12/19/25
I have been fielding cynical and sarcastic comments on my Facebook posts. One thing I find is that these people's mission is to be aggressive, dismissive and combative. Any appearance that they care about the truth is an illusion. If by some chance you can corner them with overwhelming evidence, they don't give you the satisfaction of an apology. They simply slink away, anticlimactically, and are never heard from, again. Presumably they find better hunting grounds for their aggression.

Charles Dickens was a nasty character; and as I deciphered his handwritten draft of "A Christmas Carol," I could see precisely how casually, and even abusively, he treated Mathew and Abby Whittier's sacred text. Now, I am trying to wrest it from his greasy hands and restore it to the Whittiers, as much as is possible. But I had forgotten that if I am ever able to get it away from Dickens, people just like him are going to try to throw mud and confusion all over it, again.

The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness receiveth it not.

That's a principle; and principles operate at multiple levels and multiple scales.

This is what defeated Mathew and Abby in their day--they severely underestimated the sheer scope and power of ignorance. I see it in the nasty, off-hand comments left underneath my Facebook posts and comments; I see it in the atheistic Facebook group I've somehow started seeing posts from. I could straighten them out if they respected me enough to listen, but these people have no respect. They are arrogant, and bitter, and hateful. You can't educate someone in that state. Life will have to bring them low, before they will be teachable. Pride does go before a fall; and if you think there are any exceptions, you aren't factoring reincarnation into the mix.

I have now sold nine copies of my paperback book, plus one hardcopy to someone I know. I've gifted four copies. I've offered a free copy to one or two scholars, but they don't respond. Here I am offering them, for free, the only complete transcription of Dickens' handwritten draft in the world, that I'm aware of, and they turn it down. Can you imagine being a scholar with any interest in Charles Dickens whatsoever, being offered that resource for free, and refusing to answer? Do you think they assume that it must be so bad, that it's not worth bothering with? They don't know how hard I worked on it. Or do you think they're terrified to talk to me? What are they thinking?

There's less than a week before Christmas, and things seem deathly quiet out there. You guys are not reading these blog entries very consistently, either, even when I back off on the frequency. Let me share a small piece of evidence with you--one which shut up one of my critics, recently. Are you familiar with the scene in which young Ebenezer Scrooge's fiance, Belle, dumps him? That didn't happen in the original. In the original, I think they had an argument, they got over it, but then Belle died. I have a lot of reasons for that, but in the book, as Belle is introduced, she is wearing a mourning dress. In the 19th century, women didn't wear mourning dresses to dump their fiances. They wore them if someone in their family had died. But there is no back-story given, which is very poor writing. It's just an orphan fact from something Mathew and Abby Whittier had given a reason for.

But that's not the clue. Hidden in the handwritten manuscript, underneath Dickens' redaction marks, you can see that where Belle is first introduced, her face is "thankful." Now, put on your writer's cap. If you are introducing a character who is determined to dump her fiance, you don't describe her face as thankful. Talk about literary "orphans." This "orphan" changes the entire meaning of the scene. If her face is thankful, she is not about to dismiss her fiance. Period.*

That means something entirely different had to have happened, there, before Dickens revised the scene completely to have Belle dump Ebenezer.

That's one of, I don't know, 10 or 15 pieces of evidence I uncovered. Maybe more. The whole book is one piece of evidence after another, nonstop.

This should be creating a buzz. With that Appendix, I should be selling this book like hotcakes. That I have only managed to sell nine is absolutely weird. People just can't shake loose their conditioning, I suppose. Or they understand my discovery is backed, this time, by irrefutable evidence, and they are terrified of it.

Either way, I don't think this cold reception I'm getting is sustainable. Next comes the wrecking crew of professional cynics, who would shit on my work the way Dickens shit on Mathew and Abby's masterpiece.

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.

*I know what one or two of you are thinking. No, friend, Belle was not so relieved to be getting rid of Ebenezer, that even before she had told him, her face was already "thankful."