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