Bob, Prescient words, perceptive observation... Mark Twain is still the best medicine on the shelf. Mac On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Robert E Stewart <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Fascinating discussion. > I am reminded of Twain's comment at the beginning of Roughing It: > "...Its object is rather to help theresting reader while away an idle hour > than afflict him with metaphysics, or goad him with science. . . ." > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2012 7:23:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [log in to unmask] writes: > > J E Boles wrote: A journalist, as Mark Twain had been, has in his > experience the observation of enormous reader fear and reaction to the > printed word. He has likely noted the occasional piece of writing which > does turn around some social reality and make real change. Any former > journalist writing fiction might reasonably hope for such change as a > result of his works. Indeed, Twain's works are still making change today > > But for academics to declare a century and more later that Twain's works > were in any sense failures or flawed is ridiculous. Academic > declarations are not significant, compared to the overwhelming voice of > a whole people's continuous attention to a work of fiction. Twain's > characters and fictional events are permanently embedded in the entire > culture of the Western World, and always will be so. There can be no > greater achievement than that for a writer. The academic voice is > rarely heard, and seldom remembered, in contrast. > > > On 4/21/2012 3:45 PM, Lawrence Howe wrote: > > Dear forum-- > > > > I've really enjoyed the exchange that has been unfolding from Scott > Holmes = > > observation. Since my name and work was invoked at the beginning of > this t= > > hread, I feel obligated to qualify the basis of my characterization of > Twai= > > n's texts as failures. My position was influenced by Jim Cox's work, > but I= > > can't speak for him, so I'll offer only a clarification of my > position. =20 > > > > I have never suggested that his works are failures of literary art. I > woul= > > dn't return to them as often as I do if that were the case. I have > little i= > > nterest in the finding fault with the structural flaws that many early > crit= > > ics cited. I very deliberately avoid the questions of formal unity and > str= > > uctural consistency that New Criticism often hung its hat on because it > thi= > > nk those expectations are inappropriate criteria for a writer who > processed= > > his work as Twain did. To do so is akin to dismissing Picasso because > no = > > actual person has two eyes on one side of one's face. =20 > > > > Rather, my argument is rooted in narrative theories that posit the > novel's = > > existence as a social genre, one committed to subverting the status quo > (an= > > d note that, from this theoretical perspective, not all narrative > fiction i= > > n book length qualifies generically as a novel). But in this regard, not > on= > > ly Twain's novels but all novels are failures. Now it might seem rather > ab= > > surd to think that a story about a fictional character could motivate > anyon= > > e to attempt to change the world. But novelists have often expressed > their= > > sense of having failed to achieve pretty big changes. =20 > > > > This does not mean that novels have absolutely no social impact. One > examp= > > le of a novel that did achieve real change is _the Jungle_, but even > when = > > that example is raised, we must acknowledge that Sinclair himself judged > it= > > a failure: he was trying to bring down capitalism but the result of > his e= > > fforts was the FDA. Doris Lessing is another novelist who aimed for > large = > > social impact, and she dismissed her acclaimed _The Golden Notebooks_ > as a= > > failure because it did not achieve the kind of feminist structural > changes= > > that she expected. The one example that often comes up as a challenge > to = > > my point is _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, which even Lincoln is said to have > cited a= > > s the cause of the Civil War. If Lincoln ever said that, I assume that > he = > > was being ironic. But Lincoln aside, I find it incredibly unsettling to > th= > > ink that it took a story about someone who never existed, who was > nothing m= > > ore than marks on a page, to inspire the sympathy of people who couldn't > ge= > > t worked up by narratives written by actual fugitive slaves. While the > tra= > > dition of sentimental philosophy cited the emotional affinity that a > reader= > > might feel for a character as a mark of that reader's sentimental > pedigree= > > , I find it more troubling that a character--an artifice--would generate > sy= > > mpathy where flesh and blood humans could not do so. Richard Wright > apparen= > > tly felt similarly because it was the fact that banker's daughters cried > up= > > on reading Richard Wright's collection of novellas, _Uncle Tom's > Children, = > > that goaded him to compose _Native Son_, a text that he was determined > woul= > > d shock those readers rather than move them to tears. > > > > What is most intriguing about Twain is that even when his books were > popula= > > r or critically praised, he signaled his sense of disappointment about > them= > > along the lines that I'm describing. But even more intriguing, and > satisf= > > ying, is the fact that he didn't