I am researching on the question "What other accounts exist of the dinner?" and I found several contradictions to Mark Twain’s version of this incident. Twain said on page 487 in NAR version of his autobiography that while he was delivering his speech, he was "hoping somebody would laugh, or at least smile, but nobody did."
However, according to one of Twain’s good friends Howells’ reminiscence of this incident, Howells recalls that at the end of Twain’s speech, "There fell a silence, which deepened from moment to moment, and was broken only by the hysterical and blood-curdling laughter of a single guest."
http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/onstage/howlrev.html#b
Yes, there was an awkward silence after Twain’s speech, but it was soon broken by the "hysterical" laughter of one guest. What Howells described was nothing like what Twain had said, that “nobody laughed and everyone seemed turned to stone with horror" – well, at least one person found his speech funny and laughed.
So we can tell from here that Twain did exaggerate the dramatic effect of his speech. Perhaps he was not able to accept that fact that he had told a bad joke. Since he did not receive his expected returns, he exaggerated a whole lot on this incident to convey that it was in fact the problem of this crowd, not himself.
Another thing I was researching was about what the newspapers said about Twain’s speech. Thanks to Adam’s website, I found The Boston Daily Globe’s report on this incident. Its title is pretty self-explanatory -- "Mark Twain’s Funny Speech," with a commentary that says "This eccentric story was told produced the most violent bursts of hilarity. Mr. Emerson seemed a little puzzled about it, but Mr. Longfellow laughed and shook, and Mr. Whittier seemed to enjoy it keenly." We can see that some of the audience seemed to enjoy Twain's speech, and the newspaper's report was not negative at all; and most importantly, it comments on Twain’s speech as funny.
http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/onstage/whitnews.html
Other than The Boston Daily Globe, I also found one article on The New York Times that’s about this incident. It was published on Dec 20, 1877 – three days after this dinner. But this article merely reported Twain’s speech without too much commentary.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E0DEFD9173EE73BBC4851DFB467838C669FDE&oref=slogin
I think I will keep researching on this question and see what else I can get…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have a different perspective with your commentary on "at least one person found his speech funny and laughed." If the laughter is "hysterical and blood-curdling", these adjective sort of evoke a sense of anger instead of funniness.
Regardless, it is interesting that there are different accounts that contradict Twian's description at the dinner. And the links that you provided are generally the most credible without bias. This is a very valuable, well-done post. Thanks.
Thanks Alice for pointing out the diction. True, the word "blood-curdling" is kind of negative. Now I have two thoughts about this:
1. This description was from Howells, who did not seem to like Twain's speech. "To be sure, they were not themselves mocked; the joke was, of course, beside them; nevertheless, their personality was trifled with, and I could only end by reflecting that if I had been in their place I should not have liked it myself. " http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/onstage/howlrev.html#b
Perhaps the reason why Howells decribed the laughter as "blood-curdling" was because he supposed no one would laugh at that poor joke, but when someone did laugh, he thought it was inappropriate and thus felt blood-curdling.
2. Another way to explain the laughter was that perhaps the person who laughed was intended to give Mark Twain some returns. Since it was silent for a while, the guest wanted to break this awkwardness so that he laughed, hoping someone else would follow him, just like how those claps work.
But your explanations are possible, too -- the guest could be angry and regarded the joke as ridiculous.
But in any case, we have proven that there are other accounts of this dinner. =]
The difference between what Twain describes and what the paper reports is striking. I noted in my post that in his private letter exchange with Howells he seems to express the same embarrassment and self-doubt that the typescript demonstrates, which makes it appear that the typescript version of events is in fact the one he supported. It's hard to reconcile the significant differences in the accounts of what occurred. Perhaps some more research will clarify what happened.
Wow, I did not know this. This clears up A LOT and also shows a lot about Twain's character - he seems to exaggerate everything. This account shows that his speech really was not that vulgar. Instead of looking how is speech is vulgar, I will probably focus more on how it is funny. Thanks a lot, this is going to change how I view the speech.
I think it has been established that Twain's account of the event is exaggerated but I find the difference between The Boston Globe and Howells' account very striking.
The Boston Globe paints the event almost in a positive; it states that the speech produced "the most violent bursts of hilarity" and even Longfellow laughed.
In contrast Howells' account states that the room fell silent upon Twain’s speech except for the laughter of a single guest and Longfellow has a look of "pensive puzzle".
It is interesting how their could be such a large discrepancy in the accounts. I would think that the accounts of the same event would not differ by that much.
Post a Comment