A Christmas Carol and its Adaptations

A Christmas Carol And Its Adaptations by Fred Guida, is a book I recently finished reading. I first learned of this book on Mr. Guida's site, Charles Dickens On Screen. This is a tome he authored himself, and it is almost unbeleivably comprehensive in regard to Carol adaptations. Every adaptation known to man is not only listed but examined, often in detail, from the very first versions known to be adapted (often plagerized) for the Victorian stage.

Given considerable attention in the chapter on televised versions are the George C. Scott version from 1984, and Henry Winkler's An American Christmas Carol from the late sevenites. This latter is notable, among other things, for taking place during the Great Depression. The point is made that oftimes the various versions of the Carol reflect the social climate and problems of their times. Clive Donner's version with George C. Scott may be seen for example as a critique of the Reagonite and Thacherite politics of its time (as can Donner's Oliver Twist, also staring Scott, filmed a couple years earlier). The Carol is, after all, a deeply mythic tale, one in which Dickens had apparently managed to actually tap into the collective human consciousness. It is a primal tale of death and rebirth found throughout religion and myth. That is why so many versions in so many places in time have cropped up, and continue to crop up, each holiday season. According to Paul Davis, author of the excellent Lives and Times of Ebeneezer Scrooge (which I also own and which Guida references) "We are still writing the Carol."

I learned quite a few things I didn't already know, including the fact that the animated Rankin/Bass feature from 1970s, The Stingiest Man In Town, was actually based on a previous live-action version staring Basil Rathbone of Sherlock Holmes fame, of all people. This version is, so far as I can tell, not available, which is a bit surprising. Sir Michael Hordern, famed actor of the british stage and cinema, actually made it into two versions, once as Marley, and the seond time as Scrooge. It's somehow strange to think of the soft-spoken Hordern as Ebenezeer, one thing Guida takes note of. The book also reveals that a sumptuous, and (according to Guida, at least) very good adaptation was filmed in France, the very same year that the famed Gearge Scott version premeired in America. This Frence version, sadly, is also not available, so far as I can tell.

The Filmography section of the book covers all versions of the Carol, and detail is given to those not included in the previous chapters. This includes all TV versions, all animated versions, all the versions that have cropped up on sitcoms at during the season over the years, and even "versions" that should perhaps be considered "semi-Carols." These are tales that, while clearly inpsired by the story of Scrooge, do not follow the same plot. One such film is My Little Boy, a film from way back in 1917, in which a Scrooge-like uncle disaproves of his nephew Fred's marraige. On Christmas eve the old curmudeon has a horrific dream in which he accidently kills his nephew's son, but wakes to the happy truth and as a result, becomes a a reformed man. A heart-rending film with a happy ending to be sure, though also, unfortuantely it is not avialable in any format. Also of note is a Christmas episode of "The Charlie Drake Show", a BBC serial in the UK back in the 60s. This "version" features characters from other Dickens novels, including Nicholas Nickleby, Pip and Miss Havisham from Great Expectations, and Fagin and Oliver from Oliver Twist, all of whom owe Scrooge money, and it's Bob Crachit's job to collect. I would have loved to seen this one, as it takes the "shared universe" concept to a whole new level.

In one chapter Guida deals with Dickens' other Christmas tales, and the curious fact that so few of them have been substanially translated into film. The Chimes, for example, has only recieved film treatment twice. Most unsual is that Dickens' The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain" has apparently never been filmed at all. The story, virtually unkown to the public, invloves a chemist named Redlaw who encounters his own ghostly double one Christmas eve. This particular sort of phantom is know as a fetch in English folklore. The bargain concerns Redlw's desire to forget all the painful memories of his past. There turns out to be a major downside to this, until Redlaw manages, to see the error of his decison through the wisdom of the story's most innocent character.

Why has The Huanted Man never been filmed? Well, Christmas Carol, it seems, is so mythic in its essence that its resulting popularity has apparently drowned out all of Dickens' other tales. The reference to "scary ghost stories" in the song "Most Wonderful Time of the Year" often leaves people confused. Isn't there just one Christmas ghost story? Well, actually no. Guida does mention that The Haunted Man was indeed presented in at least two stage plays in the ninteenth century, one of which featured a "flying ghost." But sadly, the plays themselves no longer exist. One may hope that this and others of Dickens' Christmas tales may some day reach the screen.

