Dickens’s narration ever imply that Belle judges him unfairly. He describes young Scrooge’s face as already showing signs of “avarice,” with “an eager, greedy, restless motion in the eye, which showed the passion that had taken root.” And when Belle says that if their engagement had never been, he would never choose a dowerless bride now, Dickens writes that he “seemed to yield to the justice of this supposition” before attempting “with a struggle” to deny it… and even then, he never says he would still choose her, only “You think not.” It seems to me that Dickens meant for Belle to be right.

Scrooge’s father was cold and distant because of grief at his wife’s death. Again and again, adaptations of Scrooge’s childhood explicitly state that Scrooge’s mother is dead, and often imply that his father was embittered and hardened by his grief for his wife, explaining why he neglected his son at boarding school. But the book never even mentions Scrooge’s mother. She might have still been alive when he was a child, for all we know. Nor is any explanation given for why his father neglected him, nor for why he eventually became kinder and brought him home.  Dickens didn’t choose to flesh out Scrooge’s childhood that far.

Scrooge’s mother died at his birth. Elaborating on the above, the two most acclaimed film versions of the Carol (the 1951 and 1984 versions) both explicitly say that Scrooge’s mother died in childbirth and his father neglected him because he blamed him for her death. But as mentioned above, Scrooge’s mother is never actually said to be dead. Furthermore, Fan is Scrooge’s younger sister in the book (the ’51 and  ’84 film versions both make her the older sibling, a young woman instead of a child), so unless their father remarried and she’s actually Scrooge’s half-sister, Scrooge’s birth couldn’t possibly have killed their mother.

Scrooge’s only childhood hardship was loneliness. Rarely do adaptations depict Scrooge’s childhood boarding school as the decrepit place the book describes, with its damp and decaying exterior, cold and dreary rooms, and air of “too much getting up by candle-light, and not too much to eat.” Nor do they usually portray the schoolmaster (if they depict him at all) as the imposing figure with the “terrible voice” and glare of “ferocious condescension” that Dickens describes. It’s a surprise that even the adaptations most determined to flesh out Scrooge’s backstory tend to just highlight the loneliness of his childhood, and/or his mistreatment by his father that the book only vaguely alludes to, rather than lean hard into the “Dickensian” nature of the school as Dickens described it.

Scrooge's worst traumas all happened at Christmas, which is why he hates the holiday. Well, it's true that young Scrooge was at his loneliest at Christmas as a boy, when he was left alone at boarding school while all the other boys went home. And it's true that his only friend Jacob Marley died on Christmas Eve. It's also probably true that Belle broke off their engagement at Christmastime – all the other scenes the Ghost of Christmas past shows to Scrooge takes place at Christmas, so it does seem most likely that this particular scene does too. But Dickens never explicitly names Christmas as the time when Belle and Scrooge's split took place. Most adaptations place it on Christmas Eve or thereabouts, but at least one very book-faithful adaptation, Richard Williams's 1971 animated short, sets the scene in a green park in the spring or summer. Nor, unlike in some adaptations, is Fan said to have died at Christmastime. She almost definitely didn't, since the Ghost only mentions her death rather than taking Scrooge to revisit it.

Scrooge visits the Cratchit house on Christmas Day. Many adaptations condense the action to have Scrooge visit the Cratchits and show them his newfound benevolence on Christmas Day itself. But in the book, he reveals his transformation to Bob when he arrives at work on St. Stephen’s Day.

Scrooge wears a nightshirt throughout his adventure with the spirits. So many adaptations depict Scrooge in a nightshirt that it can be hard to imagine him dressed in any other way. This is no doubt enhanced by the fact that in John Leech’s original illustrations, Scrooge’s dressing gown is white – since we rarely see white dressing gowns made for men in modern times, it’s easy to mistake it for a long nightshirt. But the book describes him as putting on his dressing gown and nightcap over his day clothes before settling down by the fire to eat his gruel (an understandable choice at night in the era before central heating, especially since miserly Scrooge doesn’t make his fire very big), and after his exhausting encounter with Marley’s Ghost, he falls into bed “without undressing.” Even in Leech’s illustrations, his trouser leg is visible in the scene where he kneels at his own grave. A book-accurate Scrooge would spend his whole adventure with the ghosts wearing his dressing gown over his shirt and trousers: a costume that so far, only a handful of screen Scrooges have worn.

