Anyway, I checked out the more recent mentions of myself on the net...nothing too new. Sometimes you find things that are pretty amazing: rave reviews of your CD’s which you thought no one knew about, a stray mention in someone’s blog, an interview you honestly don’t remember ever having given (and probably for good reason). The only halfway interesting thing I noticed on this particular occasion was a 1996 exchange from a Mark Twain discussion list about what an asshole I was (translated from the academese).
To back up a bit, I’ve written a couple of books about Mark Twain, as well as some articles. The first Twain book I wrote was published in 1982. It was short, not much longer than a pamphlet, and it was published by Chronicle Books, long before they became the huge conglomerate they are today.
Later I did more research and wrote another book on Twain, which appeared in 1990. The second book was published by a New York house, Paragon (later purchased under curious circumstances by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his cult, and finally defunct). Rather to my surprise, it received a full-page review in the New York Times. Anyway, there were some things in my books that evidently disturbed the academic world. I wasn’t an academic myself, and my naivete about literary-academic politics was significant. I thought that university literature courses, and the people who taught them, were devoted to agonizingly minute analyses of Edith Wharton or Chaucer. I couldn’t imagine academia having any interest in a vulgar, opinionated, popular writer like Mark Twain -- let alone staunchly believing it was the keeper of the sacred scrolls. Well, you live and learn. Early on in my research I somehow fell afoul of the Mark Twain Papers at UC Berkeley, for (now I realize) having the audacity to think I -- a mere freelance writer, a high school kickout -- might have something new to add to the (largely academic) canon of Twain scholarship. The MTP is a large repository of primary research sources pertinent to Twain, but far more than being merely an archive, it appears to view itself as the major gatekeeper of Twain research in the United States (a claim which could be disputed by several other institutions). To their credit, the MTP editorial board have been publishing definitive annotated editions of Twain’s work through UC Press for many years. And admittedly, when it comes to administering a crucial archive of papers and data pertaining to a major literary figure such as Twain, it is difficult if not impossible to keep politics out of the situation. Yet the MTP is highly politicized, rife with cliques, white papers, referenda, safe lists, plots, and other academic skullduggery.
I was landed in the middle of this academic dung heap when, after the MTP had delicately insinuated that my work was not of sufficient quality to merit anything close to their seal of approval (i.e., I was presumed to be nonexistent in their valuation), I dared to publish articles in the "popular" press describing my experiences with the MTP and drawing conclusions about the fate of Twain’s literary legacy at the hands of academic axepersons.
It’s a long, involved story which I won’t go into here. All I’ll say is that running into this Google link the other day reminded me of the whole stinking mess. I haven’t written about Twain in more than ten years, and when I see swill like that, I’m glad I have no future plans to. After all, writers write to stimulate thought, not to promote battles of wit with unarmed opponents.
Here’s the first of two such items I found, along with my comments (copyright be damned...after all, I’m the target of this ink-stained wretch’s fulminations):
“The most annoying part of [my article about the academic depredations on Twain and his work] isn't the basic errors in fact which she sprinkles throughout, to give credence to her claim as a non-academic, I suppose, but the mistaken notions of what most people who know about Mark Twain seem to think about him. List-members don't need a directory to find Lennon's slip-ups, but I will point out the most laughable one: her accusation that Justin Kaplan -- a Pulitzer and National Book Award Winner for ”Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain”, in case anyone has forgotten that his biography was a truly great one -- must have projected his own neuroses onto his portrait of Twain, when in fact her essays purposely ignores the delight SLC took in his Oxford robes and his honorary degree in order to argue that he despised academia, as she herself plainly does. “
There are plenty of indications of Twain's disregard for academic snobbery distributed throughout his writings. I’m wondering if this guy ever read much Twain. Wouldn’t be the first time an academic was only “generally” familiar with his or her subject.
“Anyone have any doubt who might be guilty of projection?”
My comments on Justin Kaplan would only be considered "laughable" by academics. Kaplan’s Twain biography has been buried in recent years under the onslaught of other biographies, analyses, and literary criticisms of Twain, many of which reject Kaplan’s essentially Freudian standpoint (time marches on, and so does Twain scholarship). The book undoubtedly has its partisans, but it is certainly not as unimpeachable as the writer attests. Furthermore, a cursory glance at the reviews it received when it was published indicates that it was not generally well-received by reviewers, especially in non-academic publications. From my standpoint, I don’t care if this fellow adores Kaplan, or hates his guts. That’s his opinion and his business. What I find ironic is his distorting the facts to prove his point, at the same time he’s accusing me of doing just that.