All in all, a fantastic volume for Christmas Carol fans and well worth the reading.

Peter David's Artful

                                 
                                     




                                       

There have been numerous pastiches of Oliver Twist since it was first written. They are all rather obscure, but since Twist is probably Dickens' second most popular novel, quite a number of them do exist. The first I knew of was The Further Adventures of Oliver Twist , novel by David Butler, based on a TV serial shown only in the UK back in 1980. I finally read this when I purchased on ald paper back copy on ebay--not bad for a sequal, in spite a few inconsistancies. There was also Oliver and the Artful Dodger, a Hanna Barbera cartoon production shown on the ABC Superstar Movie, a Saturday morning series which featured different, often innovative cartoons by Hanna Barbera and Warner Brothers, back in 1972. Then there was the far more recent Escape Of The Artful Dodger, another Tv serial, this one shown on Australian televsion. There is also Dodge and Twist, by Tony Lee, and a proposed film with a different plot but the same title. Virtually every one I've come accross, with the possible exception of Oliver Twist Investigates by G. M. Best, features Jack Dawkins, aka The Artful Dodger, as a central character.

Then there are even a few works that focus that simply ditch Oliver altogather, and focus entirely on the more charismatic Dodger. There is Artful: The Dodger Down Under, by Martin Lake, following Dodger's adventures en route to the colonies and in Australia,and the more recent Dodge, by Terry Prachet, which appears to feature a facsimle Dodger character rather than the Artful himself. That brings us to the Artful by Peter David, and published early this year,  which focuses on the actual Dodger and his adventures upon escaping from the cololony ship and returing to the London streets. While certainly owing its existence to Oliver Twist, this is not a straight Oliver Twist pastiche, more like a spin-off. It should best be considered an Artful Dodger pastiche. It is also the first pastiche I'm aware that literally makes a case Dodger as the most intrigueing character compared to Oliver. The author makes this claim both in the blurb, and in the introduction to the novel itself.

One point the author makes here, one which I'd in fact really like to disagree with is, is that Oliver, even during his shinging moment of heroism whien he so defiantly asked for more gruel was essentially passive. Why can't I disagree? Becuase, as the author points out, in the original novel, the boys drew straws, and poor Oliver lost. I grew up on the the movie version in which Oliver heroically asks form more gruel for another starving boy. That truly is a shining moment of heroism, especially if you happen to be starving yourself--in the movie, at least. In the book, not so much. David does give Oliver credit, however, for bloodying Noah Claypole's nose, one incident, at least, in which Dickens allowed Oliver to take an active role.

David goes on to make another, darker, case regarding Dickens novel, namely that vampires were abroad on the streets  of Victorian London, but Dickens found them too disturbing to write abroad so he concealed this fact from his readers. Dickens did indeed steer clear from inclduing the supernatural, with the notable exception of his ghost stories---though there are some incidents throughout Dickesn that leave one wondering. David argues, with some validity, that certain points in Oliver Twist suggest that Fagin may well have been a member of the undead. Think about it, he always keeps to the shadows, is described as having rat-like fangs, etc. Yep, makes sense. It also gives the author a way to bring the old scoundrel back--after all, what would the gallows mean to a vampire? We also learn about Fagin's background, and exactly how it happened--an incident which seems to involve a certain Tranylvanian Count. The other suspected vampire form the original is police magisgrate Fang, orignally a minor villian who tries to sentence Oliver for stealing a book, and later sentences Dodger to deportation. I couldn't initially picture the slovenly, drunken magistrate I remmebered from the 1982 film version as a vampiric creature of the night, but David manages to make him a terrifying villain nonetheless, and very difficult adversary for Dodger.

We also learn quite a few things about the Artful's past and upbringing here, including the horrific and violent death of his mother. We learn the circumstances of how Fagin found and took him in, serving as a surrogate father figure. The novel also has Dodger eventually learning a secret regarding Fagin's past and his own which creates a rift between the old comrades. Later in the novel, there is incident in which Fagin considers their score settled, but Dodger refuses to forgive his former mentor. That's not, in my opinion at least, a highmark for Dodger's character, but it's a very human reaction nonetheless, so this Dodger manages to be dimensional as well as heroic.

