Janice-- I'm not sure that I agree that we can't "protect" Twain's image. I'm not imagining the Mark Twain Forum or the Circle as keepers of the flame. No doubt, there is a wide range of views about what that image is even among Twain fans and scholars. As you point out, his own practices and the trajectory of his career had as much to do with that as anything else. But however differently we may interpret that image, I think it's safe to say that we treat it with an appropriate degree of sincerity. Leckey's book, and a more egregious example that I reviewed a couple of years back, strike me as problematically lacking in sincerity. It would be one thing if Twain had sold his image to sell stove-polish, but when others simply appropriate it without any substantive connection, I think we have a obligation to comment. Those who attempt to cash in on that image irresponsibly do so because they can. If such gestures of appropriation were questioned or challenged, perhaps marketers would think twice. If a marketer attempts to imitate or project an image of a living celebrity without paying for it, a civil trial ensues, and damages paid. Why shouldn't we have a similar sense of propriety even when legal recourse isn't at stake? In some cases even more is at stake than the commercial success of a product. In contemporary politics, for example, candidates embrace the images of past leaders to a degree that is shameless and laughable; but if those candidates aren't made to account for these gestures--remember Lloyd Bentsen's, "I knew John Kennedy. You, senator, are no John Kennedy"--the critical discourse of the political process degenerates. I've wandered somewhat from the question of Twain's image, but that example is important because it represents a larger cultural trend with deep consequences both for how we know Mark Twain and how we use rhetoric responsibly. I hesitate to put Louis Budd on the spot because I have a lot of respect for his work. But I wonder what he thinks of Leckey's book in light of the questions it generates. Christmas's review makes it sound like his preface was the only aspect of the book that was relevant to Twain at all. LH