> Professor Bush, I am gratified that I could say anything which would
> surprise you. My response was not intended to be dismissive. I regret you
took
> it as
> such. I've just posted a somewhat more expansive view of my
position--which
> is simply, that one must consult the writer's stated intention  when
> speculating about the motivations of fictional characters--especially in
such
> cases as
> Clemens, where the historical record is high, wide and deep. And  thank
you
> as well for the compliment that my remarks sound like a  non-teacher.

Dear Mr. Fears; Your comments ARE dismissive, and unless I read you wrong,
you certainly did intend them to be.  Either you are oblivious to this, or
you are subject to the kinds of stretchers Twain himself often made up.
Even here you imply that non-teachers are preferable to teachers of the
subject--it is a dismissive comment toward all of us teachers on here, which
I am sure is the vast majority of this board.  By non-teacher, I meant to
suggest someone not very familiar with what novels are, how they work, and
why we even teach them.

 Anyway, the "surprise" that I wished to highlight was that a reasonably
intelligent reader would make such dubious claims about novels.  It is OK to
consult an author's stated intentions but there is this thing called the
"intentional fallacy" that you might want to look into --not exactly a new
idea.  There is also this tendency in Twain to create similar stretchers.
Do you actually believe all the stuff he said??  If so, that really is a
surprise.


Dr. Harold K. Bush, Jr.
Saint Louis University