For more of all things London history, sign up for our new (free) newsletter and community: Londonist: Time Machine.
A Christmas Carol is one of the greatest stories of all time. So much so, it's actually difficult to imagine it as a newborn piece of work, free from the universal prestige it wallows in these days. On 19 December 1843, critics hastily read Dickens's freshly-published ghostly tale, spilling out their first reactions about it, in newspapers up and down Britain. Most received the book with the kind of warm Christmas goodwill it brims with — but one reviewer was so withering about it, they might've been Ebenezer Scrooge himself.
The critics love it
Make no mistake, A Christmas Carol was a hit from the start. In less than a week, Dickens's novella had sold out of its first print tun, and though, famously, he didn't rake in much money from it himself, the public — and the critics — immediately warmed to the festive fable. The Illustrated London News praised the book's 'impressive eloquence, unfeigned lightness of heart, playful and sparkling humour, undercurrents of thoughts, gems of world knowledge and gentle spirit of humanity, which lit every page'. The Belfast Commercial Chronicle said "Smellfungus himself would be puzzled how to cut up this jovial, genial piece of Christmas fare otherwise than lovingly".
Meanwhile, the Planet was already hinting that Dickens's story might lead to a Christmas renaissance: "'Boz,' in this little work, has done his best to arouse the humanity of his readers, and revive the generous feelings that were wont to be displayed at Christmas." The Planet was also one of a number of publications which not only ran lengthy extracts of the novella, but also slapped a huge spoiler at the end of the review:
Er, thanks for that.
There's always one
For all A Christmas Carol's plaudits, there was inevitably going to be one Scrooge in the pack, and that was whoever penned the review for The Morning Post. The hatchet job actually begins positively enough, the critic giving an oddly-detailed explanation of the book's physical appearance, noting that it's "a pretty little book to look at" thanks to its gilt-edged pages, and crimson cotton cover. However, they're less than impressed with the contents. The critic bleats about the "strange jumble" of comedy, tragedy, sermon, political treatise and historical sketch..." and continues, "It has all Mr Dickens's mannerisms, and is for so far (to us) displeasing and absurd," Bah humbug indeed.
The worst is yet to come. "There are also some little bits of jokes — something trembling on the verge of puns, and the like, of which the less said the better," slays the anonymous reviewer. (To be fair, Dickens's dodgy pun writing really is an achilles heel of his — something that's even addressed in The Muppet Christmas Carol, when Scrooge's "There's more gravy than of grave about you" wisecrack is dismissed by Jacob Marley thus: "What a terrible pun. Where do you get those jokes?!")
In other parts of the review, A Christmas Carol is deemed "exceedingly fantastical" (I mean, it's a ghost story), and Dickens is accused of having "his notions of Christian benevolence and sound national policy inextricably involved with visions of bowls of punch, and blind man's buff, puddings, dancing, fiddlings, heaps of children..."
You begin to wonder if this Morning Post hack is actually just a bit punch-drunk from the whole experience of reading A Christmas Carol for the first time. What with all the hauntings, time travelling, moralising and what-not, it's a complex book that must've been a shock to the system for many Victorians. "...five-sixths of the little book or more relate to the poor miser's interviews with the ghosts, and these comprise the most incomprehensible jumble of great things and little — things mystical and things familiar — that ever we met with," moans the confused critic, "whether in the winter time or in the summer. Everyone has heard that there is one step from the sublime to the ridiculous. This step Mr Dickens annihilates...". It is, they continue, "like an earthquake rocking the foundations of the world to the tune of 'Lilliburlero'".
Ironically, the critic's own writing has a tendency to swerve about; while, for all intents and purposes, they condemn A Christmas Carol to the bargain bin, they also remark on Dickens's "touches of genius" a suggestion that would surely have any Morning Post reader shouting into their newspaper "Hang on, should I buy this thing or not?!"
I think a spin-off is in order: a book about the reviewer, in which the three spirits of former Fleet Street publishers force them to re-read A Christmas Carol (and if that doesn't work, to watch The Muppet Christmas Carol), and mend the errant ways of their iffy review writing, by giving it five stars.
This article was researched on the wonderful British Newspaper Archive.