“What is the point of dressing down Nigey Lennon? Well, I would like to save other scholars the trouble of reading her books on Twain, which, like her essay, are riddled with mistakes in names, dates, titles and who knows whatall.”
Gee, ain’t we considerate? By the way, he’d be hard pressed to document more than a few verifiable “mistakes in names, dates, titles”, and especially “who knows whatall.” I spent a long time on my research, and can document my sources for all of it. And why would he be so adamant about "saving other scholars the trouble of reading" my books? Wouldn't you think that, in a free country, people should be able to make up their own minds about the merits (or otherwise) of a particular publication? This, by the way, is my primary objection to academic policy: the insidious way in which political clout is used to obliterate "unacceptable" viewpoints. From such self-appointed (and wrongheaded) censorship emerges revisionist history.
“Worse, she claims to have made original contributions to Twain scholarship -- in fact, the point of her essay is that her contributions to Twain studies have been grievously and wrongfully ignored -- when in fact her books are not only shamelessly derrivative [sic], but full of misquotation in the process.“
Shamelessly der[r]ivative of what? The same primary sources from the Mark Twain Papers that many “legit” Twain biographers have used? Or is he just pissed off because -- unlike most academics -- I dared to reflect on what I was reading, and took the process a few steps farther by including ideas and theories instead of rote repetition and footnotes?
“She may be a perfectly pleasant woman...”
Same to you, buddy.
“...but to insult the dedicated folk at the Mark Twain Papers because people have ignored her bad books on the subject seems wildly unjust.”
Not as “wildly unjust” as the way the “dedicated folk” at the Mark Twain Papers have "borrowed" my basic ideas without giving me credit. And it's disingenuous at best to suggest that the board of the MTP ignored my books because they were "bad". As I pointed out in my article, there was something a bit more crafty going on.
“People have already defended the people at the Mark Twain Papers, and I can't imagine there is anyone on this list who believes Lennon's accusations. If she can produce her "original research" and show that our intrepid workers at the Mark Twain Papers plagiarized it, I'd agree she deserves credit. “
Strange, all he’d have to do is read the article he’s trashing, in which I explained exactly what the MTP misappropriated from me and moreover, how (and even why, most likely) they did it. (Maybe it was the latter that upset him, who knows.) For my sources, he can read my bibliography. He evidently had some difficulty understanding how conclusions can be reached by analyzing various levels of facts...especially without footnotes. Guess that isn't part of the syllabus he's chained to.
“But the {MTP/UC Press] “Roughing It” volume is meant as a reference book, and not as a volume to make anyone a name or money."
Hold on a minute. Does this innocent mean to suggest that the editors of the Mark Twain Papers who worked on this edition of Twain's "Roughing It" had absolutely no concern for their academic standing when they agreed to participate in the editorial process? If he believes that, I just happen to have a very long river for sale at an incredibly low price.
"Good scholarship calls for accurate sources, not for royalty payments. Which is not to say royalties are important. Like Nigey Lennon, I am a writer first and an academic later. “
Could’ve fooled me. I thought writers could spell. And frankly, Andy, if I could afford to take a paid sabbatical every couple of years, I could probably have turned out an encyclopedia on Twain by now.
“I think people would take her a lot more seriously if she proved herself in her work, instead of in mean-spirited, worng [sic]-headed accusations against when is arguably the best publishing archive in the world. Does she just want to sell books? Do some real research and find out something interesting and new. Hey, it has worked for me.” (Andy Hoffman)
I wonder if Mr. Hoffman is looking to publish a dissertation? Something with a real catchy title like “Rolling Its Mile Wide Tide: The Deeper Significance of Water in the Psychological Manifestations of Mark Twain’s Middle Period Writings” , 398 pp. + 476 pp. footnotes. Oh, and by the way, here’s a tip, Andy. You can snag yourself one of those Pullet Surprises a lot easier than you think. Three low monthly payments to the right judges and it’s all yours.
