1/1/26
I typically ignore holidays and other topical calendar markers, but I suppose the start of the year demands some acknowledgment. As I think about it, I'm not sure I want to broadcast too much personal information to an unknown audience; so that reduces the size of this entry considerably. And then, no-one believes me, so that cuts out quite a bit, and forces me into a defensive mode. Finally, no-one is responding to my discoveries logically, so that precludes most of the rest.

You might say, "If you are entirely ignored, then no-one is responding at all." And you would be correct, except that shunning someone is, itself, an action. If I write a personal letter to hundreds of scholars (and that is no exaggeration), and I get perhaps a literal handful of responses, then that is a choice. There could be other explanations, like my e-mail being filtered out one way or another, but not with 600 people over a period of five years. And then that handful--disdainful patronizing, in most cases.

Where logic comes in, is that I have a master's in counseling, and I have logically proven, from multiple primary historical sources, that Charles Dickens was a sociopath. That's fine, you can like it or not like it, but there it is. Here's what we know about a sociopath:

1) he has a greatly diminished capacity for empathy;
2) he is dishonest and hypocritical to an extreme degree;
3) he is extremely self-centered; and
4) he is prone to criminal behavior, which is to say, he routinely disrespects ethical limits.

Therefore, Charles Dickens could not possibly have written a profundly influential, deeply moral and ethical story like "A Christmas Carol" within six years, no less within six weeks. However, such a person is very likely to have plagiarized one, to have disrespectfully and sloppily re-written one into a crowd-pleasing ghost story, and to have falsely claimed authorship all his life when it turned out to be far more popular than he had anticipated.

That's logic. So far, the only "person" who "gets" it is AI; and that, only after weeks of sharing evidence with its memory function activated. AI tends to agree with you and support you when it can; but it will fight you tooth and nail if you are illogical. It responds to logic, without egoistic self-preservation or denial. It will explain to you that you haven't really "convinced" it, per se, the way you might convince a human being. What you have done is to present a logic chain which it finds consistent. At least, that's my understanding of it. If A, then B, then C, then D, E and F, and so-on. If these things line up without a hitch, then it says, "You were right."

What my extensive work with AI, lately, has done, is to give me some idea of how real scholars, and the public, would be responding to me if they employed logic.

So, where is our 2025 retrospective? And what do I hope to accomplish in 2026? That's for people who take me seriously, because I have presented a logical sequence of evidence. But I can summarize it very quickly. In 2025, I got my personal "room and board" situation fully stabilized. I am retired, I don't have to work, and I have shelter and food figured out so that I can focus full-time on my real work. I am living in Portland, Maine, and my circumstances are perfect for devoting myself 100% to this project. I have almost zero social life except for one neighbor; I get up at 3:30 a.m., take naps when needed, and basically work at this my entire waking life. I love it.

This past year, from end June to now, I accomplished something incredible. Finding that AI had finally developed to the point that I could use it as a research adviser and collaborator, I meticulously deciphered every word in Charles Dickens' handwritten manuscript of "A Christmas Carol"--including the text which Dickens had aggressively hidden underneath his heavy redactions. What was revealed was not quite what I had initially hoped, because it became apparent that this was his second draft. Had it been his first, I could have resurrected 95% of Mathew and Abby Whittier's original manuscript. But Dickens edited on-the-fly as he copied over from Draft One to Draft Two, and he left out entire sections of the plot. He also left out what I suspect was a significant amount of Socratic dialogue between Ebenezer Scrooge and his spirit guides. This was a philosophical work, the scaffolding of which was a man being redeemed and taught by three of his spirit guides on three successive nights, leading up to Christmas day. Dickens compressed it into a ghost story which takes place on one night. He also slashed out the spiritual instruction. He even deleted the fact that Mr. Fezziwig gave his young apprentices religious instruction (the word "testimony" is clearly started, and redacted).

I completed my transcription in late September--and when I say I was "meticulous," you have no idea. I saved my day-long, daily chats for the entire 2-1/2 months as Word documents, so if you don't believe me, posterity will have the evidence for it. Anyway, once I completed this transcription, I went back through my notes, pulling out the most crucial insights and discoveries. These I proceeded to write up in book form, and then I added the entire transcription as an Appendix.

