1/4/26
I discovered another piece of evidence which didn't make it into my book, "The Sacred Carol: Rediscovering the True Authorship of a Christmas Classic." Rather than to "revise and re-post" as I did for so many years with my e-books, I decided to use the opportunity to write a paper with this new discovery as an example of my research method. I did "stop the presses" for a couple of earlier discoveries, which were more crucial, thereby rendering an entire box of 20 softcover editions outdated. (I got lucky when IngramSpark agreed to cancel a similar order for 20 hardcover editions!) But I can't keep on doing that. So long as I'm finding additional evidence--a process which could conceivably go on for years--instead of mistakes, I'll just frame it that the book is a starting point.

You can read the new paper on Academia.edu at the following link:

https://www.academia.edu/145759594/How_I_Discovered_Mathew_and_Abby_Whittiers_Literary_Presence_in_Charles_Dickens_Handwritten_Manuscript_of_A_Christmas_Carol_an_example_found_after_the_fact

Picking this back up in the evening, I just wanted to comment based on my brief interactions with people on Facebook. I don't think I quite understood just how deeply ingrained people's emotional association of "A Christmas Carol" is with the Myth of Dickens. Their wires are crossed, and there's a short circuit. It's obvious, but difficult to explain, precisely because it's so obvious. With the love that they have for the power and beauty they find in "A Christmas Carol," they love Charles Dickens, with whom they associate it. The bond of that association is like superglue--the more love and admiration they feel for the story, the stronger that bond is cemented. The two are thoroughly cross-identified. Any attack on Dickens, is experienced as an attack on their beloved "Carol."

Does that make sense?

When the truth is that anything at all beautiful or powerful in "A Christmas Carol" came from its original authors, Mathew and Abby Whittier. Dickens was a scoundrel, a very unpleasant individual, who literally was probably visiting prostitutes when he was pretending to his family he was out walking, composing "A Christmas Carol." He was a radical hypocrite as only a sociopath can be. He was enough of a hypocrite to steal "A Christmas Carol," slash out or dumb down the greatest portion of its spirituality and intellectual subtlety, sell the resulting "ghost story" for quick cash, and then--when he was surprised to find there was enough of its original spiritual power remaining to inspire people--turn around and pretend to be the inspired genius who had written it.

The resulting horrible epiphany would be gut-wrenching. It would be like throwing your car into reverse on the expressway. And yet...if I don't urge people to do that, Dickens' nasty crime will go undetected and unpunished indefinitely, while all trace of my work to reclaim the "Carol" for its original authors will disappear. Mathew and Abby were literary geniuses and deeply spiritual people. Everything--and I mean everything--of power and beauty in "A Christmas Carol" came from them. Should I not press to rescue it from Dickens, for them, even if it shocks the people who love that story?

Dickens is being exposed as a scoundrel, as we speak. One has to deliberately ignore the evidence, now--and I mean, the evidence coming from Academia, not my own evidence. It's only going to get worse. Dickens is going to be discredited, it's just a matter of time.

What, do you want everyone to still believe he wrote "A Christmas Carol" when this happens? What then? I'm giving these people an "out"--I am their best friend, even though they perceive me as their worst enemy.

What an irony.

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.