just abandon novels given what he'd > experi= > > enced. He continued to push the edges of the genre to see if he could > achi= > > eve a social impact (I can see no other way to explain _CY_) or to > expose t= > > he unfulfillable promise of the genre of the novel itself. =20 > > > > So I hope I've made the terms of my argument somewhat clearer. When I > use = > > the term "failure," I don't mean it in the sense that Hemingway did when > he= > > discounted the ending of HF_ (rather stupidly in my view, for without > that= > > ending the satirical and novelistic purpose of the narrative > evaporates). = > > Twain produced remarkably engaging, deceptively complex, and > profoundly pr= > > ovocative narrative literature. By that measure his career is a genuine > tr= > > iumph. But he also worked in a form that imposes rather lofty > ambitions; a= > > nd what his remarkably adept writing shows is that the genre of the > novel t= > > antalizes its practitioners into chasing its promise: that a truly > successf= > > ul novel can re-make the world. And that promise is more like a > confidence= > > game, as Melville suggests, or a Catch 22, as Heller does. =20 > > > > --Larry Howe =20 > > ________________________________________ > > From: Mark Twain Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Dawidziak > [hlgr= > > [log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 4:38 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Failures in the works of Mark Twain > > > > Just a thought tossed into what's already an extremely thoughtful > > mix: there's a monumental difference between "flawed" and "failure." It > > certainly could be argued that "Huckleberry Finn" and "Connecticut > > Yankee" are structurally flawed. I'm trying to wrap my brain around the > > notion that either of these books would be classified as failures. If > > this be failure, please, let me write something 1/100th as good. > > But flawed? Is there a work of art that isn't flawed in some way? > > And just because something is flawed doesn't mean it's not a > > masterpiece. In his introduction to an annotated edition of Bram > > Stoker's "Dracula," scholar Leonard Wolf writes, "Let me say at once > > that we have a complete masterpiece, flawed here and there, as the > > Chinese insist masterpieces should be, but, nevertheless, the real > thing." > > Seems to me the same might be said of "Huckleberry Finn," > > "Connecticut Yankee" and many other Twain works. Which isn't to say > > there are not failures within these works -- flaws, if you will. Even > > the last third of "Huckleberry Finn" is now viewed in a vastly different > > light, thanks to the scholarship of Vic Doyno and others. The appraisal > > presented by William M. Gibson and others, if hardly overturned, has > > been treated to a substantive alternate interpretation. Whatever the > > view of this ending, or "Connecticut Yankee," for that matter, I'm > > guessing that most of us would contend that we are in the presence of > > the real thing. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Scott Holmes > > <[log in to unmask]> To: TWAIN-L<[log in to unmask]> Sent: Fri, > > Apr 20, 2012 6:44 pm Subject: Failures in the works of Mark Twain I've > > been aware for some time now that there has been dissatisfaction with > > the concluding portion of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but not until > > this last year have I become aware of what seems to be a sense of > > failure in much of his work. =3D20 A few weeks back I mentioned I was > > reading Cox's Mark Twain The Fate of Humor and I was surprised at the > > thought that Connecticut Yankee and/or The Prince and the Pauper were > > failures. Upon finishing this book it seems to me that Cox felt most of > > Twains work were failures. And this surprised me greatly especially > > sense he seems to be so well informed on the topic. =3D20 I started > today > > on Lawrence Howe's Mark Twain and the Novel. This appears to argue that > > the failures were not Twain's but are structural. Nevertheless, the idea > > that there are failures or faults in these works surprises me. In fact > > it disturbs me. I suppose this is because I am not a literary critic or > > even academically trained in English (my degrees are in Geography). In > > my mind, a book, in this case a novel, is a failure only if it fails to > > interest the reader and/or proves to be unreadable. This is not the case > > with any of Twain's works in my experience.=3D20 On further searching > for > > why this sense of failure exists I came upon a review of Cox's book by > > Kristin Brown. It would seem that Mark Twain IS a Humorist and must > > write humorous material, otherwise "Twain had attempted to suppress his > > genius". This is the crux of my problem with the idea that there are > > failures. This strikes me very much like the argument that Miles Davis > > was a failure after he progressed beyond Bebop. An artist is not > allowed > > to venture away from their established genre. Humor might have been his > > "strongest suit" but by no means need it be his only suit. Thoughts? > > > > > -- McAvoy Layne ghostoftwain.org Email: [log in to unmask] 810 Alder, #49 Incline Village, NV 89450 775-833-1835 Diligently train your ideals upward toward a summit where you will find your chiefest pleasure in conduct, which while contenting you, will be sure to confer benefits upon your neighbor and the community. -Mark Twain