The Ghost of Christmas Past and Scrooge fly over the rooftops of London before they arrive in the past. This is a ubiquitous image from the screen adaptations, starting with the 1938 MGM film. But in the book, they simply pass through the wall of Scrooge’s chamber and are instantly standing in the countryside of his boyhood.

The Ghost of Christmas Past is female, or of indeterminate gender. The ghost is described as “it,” but so are Jacob Marley and the Ghost of Christmas Present, despite their blatantly male appearance. As for Christmas Past, its strange appearance is likened to both a child and an old man, and Scrooge addresses it as “sir”. That said, its touch is described as being “gentle as a woman’s hand,” and since its gender makes no difference to the plot, it makes sense that so many adaptations should cast it as female to add another role for an actress to a largely male-dominated story.

The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is a skeleton beneath its cloak. The final ghost’s resemblance to the Grim Reaper has led several adaptations to imply, or eventually show, that its hidden form is that of a skeleton. But the book repeatedly describes the ghost's outstretched pointing hand, the only part of its body not hidden by the cloak, and its main method of communication to Scrooge. Nothing indicates that this hand is anything but a human hand with flesh on it. So at the very least, the ghost isn't entirely skeletal.

The great tragedy of Scrooge’s past was the loss of Belle. Many an adaptation gives Scrooge’s childhood a perfunctory treatment, or even passes it over altogether, and derive the chief pathos and lesson of the Christmas Past sequence from Scrooge’s broken engagement to Belle. But while Dickens’s Scrooge is obviously pained by revisiting that memory, and by the sight of her children who could have been his, he shows much more anguish at seeing himself as a neglected child alone in the bleak boarding school. He weeps uncontrollably when he revisits his childhood. So many adaptations reverse those emotional beats, having him show only restrained sadness over his childhood but then break down in tears over Belle’s departure. But those are adaptations, not the book.

The male thief in the Christmas Yet to Come sequence is an undertaker. Even though adaptations tend to portray him as the undertaker himself, the book calls him “the undertaker’s man.” He’s just an assistant, making it all the more natural that he should supplement his low income by pawning stolen goods.

The third spirit is called the Ghost of Christmas Future. No, it’s called the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.

The three spirits are the ghosts of people from Scrooge’s past. I remember once reading a short sequel to the Carol by a modern author, which revealed that the Ghost of Christmas Past was the ghost of Belle, the Ghost of Christmas Present was Fezziwig, and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was Dick Wilkins. Each one of the spirits has also been speculated to be the ghost of Fan, or portrayed as such in some adaptation or other. This is pure speculation, though. There’s no hint that any of the Ghosts of Christmas were ever human.

The visions of Christmas Yet to Come all take place at the same Christmas. People tend to assume that Scrooge's death and Tiny Tim's death are shown as taking place near the same time. This leads some to assume that Scrooge has only a year left to live at the end of the story, since the Ghost of Christmas Present predicted that with no change, Tim would have died in less than a year. But if Scrooge has only a year left to live, then how would he have enough time to become "a second father" to Tiny Tim, and how could it always be said of him that he knew how to keep Christmas well if he won't live to see another Christmas? Of course we could assume that after his transformation, his new lease on life will give him more years to live. But Dickens writes that the visions of the future seemed to occur in no particular order. So it might be that while the scene dealing with Tiny Tim's death takes place only a year in the future, the scenes dealing with Scrooge's death take place many years later.