The author gives his character plenty of opportunity for heroism throughout, inculding his rescue of (who he thinks is)a street girl from a drunken ruffian. The rescued girl turns out to be someone very important in connection to an enormous plot by the vampiric denizens of London to usurp the empire. The plot of this kind of reminds me of Wesley Snipes' comment in the movie version of Blade regarding vampiric control of New York: the world you live in uis merely the sugar-coated topic." It was that way back in Victorian London, as well, it seems. The fact that Mr. David is a famous writer for comics may not a coindence regarding his invention of a vampire infested Victorian age. It is also worth mentioning that this is not a straight Dickens pastiche; a good measure of Stoker and even Conan Doyle are in the mix as well, what with both the young Abraham Van Helsing and the Baker Steet irregulars getting involved. Note: Wiggings, the leader of the Irregulars, is featured here, but the author makes it plain that the leader of the Irregulars, which changes every several years, always assumes the name of Wiggins, as this tale takes place decades before the time of Sherlock Holmes. There is even a tie-in and explanation for the origins of the infamous paranormal rogue Spring-Heeled Jack and (just possibly) Jack the Ripper

 Artful is certainly a thrill-ride from start to finish, just as the author promises. But how is it as a Dickens' pastiche? Well, the Dickens characters are all representated accurately enough, provided the reader can accept the vampiric elements throughout, though there is one very slight exception. Oliver Twist himself has a couple of cameos in the novel, first near the beginning when the recently escaped Dodger glimpses him in a coach with Mr. Brownlow, and later when Dodger and VanHelsing arrive at Brownlow's posh estate to explain their predicement and warn of the vampiric threat. It is made fairly clear during this scene that Brownlow, while protrayed as basically decent, is a bit prejudiced toward these lower class ruffians, and wanting Oliver to have anything to do with them, not even telling Oliver who had was who had visited. In other words, David makes Brownlow a bit of a class snob, which means that he is--well, slightly off character. However, this is by no means as dreadful as a certain Oliver Twist play I am aware of that literally makes Brownblow into a villain--but I digress.

Artful, is, as said, an exciting read, and I'm wondering, perhaps, if a comic version might some day be in the works. Not likely, but a possibility since, David is, after all, in the comics field. If that ever happens, I hope that they get Berni Wrightson to illustrate it. I can just see some marvelous Wristson artwork for the scene where Dodger and Van Helsing enter a canrival "Cabinet of Horrors" featuring all sorts of stuffed monstosities. Take a look at some fo the stuff Wrightson has done for his ongoing Frankenstein Alive Alive! series, if you don't beleive me.

Quigsnip: The Untold Tale of Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist

Here is the "Oliver Twist" pastiche story that I have just completed!

http://www.amazon.com/Quigsnip-Untold-Charles-Dickens-Oliver/dp/150063476X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409418750&sr=1-1&keywords=quigsnip



Here is an excerpt, BTW:

“You stole the money, Oliver! That you did! The money's here, Oliver!” Quigsnip held forth the familiar silk sack containing the inheritance money. “It's all here, Oliver! I checked! Oh, what a kind, brave, selfless, lad you are! Such a pity not one farthing will be spent on account of the children!”

“N-no!” cried Oliver, his thin, soprano voice nearly breaking with anguish, “You're lying!” But in his despairing heart, Oliver knew his monstrous captor spoke the truth.

“Am I?” roared Quigsnip, his voice filling with fury. “Just wait, boy, until the London Times runs the article! 'Oliver Twist Guilty of Robbing Shaftesbury's Charity!'” He snatched a letter from his pocket and held it out for Oliver to see. “And here is irrefutable proof of your guilt, and your personal indictment Dr. Losberne, right on this letter in your own handwriting! Not even your contemptible family can spare you now! Now, not even your dear Rose and Mr. Brownlow will believe you!”

“NOOOOOOOOO!” wailed Oliver, in anguished misery. The boy fell on his knees, head downcast.

The men jeered at him.

Limbkins, though he would not liked to have admitted it, was terribly unsettled at the moment, more so now by the boy's harrowing cry.

Noah swaggered over to where Oliver slumped. “'Ow do ya like it now, Nolly?” the older lad sneered. “'Ow's that fer breaking my nose back at Sowerberry's?”

