Classic Review: Mark Twain's Roughing It

 

Title: Roughing It

Author: Mark Twain

Original Publication: 1872. I read a digital copy from the Gutenberg project without page numbers, but paperbacks seem to run around 500 pages.

Discussion:

This is a discussion, and not a review, because who the heck am I to review Mark Twain? Still, reading the book gave me a few thoughts, so you don't get off that easily. I'm just going to throw out a few things it made me think.

My first thought is that although this was fairly early Twain, you can tell. The tendency to stretch the truth, massage reality to fit his idea of humor, exaggerate just a tiny bit...it's all there. And there were a few places that made me laugh aloud.

My next thought is that Twain was more a man of his times than we would really like. It can be very uncomfortable to read what he has to say about persons of other races, particularly Native Americans. It made me want to smack him. I had to remind myself that he couldn't very well help absorbing the attitudes of essentially everyone around him. Then I skimmed quickly on to his next bit of personal misfortune, which was a lot more fun.

I also sort of envied Twain his leisurely 3-month exploration of the Hawaiian Islands, because I've only ever spent 9 days there, and seen only one island. Though at least I didn't have to do it on the back of a balky horse, which I do not envy him. And he didn't get to go snorkeling and see the amazing fish and corals.

Finally, I had to remind myself that when he began this 7-year adventure, he was all of 19 years old. That means he was still only 26 when he finished. No wonder he made bad decisions all along the way. And what was that older brother he left home with thinking, to give him no more guidance than that? (Except if I recall, the brother is maybe 2 years older. Not a lot of good judgement there, either). But a lot of his stupidity--and his prejudice--is more forgivable when you remember that he was just a kid.

Oh, and when he started a forest fire at Lake Tahoe? This resident of a drought-stricken and highly flammable California cringed, hard. 

So, do I recommend this book? Not to everyone. It was an interesting look at the California, Nevada and Hawaii of the time, and there were some good laughs. But I never knew when his history was fiction, which is frustrating, and it took some perseverance to finish, so I'd say it's not for the faint of heart or for slow readers. And there's something in there to offend just about everyone. Proceed at your own risk.

Who are you like?

I had intended today to post a discussion of editing one's work (since I'm busy procrastinating on just that task), but a post on Rachel Abbott's blog about writing blurbs got me thinking.  Not just thinking that there's one more thing I should probably revise (again), but about one particular bit that hit a nerve.

Guest blogger Mark Edwards, writing about writing blurbs, encourages us to use the names of known authors (he calls it namechecking).  You know the thing: "if so-and-so wrote such-and-such. . . ".  Now, I can certainly see the power of this in advertising.  Associating your unknown name and book with a name everyone (or everyone interested in your genre) will recognize is a great way to get some attention, maybe draw in some readers.

And yet.  I have seen this done so much, and so clumsily.  "This book has been compared to 'Harry Potter' and 'The Lord of the Rings'!"  "It's like Steinbeck and Shakespeare met for a few drinks and wrote a novel together!"  Things that sound both boastful and stupid.  I guess if the reviewer for the NYT compares your book (in a positive way) to the work of a best-selling author, you should grab hold and go with that--and give the attribution and the link.  But if your Mom says "oh, honey, you write even better than Danielle Steele" (NB: my mother doesn't read Danielle Steele and would never say such an insulting thing to me, especially as I don't write romances), you might want to rethink the comparison.

Of course, everyone wants to know what your book is like, and comparing it to something they know is the fast and easy way to get there.  But it's a fine line between useful and reasonable name-dropping and something that sounds like a playground boast. 

So here's what I think: I have no idea where the balance lies.

My inclination is to use words like "reminiscent of" and "in the spirit of" or even "inspired by the likes of."  Actually, so far my inclination has been to avoid any such comparisons.  But now I'm thinking about it, and thinking about a little revision of my blurbs to include some.

"The Ninja Librarian is a tall tale in the (slightly outrageous) spirit of Mark Twain and Robert McCloskey's Homer Price."  (This might at least attract the attention of the parents and grandparents of my juvenile readers, though I'm not sure how many 4th graders will recognize either name, more's the pity).  Or maybe "Hank the Cowdog would feel right at home in Skunk Corners."  (Adult readers without children may, in their turn, need to look up who Hank is.  Great fun for family read-alouds.  Sort of like the NL.  Check it out).

Is that too weird?

What do you think about "namechecking" in blurbs by unknown authors?