Some notes on that "one page" currently under discussion. (Sigh, again.) Firstly, that page carries considerable history with it. Ironically, it was at an Elmira conference eight years ago that the author first presented his theories to the Twain community, so no one was surprised when he published them in a lengthy article in AMERICAN LITERATURE. The process of alienation began in earnest, for some, when the author stated in that article that those who disagreed with his conclusions must be bigoted regarding gay writers. I don't recall if that is a direct quote, but I do recall many stating they resented being branded something they weren't. Many felt the argument lacked merit for a number of valid reasons including a lack of credible evidence and a syllogism built on weak premises. It's my understanding that some readers of the books' MS advised the author to tone down or delete the material in question, but as you know, this advice wasn't taken. Had this happened and the theory been left to the pages of AMERICAN LITERATURE for scholars to wrangle over, the long-term response to the book could have been something quite different. Rather, publicity for the book centered on this "one page" which made the controversy the central issue in its promotions. I watched one C-SPAN presentation in which the author told the audience, in response to a question, that the Twain community agreed with his conclusions. This was never the case and the claim further eroded the author's credibility. In short, the emphasis on this "one page" came from the author himself. Eight years have gone by which has meant the controversy has long, long, long lost any importance and gratefully, rightfully so. But the suggestion that anyone recommend the book despite this mostly forgotten "page" amounts to asking the Twain community to sanction a distortion most know to be misleading. This is especially true when general readers want to know what source is considered the best of the best. I'm not opposed to interpretative biography--my own dissertation is primarily interpretative and nothing in it can be called "definitive." That's what the gentleman was asking about, and that we don't have. There's nothing wrong with being speculative or interpretative, so long as the theory is stated as such and not fact. That's why we have to be careful about using that word, "definitive." .