To Claypole's astonishment, the smaller boy sprang to life. Oliver sprang from his position like a stroke of lightening and drove his small, hard fist into Claypole's nose with savage force.

Noah reeled back, screaming and clutching his face.“My nose! 'Ee broke my bloody nose! Oliver broke it again!”

Oliver stood before his towering captors, tears of rage leaking down his cheeks, his small hands closed into fists.

“What are you dolts waiting for?” Quigsnip ordered. “Get him!”

Oliver stood his ground, but there was nothing such a small, slim boy could do against the burly adults. They seized the frail lad and dragged him to the edge of a pier.

“Now--”ordered the monstrous Quigsnip. “Bind him.”

The men bound Oliver's arms behind his back with heavy ropes. Two of them carried concrete blocks over to where they had Oliver bound.

“Do his feet,” Quigsnip ordered.

They lashed the heavy weights to Oliver's thin legs.

As the boy stood in a stupor of despair, arms and legs bound on the edge of the pier, Quigsnip ordered his gang to step back.

Oliver was past caring. If what Quigsnip said was the truth, he didn’t care if he died.

Quigsnip stepped forward, an oily grin on his face. “And so I bid you a final farewell, young Oliver Twist. At last you've paid the price for the money I've lost, and for what your family did to me, the richest crime-lord in London! You'll serve as a prime of example of why no one ever crosses Zebedias Quigsnip and lives to boast of it! Know that that doctor friend of yours will pay along with you! Despair, young Oliver—and die!

With that, Quigsnip slashed out savagely with one leg. His booted foot smashed into the boy's middle with tremendous force. The wind knocked out of him, Oliver was propelled backward by the force. The bound boy flew of the pier. The polluted water surged over his head.

In seconds, Oliver was swallowed by the Thames.

Quigsnip: The Untold Tale of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist"

                  

                          Quigsnip

        The Untold Tale of

                                        Charles Dickens'

 

              OLIVER TWIST

           

Jacob T. Marley by William Bennet

     This is an interesting little book that I happened to read the Christmas before last at the local library, essentially in one sitting. A lot of people probably wonder why Dickens didn't delve deeper into the personal history of Jacob Marley, Scrooge's ill-fated partner in Carol, especially since he was so central to the story. Unlike his more famous business partner,we learn nothing of Marley's childhood or younger years, only that he lived much of his life as a ruthless business man.
    
      Just who was Jacob Marley? What made him into the sort of man he became, and how did he and Scrooge meet? The answers to those questions and others come to light in R. William Bennett's small novella. There have been a number of pastiches of A Christmas Carol over the years, two of the most memorable for me, being God Bless Us Everyone, a book detailing the years following Scrooge's conversion, and Christmas Carol II, The Sequel, a spoofy version that finds Scrooge going too far in the other direction, hosted by George Burns back in 1986. No pastiche is or should be considered canonical; however Bennet's tale is not only better than most, it fills out what the life of Marley may well have been like. One almost wishes for Dickens' stamp of approval--though what the author's opinion would be is anyone's guess.

      One more thing: the author does deal with the issue of Marley's salvation. When we meet in the story, it appears that Marley is a lost soul, doomed to an eternity of hopeless wandering. Not tom divulge the ending, but the author comes up with a scenario in which this might not necessarily be the case, and he does without altering anything that Dickens wrote in the original. I've also read that the author happens to be a Mormon; as I'm only marginally familiar with the Mormon concept of an afterlife, so I can't say for certain to what degree that might have shaped his writing.

But Jacob T. Marley is a worthy "sequel", and one well-worth picking up. 

