I will second Michael Kiskis's recommending the edition he did of the dictations. It is very readable and wide-ranging, and full of good stories. I will also echo his statement about vast materials of those dictations (most made in the mid to late 1900s; esp. around 1905-1906 or so). Much of it is quite interesting, although like the fiction of the period full of false starts. Additionally, when working with this material, one must always be aware of the faulty memories, or the self-serving and vindictive memories. Having been away much of the summer, I should also like to say a couple things things about the long-winded concerning a "definitive" biography of Twain. 1. I think a better word might be a "standard" biography, of which there are several. Other major writers all seem to have a handful of such animals: for instance, Joan Hedrick's work on Harriet Beecher Stowe is now the standard work; or Edel's work on Henry James, or whatever. Of course each of these can be criticized--and have--for various reasons. But nobody would claim that they are "definitive," whatever that might mean. 2. I still think that the controversy over Andy Hoffman's detailed and quite informative biography is about more than just the surface issues on sexuality. For instance, several folks mentioned books that seem standard but are now recognized to have flaws, if not outright distortions. I am thinking of, for example, the Freudian bias of the works by Justin Kaplan and Hamlin Hill. However, we do not disqualify those works because of the misrepresentations that they have posited. Why disqualify Hoffman's book because it contains a similar misrepresentation? My point will undoubtedly just stir up the same old same old, but I must say that as much as I admire Hamlin Hill's book on the last decade, many of his conclusions appear to me to be quite wrong. Furthermore, he distorts the entire religious and spiritual aspect of those years. Yet I still find it a very valuable, and in a sense standard version of those years -- at least until someone comes along and surpasses it. Let us recall the words of eminent Twain biographer Everett Emerson when Hoffman's book first appeared: I hope that [Felker's] review will not keep Mark Twainians from reading the book, which contains much information not found elsewhere. . . . It is well paced, well-written, clear. The sexual issues identified in the review do not loom large in the book. Hoffman has done his homework. 3. Since every biography does contain distortions if not outright mistakes, or even bad derived conclusions, should we simply ignore everything else in the book? However, with the issues of sexuality, it seems that some have simply reached a limit--perhaps of decorum, or whatever. But I simply bring up the question of why one kind of possible distortion should be so strongly divisive while other kinds of distortions--dressed, perhaps, in "theoretical speculation"--do not. I am still trying to figure all of this out . . . . . Harold K. Bush, Ph. D. Saint Louis University