Tiny Tim is a saintly, all-forgiving child. Several adaptations show Tim echoing his father’s gratitude to Scrooge, eagerly drinking the toast to him, and/or objecting to his other family members’ negative talk about him. But surprisingly, the book implies that even Tim shares his mother’s grim view of Scrooge rather than his father’s generous spirit toward him. “Tiny Tim drank [the toast to Scrooge] last of all,” Dickens writes, “but he didn’t care twopence for it.”

Tiny Tim is the youngest Cratchit child. This is an easy assumption to make, and the book never contradicts it. But it never explicitly calls him the youngest either. It’s possible (not necessary, but possible) to interpret the description of Tim’s unnamed brother and sister as “the two young Cratchits” as indicting that those two are the youngest children and Tim is slightly older. At least one adaptation, the 1999 TV film with Patrick Stewart, portrays them this way.

Tiny Tim has a chronic cough. Several adaptations – The Muppet Christmas Carol, 2001's Christmas Carol: The Movie, and 2022's Scrooge: A Christmas Carol – use the classic shorthand for "very sick" by giving Tiny Tim a bad cough. But the book never describes him as coughing. Might he have had a cough, though? Well, that depends on what disease he has, which we don't know. If we assume he has spinal tuberculosis, like Dickens's young nephew Harry Burnett Jr. who allegedly inspired the character, then he likely has pulmonary tuberculosis too, and presumably does have a cough. But if he has some other disease, then he might not. (See below for more on the subject.)

Tiny Tim was crippled from birth. Every now and then we hear this statement in descriptions of the character. But the book never actually specifies if Tim was born with his disability or not. Since Tim’s disease is never specified (see below), it’s impossible to know if he was born with it or developed it later.

Tiny Tim’s illness. We only know that Tim has his limbs supported by an iron frame and requires a crutch to walk, has a small, feeble voice and “withered” hands, and would have died within a year if not for Scrooge’s transformation. But he survives (though the text never says he was cured, only that he didn’t die) thanks to Scrooge improving the Cratchits’ fortunes. Several theories exist regarding his disease. One possibility is Pott’s Disease, which Dickens’s young nephew Harry Burnett Jr. suffered from: spinal tuberculosis, which wasn’t curable in the 19th century, but could go into remission with the right care and nutrition. Another is renal tubular acidosis, a kidney disease that makes the blood too acidic and causes bone deterioration: this disease was curable in the 19th century, though its rareness makes some critics doubt that Dickens would have thought of it. Yet another suggestion is rickets, although this is a nutritional disorder, so it seems unlikely because none of Tim’s siblings seem to be affected. Cases can be made both for and against quite a few different diseases.

[argoscity]

ULTIMATE SUPERGIRL READING GUIDE

since i've been asked a few times in the past for various reading guides for kara, i thought i'd compile them all into one post for the sake of convenience!

this guide has reading orders for supergirl comics in PRE-CRISIS (1959-1985), POST-CRISIS (2004-2011), NEW 52 (2011-2016), REBIRTH (2016-2021), and INFINITE FRONTIER (2021-present).

if you have any questions at all don't be afraid to shoot me an ask!

for each section bolded comics are required, italicized comics are recommended, and everything else is optional!

[PRE-CRISIS]

ORIGIN AND MIDVALE ERA (NOTE: you'll have to flip to the back of each issue to get to kara's section!) action comics (1938) #252, 258, 267, 276, 278-282, 285, 295, 309-310, 313, 317

STANHOPE COLLEGE action comics (1938) #318, 366-368, 372, 374 world’s finest (1941) #169 adventure comics (1938) #381, 386, 391, 395, 397

K-SFTV REPORTER — SAN FRANCISCO adventure comics (1938) #406-407, 410-415, 419-424

