RE: David DePauw's post Twain's own account of his efforts with _PW_ both affirms one aspect of your point and denies the bulk of it. That is, he did not deliberately set out to create an interpretive labyrinth; he simply set out to "tell a story, a very little story." But he soon discovered that the story became a labyrinth all on its own. From our contemporary perspective, the idea of a story or its characters wresting control from the author is dubious. So, ruling out the deliberate authorial act, we have a more complex explanation of the unconscious act. The interpretive labyrinth that emerges from _PW_ and its precursor "Those Extraordinary Twins" can't so easily be waved away with simplistic appeals to beauty, enjoyment, and economics. Come to think of it, even those three--when taken critically--are fairly complex all on their own. --Larry Howe -----Original Message----- From: David L. DePauw <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Monday, February 14, 2000 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Pudd'nhead? President? >Please understand from at least one Mark Twain fan, that I think so many of >the people who responded to your message missed one very important >thing....Mister Clemens was writing to entertain those who read >him....perhaps with subtle messages entertwined, but I do not believe he ever >intended to deliberately create the labrythinian and grossly convoluted >interpretations that so many of your respondents claim to have discovered in >his writings.....the man wrote because he enjoyed it, because it gave other's >enjoyment, and because it gave him a way of making a living. Period. > Twain himself once observed when reflecting upon the rainbow, that we >have not the reverence for it that the savage had...for we understand it, and >have therefore lost more than we've gained in the bargain. Be wary of those >who would dissect something that is beautiful in an attempt to understand >it's inner workings. Often, it's beautiful just ....because it's beautiful. > That's Twain.