10/30/25
I wrote today to an academic who runs a literary podcast, and who says he's open to ideas for programs. The next show, in line with Halloween, is about witches; and on the listserv where this was announced, an academic who is a practicing witch wrote back that she was looking forward to it! Of course, I wrote to him suggesting myself as a guest, announcing my book, "The Sacred Carol: Rediscovering the True Authorship of a Christmas Classic." Likely, I will not hear from him.

I don't plan on tuning in for the "witches" show, but I would assume they don't believe, for half-a-half-a-second, that witches are real. Nor do they believe that Charles Dickens stole "A Christmas Carol." But what occurred to me, this afternoon (prompting me to hop on here and write an entry), is that I really think these people are saying to themselves--consciously or unconsciously--"If it were true, surely I would have heard of it."

That sounds self-evident, doesn't it? But it's actually false logic. They underestimate themselves. By that I mean, they underestimate their collective ability to squash new evidence which contradicts their cherished myths. If they prevent a radical, independent scholar from publishing a single paper, in a single scholarly journal; if not a single scholar will deign to answer any of his e-mails; if not one of them cites him, or mentions him; then effectively, they have shut him down and he doesn't exist.

And how, precisely, would this doubter have heard of me, under those circumstances?

Now, AI will tell me that I am the only person who has ever suggested that Charles Dickens stole "A Christmas Carol." But I'll bet there have been others. I just don't know of them, because they, too, have been ignored.

The problem is that their own research is revealing Dickens as a real "piece of work," who couldn't possibly have written the "Carol." Dickens claimed to have gotten ideas for it while "walking the black streets of London," during that six weeks, alternately laughing and weeping. Do you know what I think he was doing out there on the London streets at night? I think he was enjoying himself with prostitutes. Do you think he could have written "A Christmas Carol" in-between sessions? If so, then you don't understand the difference between the profane and the sacred.

That's not a wild claim, and I'm not to first to suggest that Dickens frequented prostitutes. When, and where, would a family man have the opportunity to visit prostitutes? On his nightly walks in the London streets. Where else?

I'm not wrong, I'm not crazy, and very likely, I'm not alone. There were a lot of people questioning Dickens' character when he died. Only, there's been such a PR job done by his supporters and academic apologists, that his detractors have all been forgotten. But let's see if I can break through...

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.