The Faith of Charles Dickens

       In God and Charles Dickens, Christian author Gary L. College argues that Dickens was an important Christian voice, and the messages of faith that his stories are rife with are seldom discussed or appreciated. Some have argued that Dickens was only nominally a Christian, and even that his works were overtly anti-religious. While it is very true that the author was very critical of how the tenants of the Christian faith were abused or preached hypocritically by those in power, a closer reading of his text reveals that Dickens was NOT condemning Christianity itself--far from it. As I've argued elsewhere, citing hypocrisy among Christians (or those who identify themselves as such)is a very poor way of finding fault with the faith itself. In fact, as College argues, it was the Christian faith of Charles Dickens that lead him to attack hypocrisy he identified in the religious as he sought to change it. The subject of Victorian religious hypocrisy brings almost immediately to my mind the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Bumble in Oliver Twist, the gross, hypocritical Mr. Bumble in particular famous for preaching Christian charity with wallowing in gluttony in front of the starving poor. A line from the 1982 movie stands out in particular, spoken by the future Mrs. Bumble: "Forgive these children their sins; their sinners every one of them; they wouldn't be here is they wasn't. Help me make them better Christians, Lord." Also of particular not note is the incident in the book where Mr. Bumble deliberately lies to Mr. Brownlow about Oliver's good nature.
      College spends time discussing a little-known work of the author, The Life of Our Lord, in which he expounds on the life and acts of Jesus Christ, and their relevance to his present world. This work is little known precisely because it was never intended to be sold to the public; it was a private work intended as a guide to Christian living for his children, and only brought to light years after his death. But even a casual reading of Dickens reveals what amounts to an essentially Christian world-view. While A Christmas Carol is sometimes criticized by the religious as almost entirely secular, Tiny Tim Crachit's enduring phrase God Bless Us, Everyone!, and Bob Crachit's observation of Tim's wish that people would see he was a cripple so that they should remember "Who made lame men walk and blind men see," speak volumes, as do the final pages of Oliver Twist, which reference God and heaven and speak of the narrator's belief that the shade of Agnes Fleming (Oliver's deceased mother) will visit her gravesite. College goes further, pointing out the good characters in Dickens' novels exemplify Christian values, while his villains demonstrate their antithesis.
   One thing that struck me in particular while reading this was how much emphasis Dickens placed on human charity and working for the common good, and how this so contrasts with today's evangelism, in which "good works" are continually downplayed, sometimes to the point of vilification, while "faith" is exulted. Often (though not always) such evangelists recognize that a saving faith will produce works, though it does not always come across that way. Dickens, however, put the importance of charity and defense of the weak, poor, and disenfranchised at the forefront of Christian living. Nor did he confine such philanthropy to his fiction; as College shows, Dickens own life shows much evidence of personal charity.
    So different from the culture-war oriented evangelism of today that often dumbs down faith to a "get out of hell free card." Not that Dickens disbelieved in or disregarded hell's existence: he did not. College provides passages where Dickens strongly suggests that certain non-repentant characters, such as Fagin and Sikes in Oliver Twist, and Rigaud in Little Dorrit were beyond moral redemption at the time of their deaths.
      Curiously, however, College neglects to mention a very powerful presentation of a damned soul, perhaps the most powerful in literature: Jacob Marley. However, as I'll discuss in my next post, it is possible that Marley was not as beyond moral redemption as one might have thought--although I'll say right now that that is according to a different author's interpretation.
  

BBC's Recent Great Expectations--the Gothic Dickens

I wasn't really sure about starting a blog on Charles Dickens, as I figure there may not be many posts for it in the near future, though I could be wrong. I'm reading two works about Dickens right now.  I've read a number of his books, mostly during my college years--though with only one real exception--out side of class. Most classes, in fact, avoid reading Dickens, mainly because of the length and complexity of most of his novels. The only one we did actually read was Hard Times, a good novel so far as his harsh critic of the Victorian industrial conditions and attitudes, but hardly his most important work or his best. There was class offered every once in a blue moon which specialized in Dickens, and offered a Marxist approach to his work, but I was never able to take.

I'm familiar with a lot of Dickens' films though, especially back during the eighties era--see my Clive Donner blog for descriptions of that director's version of Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol. Those films, along with the Chris Sanderson version of A Tale of Two Cities, were shown on CBS TV as part of their "Read More About It" program. The extravagant Royal Shakespeare company version of Nicholas Nickleby, starring Roger Rees as Nicholas (you might remember him as Scrooge's nephew Fred in George Scott's Carol) was shown on ABC. It was PBS, however, that showed the most productions, however, as part of masterpiece theater, including one biography of the author's life, called Dickens of London, which I was able to acquire only fairly recently.

