The following response to the book review of _The Singular Mark Twain_ was written for the Mark Twain Forum by Fred Kaplan: ~~~~~ I appreciate Kevin MacDonnell's effort to review my biography, _The Singular Mark Twain_, fairly & fully. But I think it only fair to return the kindness & to point out just a few of his many astounding errors. MacDonnell is outraged or at least distressed by the insufficiency of the bibliography. He makes much of this. I am as surprised as he is by its insufficiency since there is NO bibliography in the book. In his hasty reading, he has apparently mistaken the section (pp. 657-659) headed "Title Abbreviations" for a bibliography. No where is the word "bibliography" used. The section "Title Abbreviations" is a key to the abbreviations used in the end notes for works which I cite two or more times. Apparently MacDonnell so strongly believes that a biography for general readers should have a bibliography that he insists that my book has one, though a deficient one, even though it has none at all. Reasonable people can disagree about whether a biography requires a bibliography. But how a section called "Title Abbreviations" can be construed to be a "Bibliography" I'm at a loss to say. MacDonnell claims that "without naming him or even including his work in his bibliography, Fred Kaplan takes time to dismiss Justin Kaplan's portrayal of Twain.." On the contrary, I don't dismiss it--I give it high praise. To quote myself: "A special word is due about Justin Kaplan: he and his work have been a helpful presence over the years. With his wife, he was my host at their home one gray Cambridge day when I was working on a biography of James. I had then, as I have now, great admiration for _Mr. Clemens and Mr. Twain_. Though my own emphasis in creating a portrait of Twain is substantially different." (pp. 702-703). To say that I take "time" to dismiss it in the "Introduction" is to mistake the obvious point. I don't "dismiss" it at all. I simply emphasize that I take a different approach. Perhaps these two reading mistakes are connected to a motif that runs throughout--my failure to make expository & bibliographical bows to modern scholars. MacDonnell lists those whom he believes I've slighted or perhaps, so he seems to be saying, not even read, though I can't be sure that he is actually accusing me of the latter. Here too there is a principle at work, which MacDonnell either has not glimpsed or chooses to ignore: any scholar from whose work I quote is cited & acknowledged in the end notes. Numbers of scholars on his list are indeed so cited, including the estimable Hamlin Hill, whose fascinating book on Twain's last years I quote from. This seems to me a reasonable principle, though I grant that there can be rational disagreement about how best to acknowledge indebtedness. And I do also acknowledge my indebtedness, in a collective bow & then in addition to some by name, to Twain scholars not cited in the end notes but whose works provided some of the deep background for the book: "One of the pleasures of writing a biography of Mark Twain," I write on p. 702, "is to become aware of and to share in the goodwill and comity that characterize professional and nonprofessional Twainians. I am indebted to many of them for their published work and for their private encouragement. Though I have met most of them only through their publications, I do offer my celebratory testimony to the high quality of so much that they have accomplished, and & to the humane spirit that characterizes their discourse." MacDonnell's claim to the contrary, I do indeed rely heavily on the work of modern Twain scholars. MacDonnell seems to be accusing me of meanness of spirit in my acknowledgments, unless he is also accusing me of scholarly negligence. I only accuse him of being a poor reader. MacDonnell seems to have four primary substantive complaints: 1) that in this book of 726 pages I have left out incidents & specifics & discussions of Twain works that he thinks ought to be there; 2) that I have not discussed some of Twain's works fully enough & others not at all; 3) that there are many errors of fact & proofreading; 4) that the thesis is not sustained throughout. The first two observations have some accuracy. An earlier draft of the book, which was about 25% longer, might have satisfied more of MacDonnell's desires along these lines, though far from entirely. Apparently MacDonnell considers two lengthy chapters insufficient to narrate the last ten years of Twain's life. That space seemed to me appropriate & proportionate, & a reader especially interested in those years can go to Hill's book. But a biographer of the life as whole must pick & choose within certain constraints of length & form. And a balance needs to be maintained between being representative & being comprehensive. As a reviewer, MacDonnell's eye should be on why I've made the choices I've made. What he clearly does not see (at least he gives no indication that he has in an attempt to assess what I've done) is that my choices have been made in regard to which of numbers of similar incidents or statements contributes best & most economically to my overall portrait of Twain & to the structural balance of the book. Indeed there are errors, including the regrettable misspelling of "Kirch," though it seems ludicrous for a reviewer to be aghast at the misspelling having occurred seven times in the exposition & also in the index. It's in the nature of these things that if it's done once it's done consistently--otherwise the many proof-readings would have caught the inconsistency. In a book of this size especially & in books of every length, as all writers, editors, & publishers recognize, there will be a certain number of such gaffs, no matter how scrupulously those responsible attempt to vet the proofs. I daresay that the number of such errors in _The