VANDYRE UNIVERSITY supergirl (1974) #1-10

STUDENT ADVISOR — FLORIDA (NOTE: every member of the superfamily has a story in the superman family (1974), so you'll have to flip through to find kara's section!) the superman family (1974) #165, 168, 171, 174, 177, 180, 182 justice league of america (1960) #132-134 the superman family #183, 184-186, 187-189, 191-193, 194, 196-198, 199, 200, 201-202, 203, 204-205, 206-207

ACTRESS — NEW YORK the superman family (1974) 208-210, 211-214, 215-216, 217, 218 superman (1939) #373 (second story titled “an eye (and ear) on the world!”) detective comics (1937) #508-510 the superman family #219-222

THE GREAT DARKNESS SAGA (i recommend this storyline in it's entirety, but kara only appears in the last issue!) legion of superheroes (1980) #290-294

LAKE SHORE UNIVERSITY supergirl (1982) #1-12 (cw: nazi imagery in the brief interlude in #12)  supergirl (1982) #13-15 (cw: antisemitism, nazi imagery, depictions of the holocaust.) supergirl (1982) #16-23

LAST APPEARANCES AND DEATH legion of super-heroes (1980) #300-303 dc comics presents (1978) #28 tales of the legion of super-heroes (1984) #314-315 crisis on infinite earths (1985) #4-7

BONUS POST-COIE APPEARANCES christmas with the super-heroes (1988) #2 (last story titled “should auld acquaintance be forgot”) supergirl (1996) #49, 75-80 solo (2004) #1 (third story titled “young love”) convergence: adventures of superman (2015) #1-2

[POST-CRISIS]

ORIGIN superman/batman (2003) #8-13  (or you can watch superman/batman: apocalypse (2010) instead which I recommend! the art is a lot more tasteful and it's a very faithful adaptation of the comic so you won’t be missing out on anything.)

KARA WITH THE LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES supergirl and the legion of super-heroes (2006) #16-36

LOEB AND KELLY HELL ERA supergirl (2005) #1-5, 9-10, 19 (you don’t have to read any of this since it gets retconned anyway, but if you’re interested in kara’s early characterization, the beginnings of her friendship with cassie sandsmark, or her difficulty fitting in on earth then you’re welcome to read what i’ve provided.)

KELLEY PUCKETT ERA Amazons Attack! teen titans (2003) #47-48  amazons attack! (2007) #3  supergirl (2005) #20  amazons attack! (2007) #4  teen titans (2003) #49

supergirl (2005) #21-22  teen titans (2003) #50, 51-55  supergirl (2005) #25-33

Superman: Brainiac  action comics (1938) #866-870

GATES AND IGLE HEAVEN ERA supergirl (2005) #34

New Krypton (new krypton is one of my favorite events and i recommend it in its entirety, but for the sake of brevity I’ll only be listing the issues relevant to kara.) superman: new krypton special #1  superman (1939) #681  adventure comics special featuring guardian #1  action comics (1938) #871  supergirl (2005) #35  superman (1939) #682  action comics (1938) #872  supergirl (2005) #36  superman (1939) #683  action comics (1938) #873

teen titans (2003) #66  supergirl (2005) #37-42

Friends and Fugitives superman: secret Files 2009 #1  supergirl (2005) #43  action comics (1938) #881  supergirl (2005) #45  action comics (1938) #882  supergirl (2005) #46-47

supergirl (2005) annual 1, #48-50

Last Stand of New Krypton  adventure comics (2009) #8  superman: last stand of new krypton #1  supergirl (2005) #51  superman (1938) #698  adventure comics (2009) #9  superman: last stand of new krypton #2  adventure comics (2009) #10  supergirl (2005) #52  superman (1938) #699  superman: last stand of new krypton #3 superman: war of the supermen (2010) #0, 1-4 

supergirl (2005) #53-57, annual 2, 58-59

END OF SUPERGIRL VOL 5 supergirl (2005) #60-64 supergirl (2005) #65-67

[THE NEW 52]

