If memory serves, Ken noted in his comments after the second hour that the Mark Twain of his documentary was "his" Mark Twain, that is, the Twain he discovered in his studies. As someone noted earlier, there was nothing in the final act about the legacy of Mark Twain, either positive or negative. This signaled to me he wasn't trying to present a consensus view of Sam, present all the various reactions to him in the public or academia after his death, and he and his team provided little literary analysis at all other than the time spent on Huck. I see his work as biography and not a "Great Books" study, and most of the commentary regarded his wit and wisdom in general rather than the meanings of the major works in particular. He noted Clemens early disinterest in race, spent a healthy chunk of time showing his growing awareness of racial insensitivity--"A True Story"--his quick overview of HF, and a complimentary note on PW. And other references noted here by others. But the emphasis was on Twain, not his readers. So how much more time should be devoted to the subject when Burns was also responsible for every other element of the Clemens' household from beginning to end? Burns clearly saw Twain as someone who became more attuned to racial issues as he grew, how he used the issue in his writings, and that was the extent of his scope. Fair enough? Why not? I hope to see the day where it is fair to discuss Huck without apologies. The controversies are so old, so well-trodden, that they dominate all discussion. In this sense, speaking of the book as one finds it without going over well-covered ground might be considered a fresh approach. Does all discourse on the book need be defensive?