Singular Mark Twain_ falls on the short side for a book of such length & detail. I regret every such error. But I don't think there's a writer or editor alive who hasn't at some time been embarrassed in this way. I think we ought, though, as experienced professionals, to take Twain's approach to such matters: both furious expletives & stoic resignation, though of course not at the same time, & corrections in the next printing. MacDonnell's list of my alleged errors says more about himself as a reader/reviewer than it does about the book, especially when his own corrections of my errors are error filled. And his tend to be of an especially damaging kind, since many of them reflect on his capacity as a reader. For example, he states censoriously in his list of my sins that "at page 284 a long-delayed Bret Harte novel is mentioned but not named (_Gabriel Conroy, 1876)." But _Gabriel Conroy_ is named (& later indexed) in a discussion (pp. 331-332) of Harte's fury at Twain & Bliss whom he blames for the commercial failure of the novel. Since, at the time at issue at p. 284 in the narrative, Harte's novel did not yet have a name & since substantive discussion was being reserved for a later, more pertinent point in the narrative, I chose not to provide the reader with a piece of information the reader did not yet have any use for. How can MacDonnell not know this? Another example: MacDonnell writes that "the landscape of South Africa is said to have reminded Twain of Texas (p. 528); maybe it reminded Twain of what he'd heard or read about Texas, but Twain never stepped foot in Texas. Kaplan does not cite his Texas reference and the reader is left to wonder." What I did write (MacDonnell likes to change my words) is that "the brown-green landscape made him think of Texas." Not "reminded." There's a big difference. And the reference indeed is cited in an end note on p. 689 -- "NBK 38," an unpublished notebook from which the entire line of thought & the direct quotations on the bottom of p. 528 are taken. Only a poor reader would be "left to wonder." And what can one say about a reviewer who entertains the possibility that the author of a biography of Twain would not know that Twain had never been in Texas? One more example & I will desist: in this same list, McDonnell states that I am in error in claiming that Twain left Hartford for financial reasons. But in the full sweep of my narrative about the Twain withdrawal from Hartfordian paradise & his years abroad I stress that it became a self-exile more for emotional & psychological than for financial reasons. Twain quickly came to realize that his European life was very expensive. There were multiple reasons, though, for extending the exile, & for renewing it, the least of which was financial, though he dragged that rationale out whenever it served a convenient purpose. Now it's not a good thing to misspell "Kirch" but it's venal in comparison to MacDonnell's misdeeds. Like the three cited above, many of what he calls my "irritating errors" aren't errors at all, & though the book is far from error free (for example, MacDonnell is correct that Twain's hair wasn't "flowing white" in 1885) this is the kettle calling the pot black. McDonnell's list of my putative errors is filled with his errors & his careless inattention to what I've actually written. He messes up the Charlotte Teller material, he misses the reason why Lily Foote & some others aren't in the index, I do quote some of the erotic language in Susy's letters to Louise Brownell, & there is some evidence to surmise that there may have been an erotic element to the House/Kyoto relationship, which is all that I claim, etc, etc. What I take to be MacDonnell's central criticism, that the thesis is not sustained throughout--MacDonnell refers to the "virtual abandonment of the central theme of his original thesis"--seems to me unsustainable. If it is, MacDonnell offers no evidence or substantive argument to support it. In fact, he ignores the implicit dramatization throughout the narrative of the underlying claim about Twain's personality & self-projection. And of course the book does not attempt to "argue" a thesis. It attempts to show it, to dramatize it, to narrate it. It is implicitly there throughout, in the selection of the materials, in the shading & nuancing, in the overall portraiture. I attempted to make my selection & arrangement of the materials--complicated & complex & multi-leveled materials-speak simultaneously for themselves & for me, & also speak for Twain's complex singularity. I of course regret (in the impersonal sense) that I haven't conveyed Mark Twain's "spirit" to Mr. MacDonnell. It surely was not for want of trying. I felt Twain's spirit with me as I wrote. And I felt it in my final revisions & final reading. But we are all flawed creatures & can only do our best. And oddly, MacDonnell concludes that "for all of its many flaws, this story of Twain's life is as good as any full-length biography to appear in the last thirty years, but Kaplan's Twain is not singular, and his biography is not definitive." What a bizarre left-handed compliment! Apparently all--there aren't many, are there?--full-length biographies that have appeared in the last 30 years are no better than this one. And why "last thirty years?" What full length biography immediately prior to 1974 does he have in mind? Surely not _Mr. Clemens and Mr. Twain_, since it's not a full length biography. And where did he get the idea that I or anyone connected with _The Singular Mark Twain_ thought or think it is "definitive." Not even the publisher's jacket copy or publicity material says that. I certainly have never said this in writing or in speech. This is the reviewer's invention. In this case & in regard to many other accusations in the review neither the author nor the publisher can be impeached. The reviewer can be. Fred Kaplan