ORIGIN and SUPERGIRL VS THE WORLDKILLERS supergirl (2011) #1-7

SUPERGIRL and SILVER BANSHEE supergirl (2011) #8-11

SUPERGIRL and SUPERBOY superboy (2011) #6

SANCTUARY supergirl (2011) #12, 0, 13

H’EL ON EARTH superman (2011) #13 supergirl (2011) #14 superman (2011) #14 superboy (2011) #15 supergirl (2011) #15 superboy (2011) #16 superboy (2011) Annual #1 supergirl (2011) #16 superman (2011) #16 superboy (2011) #17 supergirl (2011) #17 superman (2011) #17

SUPERGIRL and POWERGIRL supergirl (2011) #18-20

CYBORG SUPERMAN supergirl (2011) #21-23 action comics (2011) #23.1 supergirl (2011) #24

KRYPTON RETURNS action comics (2011) annual #2 superboy (2011) #25 supergirl (2011) #25 superman (2011) #25

SUPERGIRL VS LOBO supergirl (2011) #26-27

RED DAUGHTER OF KRYPTON supergirl (2011) #28-29 red lanterns (2011) #28-29 supergirl (2011) #30 red lanterns (2011) #30 supergirl (2011) #31 red lanterns (2011) #31-32 supergirl (2011) #32-33

SUPERMAN: DOOMED (this is a whole storyline but I'll only be listing the issues that kara appears in!) superman/wonder woman (2013) #9 action comics (2011) #33 supergirl (2011) #34 superman: doomed (2014) #2 action comics (2011) #35 supergirl (2011) #35

FUTURES END supergirl: futures end (2014) #1

JUSTICE LEAGUE UNITED justice league united (2014) #1-5 justice league united (2014) annual #1 justice league united (2014) #6-10

CRUCIBLE supergirl (2011) #36-40

FINAL DAYS OF SUPERMAN (kara only appears in the issues i've italicized and bolded, but i put all the relevant issues if you wanted to read the full storyline!) superman (2011) #51 batman/superman (2013) #31 action comics (2011) #51 superman/wonder woman (2013) #28 batman/superman (2013) #32 action comics (2011) #52 superman/wonder woman (2013) #29 superman (2011) #52

[REBIRTH]

KARA IN NATIONAL CITY supergirl: rebirth #1

supergirl (2016) #1-8 batgirl (2016) annual 1 supergirl #9-12

supergirl (2016) annual 1supergirl #13-20

world's finest: batwoman and supergirl #1-2

ROGOL ZAAR and THE SINS OF THE CIRCLE the man of steel #1-2, 3-6 supergirl #21-33, #34-36

LEVIATHAN and BATMAN WHO LAUGHS superman: leviathan rising special #1 supergirl #34-36 supergirl (2016) annual 2 supergirl #37-42

HOUSE OF KENT action comics (2016) #1022-1023 action comics (2016) #1024-1028

FUTURE STATE superman of metropolis (2021) #1-2 kara zor el, superwoman (2021) #1-2

[INFINITE FRONTIER]

action comics 2021 annual

WOMAN OF TOMORROW supergirl: woman of tomorrow (2021) #1-8

WORLD'S FINEST batman/superman: world's finest (2022) #2-6, 8, 12

A WORLD WITHOUT CLARK KENT and RED MOON (kara is featured in the back-up story! if you want the full context of this plot i recommend reading the full warworld arc in action comics [action comics #1030-1046, superman: warworld apocalypse #1]!) action comics (2016) #1044-1046, 1047-1049

DAWN OF DC action comics (2016) #1051-1053, 1055-1056 superman (2023) #1-3 power girl special #1 steelworks (2023) #1-3

KNIGHT TERRORS knight terrors: superman (2023) #1-2

DAWN OF DC (continued) action comics: doomsday special (2023) superman (2023) #7 hawkgirl (2023) #4 supergirl special (2023)

