The Slight Cockiness of Mark Twain

In class, we were discussing whether or not Mark Twain’s speech could be taken as humorous. What I thought was actually humorous about the speech wasn’t simply what was in the speech, but rather that Mark Twain reminisces about the past event twenty-eight years later with a slight cocky attitude. When Mark Twain stated, “[I]f I had those beloved and revered old literary immortals back here now on the platform at Carnegie Hall I would take that same old speech, deliver it, word for word, and melt them till they’d run all over that stage,” it doesn’t seem as if he was concerned with himself or the speech (489). Instead, the tone seemed more revengeful considering the fact that the three “old literary immortals” were then dead, and he decided to rant about that the past when Mrs. H brought it up. According to Wikipedia, Oliver Wendell Holmes died on October 7, 1894, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow died in March 24, 1882, and Ralph Waldo Emerson died on April 27, 1882. I thought what was actually more humorous was that Mark Twain mocked them postmortemly, while describing these men as “immortal” when in fact, they had been dead for at least a decade.

Furthermore, it seems as if Mark Twain never intended to repeat his speech. When he described his speech as not having “a single defect in it from the first world to the last. It is as good as good can be,” his cocky attitude suggested that he was enjoying seeing the reactions to his first speech (489). It seems as if he would give his speech a second time just to see the audiences’ horrified reaction but not for the purpose of perfecting the presentation.

While I was browsing the Internet, I read something about Mark Twain as being a pessimist and having a cocky attitude.

"As Twain's life and career progressed he became increasingly pessimistic, losing much of the humorous, cocky tone of his earlier years. More and more of his work expressed the gloomy view that all human motives are ultimately selfish. Even so Twain is best remembered as a humorist who used his sharp wit and comic exaggeration to attack the false pride and self-importance he saw in humanity." ("Mark Twain: American Author and Humorist" from http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95nov/twain.html)

I'm not sure whether this source is necessarily reliable, but it does provide a starting point in looking into Mark Twain's character. If he did tend to write with a cocky tone, then it could provide a different view on his autobiography.

Mixed Accounts on MT's Speech & Social Effects on His Life

Before I did any research, I actually read everyone's posts and comments in the blog. I noticed that most areas of research were covered, so hopefully this post is a tidbit useful. For the first question in particular, I figured it should be modified to be more feasible.

Q: What did the public think (as communicated through the press) of the Mark Twain speech after it was delivered?

A: Unlike what Mark Twain described in his autobiography and what William D. Howells wrote about the experience in his book My Mark Twain: Reminiscences and Criticisms, the Boston Daily Globe reported quite the contrary—that it “produced the most violent bursts of hilarity.” Here is a direct quotation to be exact:

This eccentric story was told in Mr. Clemens's characteristic drawling, stammering way, and 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.

I honestly think the general public at the time was careless about it. To be exact we would have to find a first-hand account or reflection about the speech written by a detached audience, namely someone who did not participate in the dinner—but that is probably impossible to find.

An interesting read I found was William Howells' account of Mark Twain's speech. Howells said that the three "victims"--Longfellow, Holmes, and Emerson--told him what they wrote back in response to Mark Twain's apology letter. Longfellow said, "Ahh he is a wag!" Holmes said he was not offended at all by the speech. Emerson was confused why Mark Twain was even bothered by it. Maybe they were trying to be nice? But check this out: Howells wrote that "Holmes told me, with deep emotion, such as a brother humorist might well feel, that he had not lost an instant in replying to Clemens's letter, and assuring him that there had not been the least offense, and entreating him never to think of the matter again." I don't know, what do you guys think?

Sources: The Boston Daily Globe Reports on the Whittier Dinner. 18 Dec. 1877. 29 June 2008 <http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/onstage/whitnews.html>.

Howells, William D. My Mark Twain: Reminiscences and Criticisms. Howells on MT as Performer. 29 June 2008 <http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/onstage/howlrev.html#b>.

___________________________

Q: What were the social effects on Twain’s life?

A: Based on my research, it seemed like any effect at all caused by this unfortunate incident on Twain’s life was self-inflicted. It could have been shame, rage, confusion, or any other combination of emotions, but documented dates in Twain’s life indicated that the fiasco did not prevent him from attending a banquet in Tennessee in November 15, 1879; conducting a large Republican meeting in October 19, 1879; being a guest of honor in the Lotos Club’s new house in November 12, 1893; just to name a few. I included a brief time line for reference below.

• October 19, 1879 – MT conducts a large Republican meeting
• October 19, 1879 – Patriotic letter from MT, read at a dinner for the Gate City Guard of Atlanta, GA in Hartford, Connecticut
• November 15, 1879 – Banquet of the army of the Tennessee
• November 12, 1893 – MT was guest of honor in the Lotos Club’s new house
• July 23, 1895 – MT begins touring the world to lecture on morals
• November 27, 1897 – MT gives his Vienna speech in German

Source: Mark Twain in The New York Times. 29 June 2008 <http://www.twainquotes.com/nytindex.html>.

Random Thoughts

After the first frustrating hour spending on the search engines, I stopped and went out with my friends for dinner. It was only an excuse for me to escape from the research for a moment, and when I came back, the work was still there waiting for me. Well, I have to admit that I’ve never done this kind of research before, and I felt horrible until finally the first useful website emerged from the crowd. It was a shot energy that injected to my brain and regained me some interest to look for the truth. The research went well at the end, and I found something interesting and want to share.

Regarding to the exaggeration Twain uses. I’m wondering why Twain did use it so often. From an essay on Vern Crisler’s personal blog concludes: “Major techniques for both "satire" and "humor" are incongruity, exaggeration, invective, reductio ad absurdum, paradox, caricature, understatement, anticlimax, etc. Twain's "humor" exhausts the techniques available, but three prominent humorous techniques emerge as his favorite and most compelling--namely, exaggeration, understatement, and anticlimax.” http://vernerable.tripod.com/comedy.html
I did a search on all the humor techniques he mentions. Though, it’s hard to distinguish some of the techniques for me, like “anticlimax” and “bathos”. I’ve never been taught that English can be so complicated because most of my readings in High School are plain English with no surprise, and we were told to use the simplest way to express. That was the way I thought English was. Well, this really got my attention and updated my point of view on English.

Class research questions

Below is the list of research questions that were posed in class today:

* Did Twain ever give the speech a second time?

* What other accounts exist of this dinner?

* Who is Bishop? Does he even exist? What happened to him?

* What were the effects on Twain’s social life? Did he start being excluded from parties?

* Who was actually at the dinner? Longfellow?

* What poems does Twain quote? What were the original contexts of those lines? (Why did Twain choose those lines?)

* What did the newspapers really say about Twain’s speech?

* What else did Twain do during those 28 years? Did he do anything in response to this experience?

* After this speech, when was the next time he spoke in public? What were the circumstances? Was it intended to be a humorous speech? What style did he use?

* Is the letter from Laura Hudson real?

* Is Willie Winter real?

* How does this speech fit in with the rest of Twain’s work? Is it similar?

* What is the publication history of the Autobiography? Does it match up with what’s printed in NAR?

* Are the Chamberlaines real?

* Who is Howells?