If memory serves, Ken noted in his comments after the second hour that the
Mark Twain of his documentary was "his" Mark Twain, that is, the Twain he
discovered in his studies.  As someone noted earlier, there was nothing in
the final act about the legacy of Mark Twain, either positive or negative.
This signaled to me he wasn't trying to present a consensus view of Sam,
present all the various reactions to him in the public or academia after his
death, and he and his team provided little literary analysis at all other
than the time spent on Huck.

I see his work as biography and not a "Great Books" study, and most of the
commentary regarded his wit and wisdom in general rather than the meanings
of the major works in particular.  He noted Clemens early disinterest in
race, spent a healthy chunk of time showing his growing awareness of racial
insensitivity--"A True Story"--his quick overview of HF, and a complimentary
note on PW.  And other references noted here by others. But the emphasis was
on Twain, not his readers.

So how much more time should be devoted to the subject when Burns was also
responsible for every other element of the Clemens' household from beginning
to end?  Burns clearly saw Twain as someone who became more attuned to
racial issues as he grew, how he used the issue in his writings, and that
was the extent of his scope.    Fair enough? Why not?

I hope to see the day where it is fair to discuss Huck without apologies.
The controversies are so old, so well-trodden, that they dominate all
discussion.  In this sense, speaking of the book as one finds it without
going over well-covered ground might be considered a fresh approach. Does
all discourse on the book need be defensive?