Edelman did an interesting critique of some very prominent films, but the critique of Scrooge and A Christmas Carol takes the cake for me. I don't know if Dickens was attempting to say anything that Edelman reads into, except for the idea that children are the key to the future. Honestly, I don't know enough about Dickens to know if he was attempting to depict salvation of the death drive through A Christmas Carol, but the setting does not seem right and it looks like by adding his critique unto it Edelman attempts to blur the line between "reality" and reality. He throws his world view onto a piece of work that was written in a different time with a different intention in order to achieve his own end. He creates a false reality, the world in which A Christmas Carol takes place, with his "reality" of twenty first century America. I think we have to take a look at some of his assumptions and beliefs before we can say with any certainty that his critique has merit.
On the top of page 57, Edelman is critiquing Silas Marner and is the midst of describing how Marner reaches salvation through mistaking a young girl's curly blond hair for gold on New Year's Eve. He makes the point that it seems like a the perfect storm for salvation; he change from all of his evil misery ways into the futurist he should be. I jokingly/sarcastically wrote in the margin "God does wonderful things" as the only "one" who could change such a man. In my mind I was referring to all those crazy people out there that think Jesus is the only salvation for homosexuality and how ridiculous that concept is. However, the next two paragraphs go onto explain how God was the one behind it all and that he takes the form of the girl to sake Marner. I thought the irony was beautiful. (I think his critique is biting with sarcasm or something along those lines when he explains it was "god's work")
"Its sources in history no less deep because not different from those of fascism, this force that acts on Benjamin, this unidentified "power," might well be seen as what I've called 'the fascism of the baby's face', which subjects us to its sovereign authority as the figure of politics itselfâ€¦" (151) Edelman hates babies ïŠ. I believe he places too much power in the figure of the baby or child. While they are definitely important and a focus in politics, to claim they are the sole reason behind every decision seems extremist to me. There are not absolutes in politics and if one day it becomes more important politically to champion elderly rights or middle age men's rights, then politicians will follow the winds of public opinion. He seems to expound on his thesis so much that it becomes overbearing and unbelievable. I let the book where I started: this guy has several interesting points, but is too out there to be taken seriously. He should follow the rules of politics if he wants to achieve anything and somehow maintain the child as an undertone of his critique if he wants to sway people to his belief. He should state the "unstateable" for him and equate the Child to the sithomosexual.