To Gregg and other posters: I offer a few final thoughts on these issues with good intention and goodwill towards all posters here. I didn't intend to stir a dust devil with my error points on Powers' book. For all I know, lurking behind that snowy beard is a gem of a man, kind to children, puppies, and librarians. But it's not Powers the man I wrote of, but his historical work of biography, and a good work it is, overall. Allow me to repeat, a good work, overall. I absolutely loved his prior work on Sam's youth, "Dangerous Water." It filled an important place in scholarship and understanding of Clemens. A biography is inherently "scholarly." This does not mean it is dry, unreadable or in any way having less literary or entertainment value. Readability and scholarship are not mutually exclusive, after all. But, scholarly or not, entertaining or not, it is either accurate or not, which was my only point. If Powers wanted to write a work of historical fiction, then pointing out errors would indeed be focusing on the bark of an imaginary tree in a fairyland forest. I see nothing in the book itself as to this "agenda" you say the man had in writing a biography. Where is it in the work? If he had such an intent, I'd think it would shine out from an introduction. It tickles my wonder why he would have such an "agenda" with such a work. But they say ignorance is bliss, which may explain why I'm so damned happy. So, I hardly think the need for accuracy has to be questioned when it comes to a biography. This may be some Marxist-Postmodernist plot I'm unaware of, some slipstream of Derrida, or one of those salon top ten-ers. Leeway is allowed for memoir, although, not so much as to write fiction (Jason who?) And, this isn't chemistry, where 2 parts per million of a substance makes it "pretty pure." TV journalism or not, it's either historically accurate or it falls short. I was appalled at the errors in Ken Burns' treatment of Clemens. Should we just call such stuff "good enough for government work"? Are correct dates really a minor issue? Each will furnish his own answer. I won't burden you with repeating mine. I may be a wild idealist, believing that history requires accuracy of available facts. Those facts unavailable can certainly be aimed at, guessed, or ignored--such is the fun of piecing together a historical record. With Sam's life, we have Paine, Wecter, Hill, Branch, Smith, and a cast of hundreds (if not thousands) who have gone before and spent their life juices researching these facts so that an accurate record will emerge. Why not at least check the facts before a major biography is printed? Why say that in today's world we're simply too busy for such checking? Why be lazy? And if you want to compare Sam to Metalica or Captain Kirk, well, that's simply style points, for or against depending on the taste buds, and a separate issue. Forgive me, Gregg, but I don't understand the agenda you ascribe to Powers-- a desire to "engage" America's so-called "current culture of political antagonism"? You could have fooled me--I thought it was a biography of Sam Clemens. Forgive my blindness and be kind enough to enlighten an old history buff. I purely missed the politics. Could be I blocked those out with all the recent campaign ads. From my study of American history, there's always been a rich tradition of political antagonism, from Washington being accused of desiring a throne, to Lincoln suffering the most despicable insults, to Clinton's cigar and the ever-popular Bush-bashing. Such is politics. I wonder though, if what you say really was Powers' aim, why he chose Sam's life to pursue it? Though Sam uttered many things about politics, and even had a few stints connected to government (Nevada and Washington), he wasn't in any real way a political animal, and detested the corruption he saw in American politics. My guess is that several might step up to argue Sam was indeed a political animal and I concede this is so to a point. So, forgive me, but you've lost me with all that. And I failed to see any personal criticism of you or anyone here, either. Of course, every venue has it's own sordid history, and I'm a rather new bird on the perch who hasn't examined closely the droppings that splatter below. David H Fears PS. As far as grading poetry, my position would pretty much be with Sam's opinion of poetry, though I'm told there *are* certain conventions that make "good" poetry. Your analogy fails on its face; poetry is not biography, is not prose, is not a rose on your toes.