To Gregg and other posters:

I offer a few final thoughts on these issues with good  intention and
goodwill towards all posters here. I didn't intend to stir a  dust devil
with my
error points on Powers' book. For all I know, lurking  behind that snowy
beard is
a gem of a man, kind to children,  puppies, and librarians.  But it's not
Powers the man I wrote of, but his  historical work of biography, and a good
work
it is, overall. Allow me to  repeat, a good work, overall. I absolutely
loved
his prior work on Sam's youth,  "Dangerous Water." It filled an important
place in scholarship and understanding  of Clemens.

A biography is inherently "scholarly." This does not  mean it is dry,
unreadable or in any way having less literary or entertainment  value.
Readability
and scholarship are not mutually exclusive, after all.

But, scholarly or not, entertaining or not, it is  either accurate or not,
which was my only point.  If Powers wanted to  write a work of historical
fiction, then pointing out errors would indeed be  focusing on the bark of
an
imaginary tree in a fairyland forest.

I see nothing in the book itself as to this "agenda"  you say the man had in
writing a biography. Where is it in the work?  If he had such an intent, I'd
think it would shine out from an introduction. It  tickles my wonder why he
would have such an "agenda" with such a work. But they  say ignorance is
bliss,
which may explain why I'm so damned happy.

So, I hardly think the need for accuracy has to be  questioned when it comes
to a biography. This may be some Marxist-Postmodernist  plot I'm unaware of,
some slipstream of Derrida, or one of those salon top  ten-ers. Leeway is
allowed for memoir, although, not so much as to write  fiction (Jason who?)
And,
this isn't chemistry, where 2 parts per million of a  substance makes it
"pretty
pure." TV journalism or not, it's either historically  accurate or it falls
short. I was appalled at the errors in Ken Burns' treatment  of Clemens.
Should
we just call such stuff "good enough for government  work"?

Are correct dates really a minor issue? Each will  furnish his own answer. I
won't burden you with repeating mine. I may be a  wild idealist, believing
that history requires accuracy of available  facts. Those facts unavailable
can
certainly be aimed at, guessed, or  ignored--such is the fun of piecing
together a historical record. With Sam's  life, we have Paine, Wecter, Hill,
Branch,
Smith, and a cast of hundreds (if not  thousands) who have gone before and
spent their life juices researching these  facts so that an accurate record
will
emerge. Why not at least check the facts  before a major biography is
printed?
Why say that in today's world we're simply  too busy for such checking? Why
be lazy? And if you want to compare Sam to  Metalica or Captain Kirk, well,
that's simply style points, for or against  depending on the taste buds, and
a
separate issue.

Forgive me, Gregg, but I don't understand the agenda  you ascribe to
Powers--
a desire to "engage" America's so-called "current  culture of political
antagonism"? You could have fooled me--I thought it was a  biography of Sam
Clemens.   Forgive my blindness and be kind enough to  enlighten an old
history buff.
I purely missed the politics. Could be I blocked  those out with all the
recent campaign ads.

From my study of American history, there's always been  a rich tradition of
political antagonism, from Washington being accused of  desiring a throne,
to
Lincoln suffering the most despicable insults, to  Clinton's cigar and the
ever-popular Bush-bashing. Such is politics.

I wonder though, if what you say really was Powers'  aim, why he chose Sam's
life to pursue it? Though Sam uttered many things about  politics, and even
had a few stints connected to government (Nevada and  Washington), he wasn't
in
any real way a political animal, and detested the  corruption he saw in
American politics. My guess is that several might step up  to argue Sam was
indeed a
political animal and I concede this is so to a point.

So, forgive me, but you've lost me with all that. And I failed to  see any
personal criticism of you or anyone here, either. Of course, every venue
has
it's own sordid history, and I'm a rather new bird on the perch who hasn't
examined closely the droppings that splatter below.

David H Fears

PS. As far as grading poetry, my position would pretty much be with  Sam's
opinion of poetry, though I'm told there *are* certain conventions that
make
"good" poetry.  Your analogy fails on its face; poetry is not  biography, is
not
prose, is not a rose on your toes.