On Jul 5, 7:06pm, Barry Crimmins wrote: > . . . that great "humoracist" Van Wyck > Brooks. What did Brooks do to earn the title "humoracist"? I've never seen him as anything worse than a want-a-be psychiatrist who was able to attract an audience and who was able to spark a long-lived debate about Twain by declaring that "Twain was a frustrated spirit, a victim of arrested development[,] . . . the artist . . . had withered into the cynic and the whole man had become a spiritual valetudinarian." (quoted in Foner's _M.T.: Social Critic_, 57) I won't argue with those who wish to call Brooks names. I just don't understand why "humoracist" is one of the names to call him. Should I now have another reason ("humoracism") to be upset with Brooks or is Barry just using hyperbole? (And, please, I didn't include the Brooks quote to renew an 80-year-old debate on the Forum. It's safe to assume that the vast majority of Forum members disagree with Brooks' analysis.) thanks, larry marshburne