On Fri, 17 Dec 1993, L. Terry Oggel wrote: > I'm struck by Dagnall's response today and one yesterday, purportedly > to Hoffman's thesis but actually to Hoffman personally. Obviously, > they have very strong opinions--this subject has touched a tender > spot. Which subject - Hoffman's thesis, or Hoffman personally? Myself, I am reacting to what I see as highly questionable scholarship on Hoffman's part. If I recall correctly, Hoffman infers that Twain might have been bisexual because a) he lived on the frontier, where women were in short supply, and was in close quarters with men; b) there is a letter from (not DeQuille or Harte; another of his contemporaries. Anyone? Anyone?) to Twain which begins "My dearest love,"; and c) an editorial in a local newspaper which reports that Twain and DeQuille are to be married, "and it's about time." I don't recall if there were any other scraps of evidence. If Hoffman can read bisexuality into that, wait until I let him pore over *my* personal letters! What a basketcase I'll seem! > Hummm. And no effort whatsoever to rebut Hoffman's evidence > (which he is careful to say is circumstantial) with solid, > controvening evidence (in fact, Dagnall explicitly says that's for > someone else to do--he'll do the easy thing and launch an ad hominem > attack on Hoffman). That's because Dagnall was making a funny. This is the Mark Twain Forum, so it didn't strike me as out of place. The form of the "attack" I suggested was to apply Hoffman's analytical techniques (let's make that "analytical" techniques) to Hoffman himself & see what conclusions one can draw. And if this constitutes an "attack," does it not follow that Hoffman's analysis is also an attack on Samuel Clemens? I can't make an effort to rebut Hoffman's evidence with solid, contravening evidence - because Hoffman hasn't presented solid evidence in the first place. Hoffman's conclusions seem to rely on the ability of the reader to swallow inferences rather than think critically. How can you fight that? Take away their televisions? > Isn't this simply killing the messenger because > of the message? Seems pretty regressive; a case of arrested > development? So now you're diagnosing my psyche from your armchair. Maybe you and Hoffman could collaborate... > > [log in to unmask] Robert Dagnall