> My original point about Leckey's book > > , it attempts to trade
> on Twain's cultural capital for a personal gain, and in doing so risks
> divesting Twain of genuine cultural capital>
>
If Mark Twain cigars, lemons, pants, oysters, motorboats, and mink coats
haven't done this already, an investment book can do little further harm.

I think it's interesting that some commercialism reflects Twain's public
image, and some of it is just puzzling. What I find interesting is
determining which products that have exploited Twain's image have been
successful and which have failed. Mark Twain cigars were being marketed in
the 1880s and various makers were still selling them into the late 1930s.
Mark Twain pipes are sold today. Mark Twain flour was introduced in 1900 and
was sold until at least 1950. Mark Twain collars had a short life simply
because collars went out of style shortly after they were introduced. But
Mark Twain shirts were marketed in the late 1930s and were still being made
in the 1960s. So far as I can determine, Mark Twain lemons and oranges were
being sold as early as 1918, but were gone by 1930, possibly a victim of the
crash. While products fail for many reasons, do they succeed because they
exploit his image? And if they do, does this mean that certain products
reflect his cultural iconography better than others?


Kevin Mac Donnell
Austin TX