Most of these were done by the BBC. It was their version of Great Expectations , first broadcast back in 1981, before I even knew anything of Dickens other than Carol, that I liked the best. Like other BBC productions Dickens, it stretched on for many episodes, in fact longer than it needed to be to encompass the richness of Dickens' writing. It was played straight, with all the significant details intact. Well, maybe not quite--I seem to recall that no mention was ever made that Compeyson, Magwitch's nemesis, also being the man who deserted Miss Havisham on her wedding night. This incident, in fact ,forms the entire basis for the plot of the story. Now, I won't exactly say that it was left out, merely not brought out, and I can't recall if it was mentioned in the recent 20011 version either. I do recall that the big-screen modernization back in the nineties, which starred Rober DeNiro, eliminated the Compeyson character altogather. This was a very significant error, as what happens in the story therefore makes little sense. The most recent adaptation of GE, initially released only in Britain, ommits Orlick, or so I've heard. This also would create problems, especially in relation to the fate of Pip's sister, but eliminating Compeyson is far more serious.

It's the 2011 version Great Expectations that concerns me here, though. What is most obvious upfront about this film, in common with quite a few other recent Dickens movies by the BBC, seems to be attempting to "modernize" Dickens text. An even more obvious example of this would be the 2007 version of Oliver Twist
with a jarringly modern soundtrack, a Fagin, played by Timothy Spall, who was nearly unrecognizable as the character Dickens created, and which recast Nancy as a Black woman. Other recent BBC productions, such as Bleak House, take a dark, almost Gothic approach. This appears to be the approach they took here. The soundtrack for GE, the atmosphere and photography, seem even to suggest a horror tale. The entire film seems pervaded by a sinister air of lurking menace which is absent from any previous version. The moment when Magwitch reveals himself as Pip's benefactor, is in particular, rife with dark import.

Whether of not this is actually a "problem" with the movie, though, I'm not sure. The original obviously contains elements of the Gothic, the most obvious being Miss Havisham, draped in her wedding shall in her decaying mansion. The fact that this gothic atmosphere has invaded the entire film, however, is a bit disconcerting. Ironically, though, the character of Orlick is a creepy bug-eyed teenager in this film. He seems more like a juvenile bully, and is far less menacing than the burly, adult Orlick from 1981. Also, significantly, the scene near the end where Orlick captures and threatens Pip with death is absent. Miss Havisham is appropriately spidery, and emaciated looking, as well as a bit younger than she is generally portrayed. The character of Bentley Drummle is arrogant, swaggering and rather handsome in this version, compared to the 1981 film when he merely smarmy and oafish. Both Drummles manage to be thoroughly despicable, though the 1981 is perhaps a bit more so. Still it's easier to see in this version why Drummle presents Pip with a serious rival.

Though this version exceeds two hours, it is shorter by far than the rambling 1981 version. Most of the significant episodes manage to remain, though many have been shortened or revamped to fit the shorter running time.

One subtle, though very significant, change from Dickens' novel takes place in during the early scene in which Pip brings food and a file to Magwitch. In the book (and the other film versions as near as I recall), Magwitch threatens the boy into bringing him both the file and food. In this version, he demands the file only. But Pip, being the good-hearted young lad that he is, brings him his tyrannical sister's Christmas cake anyway. This seemingly insignificant fact comes to light years later, after Magwitch finally reveals his identity :"the file you took because you were scared--but the cake you took because of the goodness of your heart."

This is one of the rare incidents in which I beleive the writers actually one-upped Dickens. The author seemingly intended for Pip's bringing the convict what he needed to demonstrate the boy's compassion, yet the fact that he did so out of fear undermines this. Pip's compassion is, in fact, evident, in his concern for Magwitch's alleged companion (who, in fact, he has been told is a murdering psychopath!), when he asks Magwitch if he will not share the cake with his friend. But this is merely incidental to what actually occurs in the story. Having Pip bring Magwitch the cake on his own steam not only makes of point of the boy's compassion, but also makes more sense in light of what Magwitch does for him as a return favor. It never quite made sense that the convict would go to all that trouble for a lad whom he'd merely frightened into helping him.

Like the 1982 and 2007 versions of Oliver Twist it makes the protagonist more heroic--in those versions Oliver takes his bowl up for another starving boy, unlike the book, in which the boys drew lots and Oliver lost. Oversights by Dickenss in my opinion.

Still, the Gothic atmosphere which pervades this production makes the story seem overly bleak. And in regard to "modernization" of the classics, this, in general may be a bleak sign--that the great literature of the past may be less versatile than previously thought. Otherwise, if the work be a classic, why modernize it?