Folks;  I've been asked to say something wise and possibly witty about the
cultural response to MT's AUTOBIOGRAPHY; now that we are well over a year
past its appearance, I'm wondering if anyone knows of some good essays or
anything that takes a "deeper" look at the phenomenon of the new edition.
I'm pretty familiar with the basic stuff that a database search turns up:
Garrison Keillor, Harper's, NY Review, NYT Book Review, etc., etc.

This topic might lend itself to becoming an excellent panel discussion for
next summer in Elmira, and I might even go so far as to try putting
something together.  So I'd be very interested in hearing anyone's views on
one or more of the following (and of course I can "borrow" shamelessly from
any good ideas floated here, for my other lecture until next summer, like
those melons in AHF).  Of course, if anyone shares my interest in a panel
for next year at Elmira on this topic, please contact me directly.

 Such approaches, for example, might address the following types of
questions about the new edition:

Why was it so hugely popular?  On the one hand, cover stories at Newsweek,
Time, USA Today, People, NPR, et al....

Why did many readers/ reviewers find it dull, or disappointing?  What
should we make of that phenomenon?  In particular, and on the other hand,
what should we make of the sheer amount of negative response to MT seen in
many reviews?  There is a surprising amount of NEGATIVE criticism of MT's
meandering memories.... something we are not always used to with the King.

What about the con aspect of the publication:  I'm very interested in how
so many reviewers felt the need to point out much of the first volume had
already appeared in various forms, as if that were breaking news.  This is
a major theme of the reviews and so I'd like any reflections on that
aspect.  It also sometimes implicates the Berkeley Press and the Papers for
"conning" the public into purchasing the large book, and "implying" that is
had been hidden in a vault for 100 years.  The comment about the vault
comes directly from one review I read.

What does the new edition provide for the Twain scholar?  How is it useful
to the Twain scholar?  What, if anything, does it change?

What particular new sections (never before in print) seem most important or
valuable?

What does this (scholarly) edition suggest about encounters between the
popular press & reading public, and the abstruse and niggling concerns of
the professional academic?  Is this conflict connected to the negativity
mentioned above, and if so, how/why??

At the very least I'm certainly curious to hear what anyone has to say off
the top of your collective heads on any of these items.

thanks, --Hal B.

-- 
Harold K. Bush, Ph.D
Professor of English
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO  63108
314-977-3616 (w); 314-771-6795 (h)
<www.slu.edu/x23809.xml>