Did Scrooge or Marley deserve eternal damnation?
-
Navaros — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 12:42 AM)
To be fair-Fezziwig refused to move with the times.He admitted it.
I agree that Fezziwig admitted that, but what's your point?
Are you implying that Fezziwig's refusal to move with the times justifies Scrooge taking over his business and thus taking away his livelihood? Because it doesn't. -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 02:51 PM)
Two things.
This whole episode with Fezziwig isn't even in the original story. Fezziwig is only remembered as Scrooge's first employer, and how kindly he treated his employees (contrasting how poorly Scrooge treats his), and that's it. All of this other business with Fezziwig (and Jorkin, for that matter) is an invention of the producers of this film.
Second - we are not shown what happens to Fezziwig. Earlier in the film Jorkin talks to him about selling and that he'll never get a better price, but Fezziwig says no, he wants to stay on 'to preserve a way of life, that one knew, and loved.' We see that Scrooge and Marley eventually bought him out, apparently a hostile takeover. But it is incorrect to assume Fezziwig was left penniless. We don't see Fezziwig on the street, he is in a carriage. The real loss here is that his 'way of life' is over, the 'little happy world' he created, how kind he was to his employees. We see that when Scrooge keeps on a staff member but lowers his wage. But Fezziwig still got paid for the business he sold to Scrooge and Marley. Whether he uses that capital to start another business or to retire, we don't know, but he is not left a pauper. -
novastar_6 — 10 years ago(November 16, 2015 04:14 PM)
He does himself far worse damage than he does to anyone else.
And yet he's directly responsible for Tiny Tim dying in an unaltered future. And there's no telling how many other deaths both he and Marley were responsible for in their treatment of their fellow men, who they might have helped who instead starved to death or froze to death while they sat on their money always scheming to rake in more. It goes back to that saying about all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, they could've done so much, they chose not to, they only looked out for themselves and everyone around them paid the price for it. -
devildog1982z — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 12:01 AM)
And yet he's directly responsible for Tiny Tim dying in an unaltered future.
What a crock, Scrooge was his father's employer. If anyone had a hand in his death it would be his own father. He had more children than he could reasonably support. He also could've sought other a better position with another employer. Scrooge himself started out in a similar position when younger, but it appears Bob is a bit of a lackluster employee. -
Navaros — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 12:39 AM)
He also could've sought other a better position with another employer. Scrooge himself started out in a similar position when younger,
But consider: what did Scrooge have to do in order to get a better position than Bob's? He had to
abandon
his first employer, Fezziwig. That's was Scrooge's first sin and the start of his descent into evil. That evil snowballed more little by little. Scrooge would have been better off, morally speaking, if he had never taken that first step of abandoning Fezziwig.
For Bob to take a better position, he'd have to take a similar first step by abandoning Scrooge & Marley, and thus follow in Scrooge's bad footsteps.
So while you see Bob as a "lackluster employee," I see him as a "loyal employee." Moreover, Scrooge arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him. That's Scrooge's fault, not Bob's. And it's certainly not a reflection of Bob doing bad work.
He had more children than he could reasonably support
He could support them enough for them to survive. The
one exception
is that he could not afford to pay for the best care for Tiny Tim's illness, which was an unexpected expense that he couldn't possibly have foreseen - so it's not his fault for planning badly or anything like that. -
strntz — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 09:47 AM)
Moreover, Scrooge arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him.
I read somewhere that 15 Shillings a week was actually pretty respectable salary for the times. Cratchitt was not indentured or under any long term contract, so if he was underpaid for his performance,
someone
would have grabbed him. I'm sure Scrooge hated paying Cratchitt that much, but without paying a going rate, Scrooge wouldn't have a clerk. Not only did he pay Cratchitt going rate, he also paid him for the Christmas holiday despite his protestations.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad. -
devildog1982z — 10 years ago(December 29, 2015 10:07 PM)
But consider: what did Scrooge have to do in order to get a better position than Bob's? He had to abandon his first employer, Fezziwig. That's was Scrooge's first sin and the start of his descent into evil. That evil snowballed more little by little. Scrooge would have been better off, morally speaking, if he had never taken that first step of abandoning Fezziwig.