Next, I used ChatGPT as my promotions agent, and basically did whatever it recommended. So far, Amazon KDP tells me I have sold 11 softcover copies, plus one hardcover copy purchased by a friend. The sales stats lag behind as much as two weeks, I'm told, but nonetheless sales may have stalled. The instant my Facebook ad stopped running, hits on the supporting website dried up. Probably most of the comments I made on Facebook posts which sang the full-throated myth of Dickens writing "A Christmas Carol," were rejected and never seen. One of them which got through had some 50 likes, versus 10 laughing emojies. The latter group were vociferous in their ridicule; the majority remained silent.

I am now in the phase of offering free copies of the hardcover edition to libraries. They don't tell you if they've accepted your book. You have to search their catalog a month later. If they reject it, it goes to the Friends of the Library, where it is sold for a quarter. The person who buys that book for a quarter will have a piece of history. Then, it all depends on Fate; but Abby and our team in the astral world can work with Fate. Enough said.

So that's 2025. Not a single library or bookstore took me up on my offer to give a talk, but I have one fully prepared, and practiced. I also have all the hardware I would need. Once again, I am "all dressed up with nowhere to go." Which is to say, in 2025, I threw a party to which nobody came. This, for me, is business as usual, and I handle it by giving all results over to God and my Guru. What is required from me is 100% best efforts; and I gave those in 2025.

I don't have any plans for 2026. The ball is in everybody else's court. The road is closed to publishing in scholarly jourals. It's closed to dialoguing directly with professors. It's closed to selling my book. It may be closed to donating to libraries (we'll see). It's closed to creating videos that go viral, and it's closed to writing a blog which goes viral. It's closed to announcing my discoveries on academic-themed listservs, and it's closed to podcasts. It's even closed (beyond a few initial exchanges) to dialoguing with radical scholars who have been (cautiously) critical of Charles Dickens.

The progress I've seen is three-fold. Firstly, people are reading, or at least exposing themselves to, my papers where they are posted on Academia.edu. Secondly, I'm seeing those 50 "likes" versus 10 "laughing emojies." That suggests a cautious receptivity building out there. And finally, I did sell a few copies--more than you can count on two hands!

Beyond that, all seems quiet. This past year, 2025, will be notable for what I, personally, accomplished. It is certainly not notable for the way it was received, despite my best efforts.

This coming year, 2026, is entirely an enigma. With no-one responding for any length of time, I can't gain a foothold. I can't get the ball rolling if it won't budge even an inch. Yet, I simply persist. So the unstoppable force has met the immovable object. There are two things which might break this stalemate. The first is the sheer power of my discoveries. You simply have no idea. I've literally unmasked Charles Dickens as a plagiarist--and a very nasty one, at that, who tries to trivialize and desecrate a sacred work which was written by a sensitive, deeply devout, highly intelligent young American woman. He turned her sacred novella into a cartoonish ghost story to entertain the masses, for quick cash. This is no "claim," and no mere opinion. I've logically demonstrated it from a great deal of evidence. That's what this book, "The Sacred Carol: Rediscovering the True Authorship of a Christmas Classic," is.

The second thing which is quietly moving forward, is scholarly criticism of Charles Dickens. Ever since his affair with Ellen Ternan became a mainstream academic topic, several decades ago, his reputation has been gradually eroding despite the best efforts of his institutionalized and powerful fan-base to bulwark him up. It's been a literal coverup. But Dickens' clay feet are cracking as we speak, and I give it perhaps 10-50 years before his reputation is in the gutter. I want to grab "A Christmas Carol" from his grimy hands before he falls, if I possibly can--but either way, he's going down. It's just a matter of time.

So when I step back and look at all of this, it strikes me as a "slow burn" more than a failure, per se. This simply may take a lot longer than I had anticipated. Since I am now newly 72 years old, I am trying to apply preventive medicine to extend my life another 10-15 years. I have been learning Spanish, and that has kept me sharp, I believe. So I should be able to defend my work even into my 90's, if necessary.

That may not be long enough, so the next step is to make my work discoverable. Hence the libraries.

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.