In preparing for teaching William Dean Howells' _The Rise of Silas Lapham_
this week, I was struck by some of the contemporary comment over his novel
that I always considered very safe and conventional.  (This has Mark Twain
content--just stay with me, as Br'er Perot would say).  From the Norton
Critical Edition, I could see some of the astute contemporary reviewers, but
several were incredibly hostile.  What surprised me were the 1880s readers
who
saw this novel as so inartistic, so threatenting.  For one thing, his
publishers freaked out over his use of the word "dynamite" in a clearly
sarcastic comment by Bromfield Corey.  Apparently, there was so much concern
over anarchists that merely to say the word was considered verboten.  Even
more interestingly, some reviewers felt that Howells was undermining all art
with what they felt was his "scientific" novel, devoid of all humanity and
aesthetics.

Here's my Mark Twain point:  _Silas Lapham_ was published serially in the
_Century_ magazine, as was _Huckleberry Finn_, in 1885.  Here was Howells, a
respected writer, being pilloried for being "low," by the same audience that
first read _HF_.  To me, this puts in perspective just how radical Huck must
have seemed to such an audience.  I can't imagine any novel being less
"dangerous" than _Silas Lapham_ (damn good, but hardly subversive or
dangerous), and I can think of few novels MORE dangerous and subversive than
Huck.  So wouldn't that audience be just blown away?  Ah, those Victorians!