Who's to say that Scrooge "would've been better off morally"? You? He bettered himself, that is no sin "morally speaking". You yourself have probably done the same in your lifetime.
For Bob to take a better position, he'd have to take a similar first step by abandoning Scrooge & Marley, and thus follow in Scrooge's bad footsteps.
So? How is that wrong? Because you say it is? Again, how is it that Scrooge took bad footsteps?
So while you see Bob as a "lackluster employee," I see him as a "loyal employee." Moreover, Scrooge arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him. That's Scrooge's fault, not Bob's. And it's certainly not a reflection of Bob doing bad work.
Again, how is this Scrooges's problem? Where is the evidence that he "arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him"? Because I'm not seeing it. If Bob so "deliberately underpaid" then why didn't he look for a better position elsewhere? He wasn't an indentured servant or in bondage, he was perfectly capable of pulling up stakes and moving on. Last of all, if Bob was doing such great work then Scrooge would've done all he could do keep him. Bob was just happy to collect a paycheck.
He could support them enough for them to survive. The one exception is that he could not afford to pay for the best care for Tiny Tim's illness, which was an unexpected expense that he couldn't possibly have foreseen - so it's not his fault for planning badly or anything like that.
Oh, so now you're saying Scrooge was paying him a decent wage to support his family? Well which is it? Also how is it not Bob's fault for planning badly? Is it not his money, his finances? At some point in his career he should've been saving something, planning ahead. That's what people do. Let's make no mistake here, Bob was in the growing middle class, he wasn't among the poor. He was a somewhat educated man with some skills, he was by no means a pauper. Scrooge's only sin here is maybe his indifference. Not being in his nephew's life and being too proud to accept his concern and turning away from his fiance's love.
For Bob Crachet he get's a pass. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(December 09, 2016 11:02 PM)
Who's to say that Scrooge "would've been better off morally"?
This film itself
says that. In fact, that's one of its fundamental main points!
Scrooge started out as a good guy, but yet the more he "bettered himself" by becoming rich, the more he had to step on the heads of other people, a.k.a. the more evil he had to become.
Everything
about this film hits that point as hard as it can possibly be hit.
How is that wrong? Because you say it is?
Again, it's wrong because
that's the whole point of the film!
By responding to these questions, I feel like I've fell into a Theatre of the Absurd stage play!
You might as well be asking"Why are carrots orange, because you say so?"
how is this Scrooges's problem?
Because Scrooge was exploiting Bob's labor whilst not giving Bob enough money to help Bob and his family live a good lifeeven though Scrooge could have easily afforded to.
Where is the evidence that he "arbitrarily held Bob back by deliberately underpaying him"?
This question too is
blatantly absurd.
The evidence is in many scenes throughout the entire film. I.e. Scrooge makes fun of Bob by explicitly announcing Bob's very low wage and how it is not enough to provide for a good life for himself and his family. Then there's Bob's meager "feast" at his house on Christmas day (that one scene hits this point
multiple times
in and of itself). Oh yeah, then there is the fact that Tiny Tim dies (in the original reality), again because Scrooge doesn't pay Bob enough money.
Are your questions supposed to be serious? I don't understand how you could possibly miss these blatantly obvious points of the film. It's not like the film makes these points subtly or only once.
If Bob so "deliberately underpaid" then why didn't he look for a better position elsewhere?
Because, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Bob is loyal to Scrooge. Bob in this film is the ideal Christian man. He loves Scrooge unconditionally even though Scrooge treats him like garbage. Bob's loyalty to Scrooge & overall goodness is meant to contrast with Scrooge's disloyalty to Fezziwig & overall evilness - which it does brilliantly, as I've pointed out.
now you're saying Scrooge was paying him a decent wage to support his family?
Scrooge gave Bob enough money to let him and his family survive, but no more than that. I wouldn't exactly call that a "decent" wage.
Also how is it not Bob's fault for planning badly? Is it not his money, his finances? At some point in his career he should've been saving something, planning ahead.
To save anything requires a surplus of money with each paycheck. Bob had no surplus, because Scrooge did not pay him enough to have any. Therefore, Bob's lack of savings is Scrooge's fault, not Bob's.
Bob was in the growing middle class, he wasn't among the poor.