NEW WORLDS [this arc starts on action comics #1057—kara doesn't appear in that issue but I recommend reading it for context!] action comics (2016) #1058-1060 action comics 2023 annual

JOURNEY TO FERIMBIA powergirl (2023) #5, 6-7

HOUSE OF BRAINIAC action comics (2016) #1064 superman (2023) #13 action comics (2016) #1065 superman (2023) #14 action comics (2016) #1066 superman (2023) #15

UNIVERSE END action comics (2016) #1070-1081

MISCELLANEOUS RECENT APPEARANCES: superwoman special #1 superman (2023) #21-22

UPCOMING: Supergirl (2025) #1 — written and illustrated by Sophie Campbell, out on May 14th!

[tachvintlogic]

Ah, I recall the first Dracula Daily with such fond memories.

At the beginning of the book, there were the typical jokes about Jonathan being a clueless English man, which upon a second reading were actually nothing further from the truth since he realizes he's in mortal peril very quickly.

There were discussions about the themes of xenophobia, antisemitism, and ableism in the novel which I found very valuable. There are certainly parts that have aged poorly and they are important to acknowledge, especially when it comes to the treatment of Renfield.

Then there were the jokes about the characters being queer, but very quickly during Jonathan's stay at the castle people were going "seriously, was this written by a straight person, because that's not the vibe I'm getting."

And a trip to Bram Stoker's wikipedia page showed that, while we can't say for certain because we can't ask him, there's a very good chance that he was a gay man deep in the closet. Suddenly, a lot of the choices regarding Jonathan's relationship to femininity, his relationship with Mina, and the everything about what happened at the castle make a lot of sense when you're imagining it being written by a closeted gay man in reaction to the Oscar Wilde trials just 2 years before the book was published.

Then when Dracula arrives in England and starts preying on Lucy everyone goes "wait a minute, this part of the book... is not about sex. I was told this part was supposed to be about sex or sexual liberation or some shit. That is not true. It's about abuse or disease or the poor Victorian women dying of tuberculosis."

Then Lucy turns into a vampire and we realize that the connection with sex is probably because "voluptuous" is Bram's favorite word, and that's how he decided to describe the corrupting nature of a vampiric existence in women.

Then Mina and Jonathan finally join up with the suitor squad and everyone is happy,. Then Mina gets barred from operation Murder Dracula after doing so much work for the cause, and everyone is angry.

October 3rd happens and Mina is brought back into operation Murder Dracula, and if you weren't a Jonathan Harker and Mina Harker shipper before, you probably became one because Jonathan turns into an unhinged badass and his love for Mina is so incredibly powerful and incredibly queer.

By the end, the general consensus is that the book is very good. The movie adaptations do not do it justice. They don't do justice to Renfield, to Lucy, and they especially don't do justice to the number 1 canon ship Jonathan Harker x Mina Harker aka jonmina aka Holiest Love.

[braaaaain]

So, Branders Sandrason wants to make it so that Shallan and Jasnah first meet at the shattered plains rather than the Palanaeum in whatever adaptation Stormlight gets. He thinks it'll help make their story more palatable to a broader audience, but, not only will it break so many crucial parts of the plot, it will remove something that would be a draw to book tok peeps.

Like, Brandon, do not take out the Dark Academia thriller set in an allegory for a Jesuit monastary featuring toxic yuri. What you should take out is the antisemitic ending to Warbreaker.

[spacelazarwolf]

i just told people that the Corpse Bride is based off of antisemitic crimes during weddings and they said they didnt know that which is. it made me kinda sad idk. i feel like the movie of it or whatever kinda took that away? idk

i’m not sure where you heard that, bc according to most sources it’s based on a jewish folktale called “the finger.” that being said, everything about tim burton’s adaptation of the movie completely and and utterly stripped the story of its jewish origins — very intentionally.

jewitches wrote a whole post abt it which folks can read here.

but yeah tim burton is racist and antisemitic as fuck and just blatantly stole a jewish folktale for his own gain.