I admit, I'm sitting in the stands with peanuts and beer enjoying the present duel regarding the new Kaplan book. While not having read that opus yet, I thought I'd share a few notions from the peanut gallery. First, I sympathize with Mr. Kaplan regarding the proofreading brewhaha. My new book (SPY TELEVISION, Prager, 2004--available at Amazon.com) went through a rigorous process of editing, proofreading, and copy-editing. In fact, three copy-editors found all sorts of minutia to call to my attention. (For example, never use "madmen" to refer to nefarious villains--madwomen might be offended by the omission.) Still, when my freshly-minted copy arrived last week, one caption to a photograph of the cast of "24" leaped out at me--"case" instead of "cast." You just can't scrub 'em clean. (I hereby refer to Anne Bradstreet and her great poem about her verse as children.) Second, I thought of one aspect of reviewing we often can't avoid--discussing the book the author didn't write. As in all those suggestions that Huck would have been a better novel had Twain turned right at Cairo instead of going south. This is a bit different from writing non-fiction, but when a bio is as complex as Twains, I'm always skeptical about notes on what was left out. This is why, I suspect, we find it easier to praise books that deal with specific periods of Sam's life, from Emerson's *Authentic Mark Twain* to that troublesome Pulitzer Prize winner. (Which reminds me of one student blooper I once got--the "Pullet Surprise." But I digress.) Speaking of, I was also bemused by the continuing references to Ham Hill's *God's Fool.* If memory serves, that book didn't lack for controversial responses when it first appeared. I recall Ham telling me he would have changed some things and tinkered more with the tone after some time had passed and he had time for deeper reflection. Do I take it the book has now become "unblemished" and a mirror to judge other bios by? Me, I still think it was one of the best--again, a book focused on one period. But I do remember the criticism about the book wasn't about what wasn't in it but what was. Lastly, I'm not sure it's fair to blast blurbs on book jackets. Me, I didn't see mine until the book arrived. True, I wrote most of it before the publicists did their magic. Come to think of it, by the time most readers check out the book in libraries, the dust jacket will be gone. (My wife tells me I treat my new book like a newborn child, and the dust jacket is the diaper. But, again, I digress.) Last, I think Mr. Kaplan noted in his counter-review that his book points to complexities in Twain's singularity. Hmm. Makes me wonder if someone out there will now write a bio that will say Justin Kaplan didn't go far enough--that mere duality doesn't begin to show the multi-faceted, ever-changing, and usually complicated life of Sam Clemens. Wes Britton P.S. Yes, I know brouhaha is misspelled. Refer to first sentence.