I don't agree there. Bob was among the working poor. He wasn't a pauper, nopaupers had less money than Bob. Bob was just poor
to a lesser degree
than a pauper. But Bob was still poor. And Bob was poor
because of
Scrooge. -
novastar_6 — 10 years ago(December 29, 2015 09:30 PM)
If anyone had a hand in his death it would be his own father.
And yet no ghosts went to visit Bob to tell him his son would be dead by next Christmas, they went to Scrooge, the one who could actually do something about it. -
devildog1982z — 10 years ago(December 29, 2015 10:15 PM)
And yet no ghosts went to visit Bob to tell him his son would be dead by next Christmas, they went to Scrooge, the one who could actually do something about it.
The "ghosts" went to Scrooge because the author had an agenda and wrote it that way. Fairy tales are nice to believe, but the real world doesn't work that way. It was Bob's kid. Remember Bob? The one you said "could support them enough for them to survive". So it is now Scrooges's responsibility to take care of Tiny Tim's illness? -
elgatony — 9 years ago(December 24, 2016 09:53 PM)
http://41.media.tumblr.com/b1cd08729abefd3f7b5418634f1f120c/tumblr_mocgggN7di1su9syao1_500.jpg
Jamie Lee Curtis survived Halloween, the Fog, Prom Night and a Terror Train & now she can't poop! -
Navaros — 9 years ago(December 09, 2016 11:15 PM)
it is now Scrooges's responsibility to take care of Tiny Tim's illness?
Yes it is,
because Scrooge caused Tiny Tim to die
in the original reality, by way of not paying Bob enough money to purchase proper medical care for Tim. -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 03:29 PM)
I understand where you are going with this, however, it really does not make a lot of sense.
Put yourself in a similar situation. Pretend you have a sick child and you can't afford to pay for his or her medical care on your current salary. Do you sit by for the next year, wait for the child to die, then shrug your shoulders and say, 'oh well, my boss wouldn't give me a raise, so, sorry about that kid. It's all his fault.'
I'm not even going to ask if you would actually agree with that, because morally, you just can't.
You can certainly make the argument that Scrooge
should
have paid Bob more and, had he done so, Bob could have afforded better treatment for Tim. But it is seriously weak to suggest there was nothing else that could be done to address the situation other than Scrooge opening his purse-strings, and therefore, Scrooge and Scrooge alone is to blame. Bob can look for another job. Bob can look for a second job. Peter can look for a job, or the Mrs. perhaps, the kids appear to be getting older. Or perhaps Bob can check with the solicitors who were collecting donations at the beginning of the film. Let me repeat: YOUR KID IS DYING. What wouldn't you do, or try to do, to remedy this situation? Blaming it on your boss and his miserly ways is morally unacceptable, I'm sorry. Especially since Scrooge is well known for being a miser, Bob was fooling himself if he thought that Scrooge was going to be paying a lot when he took the job. I'm sure Scrooge's reputation preceded him long before Bob was even hired.
Scrooge has the
opportunity
to help and chooses not to, that is his sin. Marley even says at one point "Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one life's opportunity misused! Yet such was I!"
But it is not Scrooge's
responsibility
to get help for Tim, that lies with Bob as the parent. Opportunity and Responsibility are two different concepts. -
Big_AL-96 — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 12:48 AM)
There is a very you good book that follows the story of Jacob Marley from child to death and hos time as a spectre.
In the book when he meets Scrooge he offers him a job but states that being engaged to a poor girl is not conducive to his business etc, so begins the process of bitterness. In essence Marley moulds Scrooge. He becomes more anti social and bitter than Marley, through Markey's guidance. On his deathbed at the end he realises the great ill he has done Scrooge and tries to tell him to change but all he manages is "we were wrong".
On passing he is saved, but he pleads with the spirit to allow someone to help Scrooge see the error of his ways. Marley is told he will have the fate of walking the Earth for this favour and if Scrooge does not repent he too will meet that fate that he was destined for.
I will not mention how it ends for Marley but it is a good read written in the style of Dickens and gives a good slant on the story, interweaving essential parts.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jacob-T-Marley-William-Bennett/dp/1609079159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480754420&sr=8-1&keywords=Jacob+t+Marley
Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis -
