Slashdot Mirror


Mark Twain To Reveal All After 100 Year Wait

Hugh Pickens writes "The Independent reports that one of Mark Twain's dying wishes is at last coming true: an extensive, outspoken and revelatory autobiography which he devoted the last decade of his life to writing is finally going to be published one hundred years after his death. Twain, the pen name of Samuel Clemens, left behind 5,000 unedited pages of memoirs when he died in 1910, together with handwritten notes saying that he did not want them to hit bookshops for at least a century, but in November, the University of California, Berkeley, where the manuscript is in a vault, will release the first volume of Mark Twain's three-volume autobiography. Scholars are divided as to why Twain wanted his autobiography kept under wraps for so long, with some believing it was because he wanted to talk freely about issues such as religion and politics. Michael Shelden, who this year published Man in White, an account of Twain's final years, says that some of his privately held views could have hurt his public image. 'He had doubts about God, and in the autobiography, he questions the imperial mission of the US in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines,' says Shelden. 'He's also critical of [Theodore] Roosevelt, and takes the view that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. Twain also disliked sending Christian missionaries to Africa. He said they had enough business to be getting on with at home: with lynching going on in the South, he thought they should try to convert the heathens down there.' Interestingly enough, Twain had a cunning plan to beat the early 20th century copyright law with its short copyright terms. Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."

298 comments

  1. Adding to the Speculation by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He had doubts about God ...

    Indeed. See his later books like Letters from the Earth and The Mysterious Stranger Manuscripts (claymation here).

    Twain also disliked sending Christian missionaries to Africa.

    Oh I think that's putting it rather lightly. After reading about Twain's efforts to in King Leopold's Ghost, I read Twain's King Leopold's Soliloquy: A Defense of His Congo Rule in which Twain rips the Belgian King Leopold II apart (in my opinion the farce Twain made of Leopold is better than the more direct Crime of the Congo by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle). We seem to think that human rights and anthropology are modern day efforts when historically artists like Twain were very politically active and quite in tune with the truths of corrupt governments (the United States notwithstanding).

    I assure you that in Twain's mind at the time of his death, he had many issues that he held from his writings -- most likely because he felt we weren't ready for that level of truth yet. Really the only question for me is whether or not he still felt the need to drench these memoirs in satire and wit when a hundred years from then he can just out and out straight to your face tell you what he feels as he recounts his life. I'd imagine he knew that saying some of this stuff one hundred years ago would be career ending or life threatening ... and not until those involved, lampooned and criticized are long gone would the world be ready for this. This will most likely prove to be a delicious read indeed.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Adding to the Speculation by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mark Twain had to have been one of the coolest guys who ever lived.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't know. I always thought Carl was cooler than Lenny.

    3. Re:Adding to the Speculation by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Informative

      On the surface. Apparently he was a poor husband and neglectful father (It was in some documentary on PBS I saw years ago. Maybe Ken Burns.)

    4. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark Twain also secretly claimed to despise Internet narcissists fascinated with their own username.

    5. Re:Adding to the Speculation by sznupi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whatever the substantive motives for the delay in publication are - that's probably also a nice publicity stunt; viral marketing is...old again?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can't all be Jesus

    7. Re:Adding to the Speculation by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

      For another good look at Twain's world view regarding mankind and religion, I'd say read What is Man? .

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are plenty of good husbands and good fathers in this world. There are very few writers of his calibre however. Saying that he was only a great man on the surface because he wasn't a great family man is like saying Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo*.

      For all I know Alan Turing was great at water polo, my point is that it is irrelevant.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    9. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...drench these memoirs in satire and wit...

      I certainly hope so.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    10. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Thanshin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      For all I know Alan Turing was great at water polo, my point is that it is irrelevant.

      There's no reference to water polo in his biographer's homepage.

      Most probably because his prowess was such that any mention would steer the biography away from the purely "math guy" approach.

    11. Re:Adding to the Speculation by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Alan Turing was rubbish at water polo, but I hear he played a wicked game of Marco Polo.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    12. Re:Adding to the Speculation by AGMW · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's no reference to water polo in his biographer's homepage.

      Most probably because his prowess was such that any mention would steer the biography away from the purely "math guy" approach.

      As I understand it Alan Turing did try water polo once but he pleaded with the powers the be that the sorrowful occasion be omitted from all records as it was such an unmitigated disaster. The horse drowned.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    13. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are plenty of good husbands and good fathers in this world. There are very few writers of his calibre however.

      And these sets seem to have less overlap than simply statistics would suggest. Genius, and devotion to the pursuit of where that genius leads them, often result in someone who has many problems in other areas of life. Hell, just artists and writers in general whether genius or not tend to have these kinds of problems.

      In other news, while Vincent Van Gogh may appear to have been a brilliant artist, did you know that in reality he was basically a raving lunatic not to mention quite an asshole? Yep, it's true. All those emotions you felt looking at Starry Night were actually invalid. Who knew? Science did, that's who.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Adding to the Speculation by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are plenty of good husbands and good fathers in this world. There are very few writers of his calibre however. Saying that he was only a great man on the surface because he wasn't a great family man is like saying Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo*.

      Not really. I know very few people that measure a man's greatness based on his water polo skills. But if you're not a good husband and father to the people you promised to be a good husband and father to, then you have lost a significant amount of respect from me.

      If we said he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work. Personally, I'd much rather have a great guy (great "man") as my neighbor than a great writer.

      With all that said, I don't know much about him as a person, so I don't know if the original claim is true or not :)

    15. Re:Adding to the Speculation by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying that he was only a great man on the surface because he wasn't a great family man is like saying Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo*.

      Plenty of kids and neighborhoods are all the worse because of negligent/never_there fathers. No one grew up harmed because someone wasn't a good water polo player.

    16. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what about good mothers and wives? In the last 50 years the emphasis on the women's role in the family has been downplayed significantly. All people ever talk about is men, completely disregarding the destruction of families taking place as women seek divorces and full-time employment at their children's and family's expense.

    17. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Machtyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless their father was a terrible water polo player and ended up sucking too much water.

    18. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many lives has he touched with his brilliant writing? His writings have had an unmeasurable positive impact on the world and to ignore that seems almost criminal to me. "Just a great writer" does not really do justice to how good he was. His works aren't just nice stories, they are full of powerful and relevant social commentary as well, which was not lost on his readers at the time.

      I'm not attempting to downplay the harm caused by being a negligent father but everyone has flaws. If we ignore the achievements of men because of their supposed shortfallings in other areas, then nobody is a great man, and what exactly does that say about society? And for what it is worth, he publicly stated on at least one occation that he supported extended copyright terms because it would allow his work to financially support his family after his death. Perhaps he wasn't a great father/husband, but it certainly doesn't sound like he created enough harm to outway his literary and intellectual accomplishments.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    19. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Ltap · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ultimately, it's a question of priority. People have to sacrifice their family life and hobbies to concentrate on their great work, which is why so many writers have had terrible lives. It's better that Twain gave us something that will last us through the ages (his words) than to have been another generic family man.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    20. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      Apparently he was a poor husband and neglectful father

      Yeah, but Clementine managed to deal with that -- oops, sorry, thought you were talking about Winston Churchill.

      rj

    21. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Eil · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I read that one, but the only line that I can remember from it is, "a miserable pile of secrets."

    22. Re:Adding to the Speculation by ultramk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oftentimes, it seems like people who've significantly changed society or our culture for the better turn out to be difficult (at the very least) interpersonally. I'm not saying it's impossible for people to be great in every way, but it does seem uncommon.

      Personally, I tend to judge people in a simple way: balancing their private and public lives, has the person made the world significantly better overall? In Twain's place, I would judge yes. Maybe he was a jerk in to his family or kids, but it seems like he wasn't SO MUCH of a jerk that it wipes out his other contributions. For a ridiculous contrast, look at that Rieser guy who murdered his wife and thought he could get away with it: sure, he came up with a file system people seemed to like, but his psychopathic behavior aside from that totally wipes out any good feelings I could ever have had about the guy.

      I mean, can't you think of anyone who you totally respect, even though they have serious personal flaws that probably made people living around them miserable?

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    23. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      full-time employment at their children's and family's expense

      Yet people continue to sell houses priced at such a level that not having two incomes comes at the "children's and family's expense". Or is little Timmy and little Tammy sharing a bedroom not such a bad idea?

      Sure, daddy could rip the entire family from its roots and move somewhere "affordable"... assuming he can get a job in one of those little towns where a mortgage on a family sized house is reasonable. But hey, moving around every few years to chase the perfect (salary / living expense) ratio is totally not at the "children's and family's expense".

    24. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine he knew that saying some of this stuff one hundred years ago would be career ending or life threatening

      I wonder why he'd want to wait until 100 years after his death to publish it, then? Wouldn't his death immediately make those issues moot?

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    25. Re:Adding to the Speculation by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Whatever the substantive motives for the delay in publication are -

      He probably just wanted to make damn sure no one was still alive who could contest his version of his life when it was published.

    26. Re:Adding to the Speculation by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Great men contribute great things to humanity as a whole, while good men provide for their friends and families. I was a good father, but I'll never rise to Twain's greatness; he gave mankind something unique and priceless. I was a good father, but the best I can hope for is that one of my kids (or yet to be born grandkids) becime great due to my parenting.

    27. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      I think this is pretty subjective and largely dependent on the individual's standards of what a good father should do/be. A negligent father that provides for their kids is not a good father, but is also not a bad one. Unless his wife and kids have suffered grave emotional and physical distress, then I wouldn't reflect his personal life's shortcomings onto his contribution to society via his writing.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    28. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yet plenty of people have grown up to be great contributors to society and/or greatly successful, even though they had terrible parents or no parents. Dave Thomas is one of my favorite examples, whose mother gave him up at birth, his adoptive mother died when he was 5, forcing his father to move around for work, to begin working at 12 and to drop out of school. Not only did he found Wendy's (one of the most successful fast food chains still) but did tremendous work promoting education, adoption and more.

      The inverse is also true, as plenty of violent criminals and less than worthwhile persons came from what would be considered solid, caring families. While the quality of the parents is certainly influential in the outcome of individuals, it is by no means the single factor, nor the most important factor, in whether someone grows up to be a blessing or a curse to society. In the end, it is the individual that decides his own fate.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    29. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. He likely wanted anyone he was talking ABOUT to be dead as well, to not be able to deny or discount his story. Basically, it would seem as if he is simply letting history speak for himself, and before you read this, a several generations have already been exposed to his more public side (his work) before they can judge his opinions and perspectives as a private individual. Most people have opinions that they don't necessarily share to everyone in public, be they about race, religion, politics, etc., particularly if they are not in the majority in these views.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    30. Re:Adding to the Speculation by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      He had offspring, and presumably he expected some of them to have offspring. 100 years is a long time for one man, but not so much for three or four generations of separation from him. He also had siblings who may have had kids (I don't recall). He was probably being considerate.

    31. Re:Adding to the Speculation by tyrione · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of good husbands and good fathers in this world. There are very few writers of his calibre however. Saying that he was only a great man on the surface because he wasn't a great family man is like saying Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo*.

      Not really. I know very few people that measure a man's greatness based on his water polo skills. But if you're not a good husband and father to the people you promised to be a good husband and father to, then you have lost a significant amount of respect from me.

      If we said he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work. Personally, I'd much rather have a great guy (great "man") as my neighbor than a great writer.

      With all that said, I don't know much about him as a person, so I don't know if the original claim is true or not :)

      Go watch re-runs of The Waltons. If you're looking for some absurd notion of Father of the Century you'll only ever find it in story.

    32. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes! Women no longer want to be just baby factories! How dare them! Written by a person who is guaranteed to be single for life.

    33. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we ignore the achievements of men because of their supposed shortfallings in other areas, then nobody is a great man, and what exactly does that say about society?

      The truth?

    34. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank goodness the Texas Board of Ed made their decisions the other day! Mark Twain might have been excised entirely from their school curriculums!

      m!

    35. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If we said he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work.

      Considering the controversy over the likes of Roman Polansky, et al, anything on MTV or VH1, professional sports, or anything in the stack of tabloids at the grocery store, I would have to say that as a society we long ago gave up looking at the "humanity" of "great" people.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    36. Re:Adding to the Speculation by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      That's the same logic that allows some to make excuses for Roman Polanski. That said, I enjoy Mark Twain's work, but hate the fact he was a bad father and husband. It's a moral dilemma. OTOH... I wonder how many people truly are great husbands and fathers? Perhaps that is the social norm?

    37. Re:Adding to the Speculation by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

      If we ignore the achievements of men because of their supposed shortfallings in other areas, then nobody is a great man, and what exactly does that say about society?

      The truth?

      Yea, pretty much this.

    38. Re:Adding to the Speculation by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1

      Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo. For all I know Alan Turing was great at water polo, my point is that it is irrelevant.

      No, you had it right the first time - Alan Turing was horrible at water polo. His horses kept drowning.

    39. Re:Adding to the Speculation by pitchpipe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Check out the essay Thoughts of God. It is just so spot on and entertaining, plus it's only about three short pages.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    40. Re:Adding to the Speculation by ak3ldama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Just a great writer" does not really do justice to how good he was.

      Yes it does. That is exactly what it means, he was a great writer. If he was a bad husband and father then that is what it is also.

      And for what it is worth, he publicly stated on at least one occation that he supported extended copyright terms because it would allow his work to financially support his family after his death.

      So he wants to try to play games with copyright law and you're ok with that too? Next you're going to tell me he created the modern text book scheme with new editions so often that students cannot reuse old text books...

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    41. Re:Adding to the Speculation by xs650 · · Score: 1

      Turing drowned his polo pony trying to play water polo you insensitive clod.

    42. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we ignore the achievements of men because of their supposed shortfallings in other areas, then nobody is a great man, and what exactly does that say about society?

      Appeal to consequences. Poor argument.

    43. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, but when he spends his writing upbraiding society for how the people in it treat each other, is it not relevant to consider how he treated those close to him? Twain was apparently not capable of practicing what he preached, which certainly puts a damper on his personal greatness.

    44. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Comparing 'being a mediocre father' with 'rape of a young girl' is pretty uncalled for. All things are of course relative and I would never argue otherwise. No amount of artistic talent could ever vindicate Hitler either, for his crimes far out-weighted anything other accomplishments could ever make up for.

      And yeah, I'd venture to guess he wasn't all that different from societal norm, either today or back in the 19th century. He certainly was not a monster.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    45. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Wicked+Zen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh noes! Women no longer want to be just baby factories! How dare them! Written by a person who is guaranteed to be single for life.

      Oh, cheer up, AC. I'm sure there's someone out there who could love you. Best of luck.

    46. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Drekkahn · · Score: 0

      "He had doubts about God ..." That would put him in with some very good company. Popes, Bishops, Nuns and Christ.....

    47. Re:Adding to the Speculation by cyphercell · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If more men were good fathers we would not need great men like Twain to speak the truth, or men like Einstein to build the bomb, the average man would speak the truth and any dispute settled long before the bomb was necessary.

      They may have been great family men if they were not distracted with these huge injustices.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    48. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argument by citing fallacy. Even worse.

      *realize what I've just done and stack overflow*

    49. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that he was only a great man on the surface because he wasn't a great family man is like saying Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo*.

      And he was an uphill gardener.

    50. Re:Adding to the Speculation by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      Einstein didn't build the bomb...

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    51. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      while Vincent Van Gogh may appear to have been a brilliant artist, did you know that in reality he was basically a raving lunatic

      The man cut off part of his fucking ear and gave it to a prostitute. I think it's pretty well understood, particularly in glamorized and exaggerated popular culture, the man wasn't really all there in the head...

      All those emotions you felt looking at Starry Night were actually invalid.

      Well I can't say his work ever particularly appealed to me like some art does, but I will say that is a very bleak and depressing outlook on art you have. Why should anyone's feelings be considered "invalid"? If you felt something, then it was real to you and that's all that really matters. Who gives a shit about the artist's intent if it means you can't enjoy a piece.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    52. Re:Adding to the Speculation by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I heard Alan Turing sucked at being a boyfriend

    53. Re:Adding to the Speculation by slick7 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, your momma.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    54. Re:Adding to the Speculation by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      All those emotions you felt looking at Starry Night were actually invalid.

      ??!?! Perhaps he was a raving lunatic and asshole. How does that "invalidate" the emotional reaction of a viewer of his painting?

    55. Re:Adding to the Speculation by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except I've seen good parents produce bad kids, and good kids that come from bad upbringings. Although I'm proud of the way I raised my kids, parenting is overrated; there are too many other variables involved -- school, TV, other kids, circumstances beyond anyone's control, etc. Even if every parent was a perfect parent, we would still have social injustice.

      BTW, Einstein didn't build the bomb, J. Robert Oppenheimer did. Einstein's work was far more valuable than simply making the atom bomb; without his work much of today's physics and engineering would be impossible.

    56. Re:Adding to the Speculation by slick7 · · Score: 1

      He's great if only for the fact that he was a friend of Nikola Tesla.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    57. Re:Adding to the Speculation by TrippTDF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just from a personal point of view, this seems to hold up. I know people in my company that are tremendous producers in whatever they do, but you spend some time with them and realize they are awful people to be around. I can't imagine what it is like to actually live with them.

      Look at Steve Jobs- sure, the guy has consistently created some of the best products in tech history, but everything I understand about him is that he is a tyrant to work with- I can only imagine what his homelife is like.

      Now, I would like to hear back from someone that is a top producer, like a Steve Jobs, and find out if those people consider themselves happy... in a sense, these people are sacrificing their lives, and possibly the lives of their families, to push us ahead technologically. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

    58. Re:Adding to the Speculation by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that children that grow up with only the love of a monther are worse off than the other half?

      Bullshit!

      --
      This is blinging
    59. Re:Adding to the Speculation by eap · · Score: 1

      Whatever the substantive motives for the delay in publication are - that's probably also a nice publicity stunt; viral marketing is...old again?

      This isn't viral marketing any more than selling 30 year old Scotch whiskey is. Not everything is an internet meme

    60. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so who will get the copyrights from that new book???

    61. Re:Adding to the Speculation by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      Does _Letters from the Earth_ reveal a man who doubts the existence of God? Or was it written by a man who apparently believes in God but thinks that the way most people worship him is all-too-often wrongheaded?

      My money is on the latter.

      My biases in this matter are two. First, I'm a Christian (Baptist, descended from a real-life, tent-meeting evangelical/revivalist tradition). Second, _Letters from the Earth_ became an instant favorite of mine the day my mom gifted me a copy on my 14th (iirc) birthday. Several decades have passed and I still drag it out when I get depressed by people who take themselves too seriously. The chuckles it induces never fail to lift my spirits.

    62. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well I can't say his work ever particularly appealed to me like some art does, but I will say that is a very bleak and depressing outlook on art you have. Why should anyone's feelings be considered "invalid"?

      I couldn't possibly imagine crafting a more ludicrous statement than "Vincent van Gogh was an ass, therefore feelings invoked by his art are invalid -- science proves it!" to indicate that I was satirizing the opinion that Twain's family skills meant he's not one of the coolest guys ever. I couldn't be less subtle than that and still keep what little remains of my self-respect.

      BTW do you feel the same way about Twain as van Gogh? Cus he never used sarcasm tags. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    63. Re:Adding to the Speculation by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Why do you seem to be under an impression that viral marketing even requires internet or can't deal with "old" stuff? It's simply when people suddenly decide to propagade...something, by themselves. Something curious and not seen every day, from one of the best known writers, for example; who might have been just as well counting on it.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    64. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    65. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Ah yeah, I should have gotten that if I paid more attention to the first paragraph. Guess I'm getting a little defensive.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    66. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is truly is the message of his book, then all I can say is his words are as empty as his soul. In truth, mankind ill needs a writer such as him.

    67. Re:Adding to the Speculation by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Why would I talk about a good mother or good wife when the subject was Mark Twain, who obviously would not fall into either category?

      If your definition of "sexist" would be "does not mention women when talking about men," you've got problems. :)

      Yes, women have a huge role in the family. I am not arguing that they don't. I was simply commenting on how people do or should measure men... I made no reference to how people do or should measure women. Am I really required to mention something about women every time I mention something about men, simply to not "downplay" them?

    68. Re:Adding to the Speculation by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Great men contribute great things to humanity as a whole, while good men provide for their friends and families.

      IMO, that's not a good measure. If "good" means you were good to your family and friends, and "great" means you didn't care about your family/friends but contributed to humanity ... I would read that as putting a greater emphasis on generic humanity than your family and friends.

      And yet, if more people were "good" - in this respect, as another poster commented - then we would glean little from "great" men. If more men were good fathers and husbands, we would not need so many efforts to fix what bad men ruin - families, friends, relationships, children, households, etc.

      The fact that many people view "greatness" apart from their lives and value that greatness more than the "average" thing of being good to your family, neighbors, friends, etc.... well, maybe that's why so many kids don't seem to value it, either? We've basically been telling them that while being good to your family/friends is nice and all, truly great people are willing to sacrifice them. And by "sacrifice," I don't mean they don't start a family or have friends, I mean they start a family, have friends, but don't care about them.

      I respect someone much more for their character - which comes out in their actions to their family and friends - than for their intellect.

    69. Re:Adding to the Speculation by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      mod parent HILARIOUS !! (or was your comment not supposed to be sarcastic?)

    70. Re:Adding to the Speculation by CrackedButter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Habour?

    71. Re:Adding to the Speculation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't down play his skill as a writer. But maybe being a great writer, a great artist, a great actor, a great singer, or a great programmer isn't enough and shouldn't be enough to be called a great person/man.
      Hitler was probably one of the best public speakers ever. He had a huge impact on history. But a great person? I do not think so. Maybe to be a great person it takes more than just being great at your job. Maybe it takes being great in all facets of being human.

      Honestly I do not know enough about his family life. While I never heard that he was a perfect father I also have never heard that he was abusive to his family. So I do not know for sure. Maybe he was a great person after all.

      However being a great artist to me just doesn't hold that much weight ever. Pasture and Salk to me contributed much more to humanity than Twain or Rembrandt. But that is just my opinion. As for Twain I will say that I like his books and there is nothing at all dismissive with the title of great author which without a doubt he was.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    72. Re:Adding to the Speculation by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we ignore the achievements of men because of their supposed shortfallings in other areas, then nobody is a great man, and what exactly does that say about society?

      As another poster said... the truth.

      I'm not ignoring the achievements of anyone. I don't honestly know about MT's character as a father/husband, so I can't really comment on that specifically; I have read his writings, enjoyed them, and found them very observant, astute, and insightful. If he was not good to his family and friends, however, I'm not going to ignore that because he wrote well.

      Someone I am more familiar with would be Richard Wagner. He was a "horrible person," it seems, and yet a great composer. I acknowledge his compositional genius, while maintaining that I would not want to set him up as a role model for anyone. I'm not going to fall into the trap of downplaying his music because of his character, but I'm not going to fall into the trap of downplaying his character shortcomings because he was a great composer. And frankly, if he had sacrificed some of his art for the sake of those he loved, I would have a lot of respect for him. I value human life and relationships more than art (or literature, etc), I guess.

      Perhaps he wasn't a great father/husband, but it certainly doesn't sound like he created enough harm to outway his literary and intellectual accomplishments.

      They are completely different measures. You can't outweigh good character with bad literature or bad character with good literature, and I refuse to call someone a great man because of his literature just as I would refuse to call someone a great writer because of his character.

      How about this. Hans Reiser was a great programmer. He was not a great husband. I will not call him a great man because of his programming, and I will not call him a bad programmer because of his character flaws (... murder ...). He was - to my knowledge - a great programmer and a rather horrible husband.

    73. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's an unrelated meme.

    74. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will say that is a very bleak and depressing outlook on art you have.

      What's that in the sky? It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's...a point conveyed by irony! Whooosh! There it goes!

    75. Re:Adding to the Speculation by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      Whoosh, AC #2.

      Just wooooooosh.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    76. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unless you were his wife or kid.

    77. Re:Adding to the Speculation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. It is too bad that way too many people in the entertainment industry do not agree with us.
      I take it you must have missed the people that came to Polanski's defense and or where outraged at the jailing of this great "artist".
      Of course not everybody in the entertainment industry is so out of touch as to think that Polanski should get off the hook.
      Back to Twain. The thing is that I have never heard that he was a bad father or husband. Bad with money yes but I never heard of him being abusive or a tyrant. Even he wasn't the greatest father maybe he doesn't deserve the title of great man/ person. What he does deserve is the title great author. Maybe even a timeless author. Which is pretty dang good in my book.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    78. Re:Adding to the Speculation by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

      Besides, everyone knows that poor parenting is what makes great men.

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
    79. Re:Adding to the Speculation by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's better that Twain gave us something that will last us through the ages (his words) than to have been another generic family man.

      Your comment sounds callous, but I completely agree with you.

      Look at the 10,000 ft view. If you get too close, then everywhere, every day, is a tragedy. Yes, if he was a neglectful father and husband, that is a bad thing. However, look at the entirety of American Literature. In a completely objective sense, is it better with Mark Twain's writings than without? I think so.

      The guy who was valedictorian of my High School went on to seminary and to become a baptist church youth pastor. Am I ok with that? Well, ...no, not really. The guy was brilliant - he could have cured cancer, or invented something that moves humanity forward in an unthinkable way. I honestly kind of think that if you're great at something, you owe it to the world to *be* great at it. The question shouldn't be "does this make Mark Twain a bad person", it really is "Why did he think that he had to have a wife and family, when he had all this other stuff going on?".

      Terry Goodkind sort of touched on this in "Faith of the Fallen" (as much as that series gets preachy later, this was a good book). If you stop to look around, there are tragedies everywhere. It shouldn't stop you from achieving greatness.

      --
      sig?
    80. Re:Adding to the Speculation by operagost · · Score: 1

      Twain also disliked sending Christian missionaries to Africa. He said they had enough business to be getting on with at home: with lynching going on in the South, he thought they should try to convert the heathens down there.

      Which goes to show that even the brilliant Clemens was not exempt from arguing based on a false dilemma from time to time.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    81. Re:Adding to the Speculation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. That is exactly what it means, he was a great writer. If he was a bad husband and father then that is what it is also.

      One of the requirements of a "great man" is to be notable in some manner that affected society. If a pristine personal life was also a requirement, then most people I've heard referred to as "great men" would be disqualified. Because of that, I assert that your definition is not the standard definition, and thus irrelevant.

      You might object to him being called a great man, but that wouldn't change whether he was or wasn't a great man. Yes, it's all semantics, but then language is nothing other than semantics.

      Not to mention that his works are preserved. Most of what we know about his personal life is recorded gossip opinions. Is he a bad father? Who knows. Would his contemporary detractors want him remembered as such to marginalize his writings? Probably. So don't forget to always take into account the sources of information in addition to the content.

    82. Re:Adding to the Speculation by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Plenty of kids and neighborhoods are all the worse because of negligent/never_there fathers. No one grew up harmed because someone wasn't a good water polo player.

      But millions may have been harmed without his great words.

      Did you think of that?

    83. Re:Adding to the Speculation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      All those emotions you felt looking at Starry Night were actually invalid.

      I thought they were invalid because of the lead poisoning that let him to see the halo around lights, indicating that he was much more realistic (less creative) than he was given credit for.

    84. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      His criticisms did get increasingly harsh as time went on, esp. about US military action overseas -- for example, The War Prayer. At one point, he suggested that this be the new American flag. He had a lot of pressure on him not to ruin his reputation by being too vocal of an antiwar voice.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    85. Re:Adding to the Speculation by baka_toroi · · Score: 1

      I guess you're smoking some good weed :3

    86. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That would just make him more impressionistic, ala Monet and Renoir, rather than expressionistic. Less creative? Ha!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    87. Re:Adding to the Speculation by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      One of the requirements of a "great man" is to be notable in some manner that affected society. If a pristine personal life was also a requirement, then most people I've heard referred to as "great men" would be disqualified. Because of that, I assert that your definition is not the standard definition, and thus irrelevant.

      Yes, I probably would object to this "Great Man" definition - and at the least find it silly. Though, pedantically, I definitely believe there is a difference between a "Great Man" and a "great man." Without the proper capitalization I think it can absolutely be incorrect. But as you say, it is only my personal opinion.

      There are other posts such as this that talk about how he became famous, when there is a good chance he may not have become so. Also, other posts have discussed the subtle differences between lunacy and genius, and the chance or luck involved in going from the one to the latter. Not sure where I'm going with that, but it is interesting stuff. Not to go too sideways, but from what I understand about the Great Man Theory he may not be that either, but that's a different discussion that I am not as intrigued about.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    88. Re:Adding to the Speculation by cbuskirk · · Score: 1

      Actually he was more critical of organized religion than he was of God. He was always critical of Man's abuse of power and organized religions hold power over people. Originally he set out to write a book proving that Joan of Arc was crazy and Christians were crazy for revering her. Later in life he devoted 12 years to researching her life, and eventually spent 2 years writing a very reverent portrait of her under the pen name translated from French "Her Faithful Servant". http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Recollections-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486424596/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274737370&sr=8-1 He would later state, "I like Joan of Arc best of all my books, it is the best."

    89. Re:Adding to the Speculation by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing." - Albert Einstein

      What you're really saying is that it doesn't matter that Einstein married his first cousin and contributed to the most destructive weapon of modern times, he was still a good man.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    90. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Omestes · · Score: 1

      d he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work. Personally, I'd much rather have a great guy (great "man") as my neighbor than a great writer.

      If we take "man" as "mankind", then there is much much more to it than merely the family stuff. Family stuff is very important, if thats your thing, but to some it is completely insignificant, to some the power of their passions drives them beyond the "mere temporal" acts of raising a family or being "pleasant neighbors". Twain or Van Gogh have had a far larger influence on the world than if they would have sat around the house raising a brood of well-adjusted brats. Anyone can raise a family, but very few people had the timeless wit and talent of Mark Twain.

      Its like chastising astronauts, or the worlds great explorers, because they should have been home with the "fam". Some people dream much grander dreams, than being home-bodies.

      If you mean "man" as in "has a y chromosome", then your still wrong. Men have often fallen far far short of the "family" bar, probably more men have been bad husbands and fathers than there have been ones that you would fine acceptable. The image of a "good husband" is pretty modern, for much of history a father was off killing bears, or corn, or something instead of being a loving whatnot.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    91. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Dthief · · Score: 1

      On the surface. Apparently he was a poor husband and neglectful father (It was in some documentary on PBS I saw years ago. Maybe Ken Burns.)

      Those are the best qualities he had

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    92. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Stop being ambivalent. You need to make a decision, pronto. Slashdot abhors a thoughtful response to a difficult question, in particular any moral dilemma.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    93. Re:Adding to the Speculation by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      When you speak of someone being a brilliant writer, you are likely appraising the fellow on the merits of his literary skill.
      When you say hes "one of the coolest guys who ever lived", you are giving a general judgement on his life (and a rather high one at that), and if he failed as a father and / or husband, I would argue that those are serious enough to disqualify him.

      To put it another way, pick a villain of your choice (fictitious or otherwise); however brilliant they may have been, one would not tend to call them "great men". Could it be that that title requires more than technical excellence in an area?

    94. Re:Adding to the Speculation by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      His writings have had an unmeasurable positive impact on the world and to ignore that seems almost criminal to me.

      And dictators can make the trains run on time, and do incredibly beneficial things for society. One does not however overlook all the terrible things they do because of the small amount of good.

      Not calling him a "great man" does not deny that his writing was good, any more than failing to call him a "impeccable haberdasher" does. Why not simply call him a great writer, and leave it at that?

    95. Re:Adding to the Speculation by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, it's a question of priority. People have to sacrifice their family life and hobbies to concentrate on their great work

      Im sure a great many terrible men made a similar choice of putting "progress" ahead of "morality" and "values"; one doesnt typically celebrate them.

    96. Re:Adding to the Speculation by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      Usually a man's expository mode is much easier to judge than his private life, as the quality of a man's work stands on its own merit where the quality of his parenting can only ever be told through subjective accounts, often one-sided and thus characterized by omission of crucial detail.

    97. Re:Adding to the Speculation by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      No, those kids and neighborhoods are all the worse for their own neglect of their own obligations to their families and futures. Parental discipline and example only go so far -- whether one is a good person or not lies entirely on the flame that burns from within.

    98. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'd like to know is why are we passing judgment on him? Einstein was rumored to be a very poor husband too. It seems to be a common trait among brilliant people to have certain shortcomings. It doesn't make them any less brilliant in the field the excel at. We should appreciate these people for what they contributed instead of resenting them for not being perfect. All people are flawed in some way, and those who appear not to be are simply better at hiding it.

    99. Re:Adding to the Speculation by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      And dictators can make the trains run on time

      Nope, at least not in the example that created this idea: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

    100. Re:Adding to the Speculation by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      This is just a depressing attitude. I would rather have the few geniuses who are assholes than a bunch of nice guys who never do anything brilliant. I would rather have Wagner, and Mozart, and Twain, and the fucking Pyramids of Giza than have a bunch of people who were nice to their wives and kids. Sucks for the family, but without these assholes we don't have culture or civilization.

    101. Re:Adding to the Speculation by krupan · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of successful people in many different fields who haven't neglected their immediate family. It's not either or.

    102. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An avid collector of godwin's laws, isn't that the same as proclaiming Hitler as a great man because he led Germany out of the great depression? There are some things like not killing millions of good people and being a good father, that most people consider to be prerequisites to greatness. Well, I've got one out the two nailed.

    103. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, he's right, that flag kicks ass. One look at that flag and there'd be no need for war, everyone would just surrender.

    104. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      Mahatma Gandhi had four sons, and most reports that bother to mention his family describe him as a very bad father. In general, however, people are willing to overlook that.

    105. Re:Adding to the Speculation by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We've basically been telling them that while being good to your family/friends is nice and all, truly great people are willing to sacrifice them.

      It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. One could be good to one's family and contribute to the greater good. But nobody's perfect, and who am I to judge someone I've never met personally?

    106. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Chicken04GTO · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. If you cant be a good husband or a good father, dont get married and dont have kids. Water Polo is not exactly the same as taking the responsibility of a family seriously. What a stupid analogy. BUT IM A WRITER IM ALLOWED TO TREAT PEOPLE LIKE SHIT BECAUSE IM SPECIAL. NO, youre not.

    107. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, u mad?

      and how exactly does "pbs said he neglected his family" translate to "TREAT PEOPLE LIKE SHIT"? maybe he didn't play catch with his kids every day but he provided food, a house, and financial support. that's a shitton more than we can say for most fathers.

    108. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Nemi · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true self-centered son-of-a-bitch. Fuck everyone as long as I get mine, right?

    109. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Nemi · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing, if he was going to sacrifice others for his ambitions, he should not have married and had kids. He made an obligation to his wife and kids and showed he was not up to being a man by sacrificing them for his goals. But I am glad you got something out of it, really I am.

    110. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Ltap · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between a "successful person" and someone who's beyond successful, like Mark Twain. To have the writing output he did, you need to devote much more of your time to writing. If your family is hugely dependent on you, then that's a sacrifice someone would have to make.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    111. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Ltap · · Score: 1

      Yet they might have been necessary. If you went back in time, would you try to prevent the Industrial Revolution? It revolutionized industry and increased everyone's quality of life by providing cheap, mass-produced goods... yet it set us onto the path that we're on now. Would it be worth the sacrifice?

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    112. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Ltap · · Score: 1

      I also dislike some of the people in this thread who condemned him for not taking as much care of his family as he could, and put that as the most important thing. Honestly, in the long run, his family just does not matter, because it deals with potential things. His children could have been geniuses if he spent more time with them - and they also might have been idiots. Whereas he was a brilliant man who was right there, right then, and should have written as much as he could (which he did). It also puts all of his humanist outlook on life and interest in politics and international affairs (such as Leopold II's rule of the Congo) to the side, as if it was less important than raising a family.

      If everyone was a "family man", we'd never have political activism or great works of art - simply because people sometimes need to put things forward as more important than having, maintaining, and protecting a family. That kind of selflessness is what the rest of society, the "family men" rely on.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    113. Re:Adding to the Speculation by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      [without them] we don't have culture or civilization.

      No, you're wrong; without them we don't have some art or architecture. Culture is not something created by a bunch of ostentatious geniuses. In fact, look at what most people enjoy about other cultures/countries: food, dress, dances, the language, the people, and the landscape. None of those came from geniuses. Those are things that everyday people do. I would argue that these geniuses come OUT of a culture (i.e., the culture produces them) not create it.

      Also, you seem to think it's impossible to have a genius be a good person. I'll use a favorite composer of mine as an example: ever heard of Mendelssohn? He was in the 19th century. He was a genius (a "Mozart"). Interestingly enough, Wagner tried to get people to not listen to him ... because Wagner hated Jews, and Mendelssohn was a Jew. He didn't think Mendelssohn could produce great art because Mendelssohn was a Jew. Wagner had some great music, but he was a pretty rotten guy, he was racist, and he fit right in with Nazi Germany. You'd rather have him then a bunch of nice, ordinary people?

      My attitude: give people credit for what they deserve credit for, and not ignore faults for accomplishments - nor vice versa.

      By the way, those amazing Pyramids came out of incredibly brutal slavery. A lot of innocent people were forced to die for those Pyramids. A lot worse than the blacks in America/England. I'd rather not ignore that. I'd rather people learn from that.

    114. Re:Adding to the Speculation by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I agree, it shouldn't be either/or.

      My argument was that I refuse to call someone a great human being based on their accomplishments. There have been a lot of awful, horrible, brutal people beings that had a lot of great accomplishments. And there have been a lot of really great men and women that did not accomplish a lot. I personally respect the latter a lot more than the former... but regardless, they're different measures of a [wo]man. :)

    115. Re:Adding to the Speculation by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      But if you're not a good husband and father to the people you promised to be a good husband and father to, then you have lost a significant amount of respect from me.

      A chimpanzee can be a good father. A horse can be a good father. A mouse can be a good father. And yet that's one of your major factors in determining if someone can be a good man?

      Taking good care of your spawn is a positive trait, sure, but when I judge a man, I judge how he stands out among men, and by any standard, Mark Twain is a good man.

      P.S. I have a dog that's probably a better father than you are. Does that make him a better man than you?

    116. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Martin gives HIS thoughts on Mark Twain !?!?!?!?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxw73V_0h2Q

    117. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      On my tombstone:

      "He was a great family man - Thank God he couldn't write for shit!"

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    118. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also dislike some of the people in this thread who condemned him for not taking as much care of his family as he could, and put that as the most important thing. Honestly, in the long run, his family just does not matter, because it deals with potential things. His children could have been geniuses if he spent more time with them - and they also might have been idiots. Whereas he was a brilliant man who was right there, right then, and should have written as much as he could (which he did). It also puts all of his humanist outlook on life and interest in politics and international affairs (such as Leopold II's rule of the Congo) to the side, as if it was less important than raising a family.

      If everyone was a "family man", we'd never have political activism or great works of art - simply because people sometimes need to put things forward as more important than having, maintaining, and protecting a family. That kind of selflessness is what the rest of society, the "family men" rely on.

      While personally I don't harshly condemn Samuel Clemens for not consistently winning Father of the Year awards (especially because he wasn't cruel or intentionally neglectful to his family), I do think you are positing a rather false dilemma. After all, Samuel Clemens could have decided not to marry anyone, thus never encumbering significant familial obligations! The simple fact is that his marriage was not arranged or in any way forced upon him, it was completely consensual (and from all accounts I've read the marriage was equally so for his wife, Olivia). Therefore, as part of the decision to get married he, like anyone else, should have acknowledged the demands and obligations in making such a deep commitment to his wife and any future children.

      The bottom line is that when one makes an important and long-term commitment of their own free will to other people, there is an expectation that they uphold all the obligations inherent in that commitment, even if they have an extremely rare level of insight and talent.

    119. Re:Adding to the Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Succinctness befitting of a great man.

    120. Re:Adding to the Speculation by happyfeet2000 · · Score: 1

      I'm, with you. It's fun being a genious writer. You have an interesting profession, you meet lots of interesting people. You give conferences, travel, sometimes make some big money, etc. It's a lot of fun. Now, on the other hand, being a good father, being interesting company to your children and wife, worrying and helping them day after day after day through the good and the bad times, forgetting about your amusements, etc...

      The later is more the measure of a great man. The other, it's just having fun, even if you're "influencing" lots of people.

  2. Republishing and copyright by nolife · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."

    Exactly why the limits SHOULD be less then they are now. Back then, the length of the copyright period was actually promoting the publishing of new material.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    1. Re:Republishing and copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's damn lucky some bright entrepreneurs were able to pass these new laws so the industry doesn't have to deal with that whole "contribute new content or you won't get any money" racket that society had going.

    2. Re:Republishing and copyright by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Exactly why the limits SHOULD be less then they are now. Back then, the length of the copyright period was actually promoting the publishing of new material.

      Given the great gushers of new material being published per annum, current copyright doesn't seem to be doing any harm on that front. So, what exactly is your point?

    3. Re:Republishing and copyright by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Exactly why the limits SHOULD be less then they are now. Back then, the length of the copyright period was actually promoting the publishing of new material.

      So if a writer wanted to keep getting paid he'd need to keep producing new material? What kind of insanity is that? Next thing you know a plumber won't be able to install a bathroom sink once and collect royalties for the rest of his life any more! Electricians won't get to wire up one building and retire! The descendants of the assembly line workers who built the Model Ts will need to find jobs instead of collecting granddad's royalty checks!

    4. Re:Republishing and copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely.. Why have copyright laws at all when there are so much new material being published per annum?

    5. Re:Republishing and copyright by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Back then, the length of the copyright period was actually promoting the publishing of new material.

      Yeah, but, c'mon, they had the advantages of set type, steam engines, and horseback delivery back then. How can we compete with that?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. That is a pretty good quote by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel

    Especially when discussing the Patriot Act. Just saying.

    1. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Jake73 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Penned by Samuel Johnson, actually. Not sure if the Shelden got his Samuels mixed up or if he was just saying that Clemens shared the thought that originated with Johnson.

      But yea. Good quote.

    2. Re:That is a pretty good quote by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      It is a great quote. But it is also an extreme simplification and like most things best taken with a grain of salt.

    3. Re:That is a pretty good quote by blair1q · · Score: 2

      The USA PATRIOT act had nothing to do with patriotism. They applied the acronym to hide the things they were doing in it to subvert freedom.

    4. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I actually disagree with the quote. My observation is that patriotism is the first refuge of the scoundrel. Just look at how many current politicians try to wrap themselves in the flag. When people are attacking their opponents for not wearing a flag lapel pin, I take it as a direct admission that the attacker doesn't actually have anything of substance to contribute.

    5. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he really penned that I'm pretty sure there would have been a "mother fucker" somewhere in there.

      Oh wait, you said Samuel Johnson.

    6. Re:That is a pretty good quote by srmalloy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, as Ambrose Bierce pointed out, that, far from being the last refuge of a scoundrel, patriotism is often the first.

    7. Re:That is a pretty good quote by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, aka the USA PATRIOT Act?

    8. Re:That is a pretty good quote by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's exactly the point of the quote. People claim patriotism as a reason when it's just a ruse for terrible behavior. See also: "It's for the children" and "Drugs are bad".

    9. Re:That is a pretty good quote by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      You'd almost swear he waited to have his works released until now because he knew that this is when they'd be most relevant...

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    10. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you don't like the country you're a citizen of, move to another "better" place. Of course, there in lies the rub. Most people LIKE where they live, when compared to other places. And even while complaining they don't like it, they aren't willing to move to somewhere else because they see it as the best place there is.

      And wouldn't it all be great is we lived in one big happy world, without petty dictators and/or ObamaCare, Bush's war on terrorism, or whatever it is that ticks you off this week.

      The problem is, when you think you can tell someone else how to live, you just done to the world exactly what you don't want done to you, that being others telling you how to live.

      This is true patriotism: that I want the best for the country I've chosen to live it. And if that makes me a scoundrel, then so be it. Wearing a flag or whatever doesn't make one a patriot.

      But neither does putting your left hand over your heart when you pretend to salute the flag (as Obama did). What it does do, is make it clear you might not be a patriot when you either ignorantly or purposely reject customs of one's nation.

      It would be simply better if you don't participate in ANY customs at all, and at least be consistent. but that would mean you couldn't bow before foreign leaders because THEY expect it either.

      Patriotism helps defines a nation.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      There's also Chesterton who defined patriotism as "hating your country enough to think it ought to be changed while loving it enough to think it worth changing".

    12. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking patriots on this motherfucking plane!

      -Sam Jackson in "Patriots on a Plane"

    13. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing Johnson, I'm still surprised at the lack of "mother fucker".

    14. Re:That is a pretty good quote by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Really? Not showing any Patriotism at all when you're running for the President of the U.S. is "Nothing of substance"?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    15. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trying to infer that the lack of a pin equates to a lack of patriotism is precisely what I was talking about.

    16. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Pennidren · · Score: 1

      See also: "It's the word of God"

    17. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      McCain lost my respect when he flip-flopped on torture. You would have loved Senator McCarthy.

    18. Re:That is a pretty good quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As exists the first argument against jingoism.

      It's nothing new, but American neo-con jingoism is oft confused with patriotism. Tea Partiers take it to a whole new level (and spice it up with a bit of racism and classism), but it's nothing we haven't seen before.

  4. Wow! Just... wow! by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."

    If he was actually writing that additional content afterwards, he invented Release Early, Release Often.

    If the content actually existed and it was a cynical ploy to sell more products, he invented the model Microsoft uses.

    In either case, this puts his business acumen over half a century ahead of anyone else. That's genius.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Wow! Just... wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame he didn't patent it THEN.

    2. Re:Wow! Just... wow! by gzipped_tar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sadly he didn't secure a business model patent.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    3. Re:Wow! Just... wow! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Funny

      All I've been saying since the late 90's is that George Lucas wasn't that original with bonus content re-releases.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Wow! Just... wow! by sorak · · Score: 1

      "Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."

      If he was actually writing that additional content afterwards, he invented Release Early, Release Often.

      If the content actually existed and it was a cynical ploy to sell more products, he invented the model Microsoft uses.

      In either case, this puts his business acumen over half a century ahead of anyone else. That's genius.

      Only if the modern model is better than the one that existed at the time.

    5. Re:Wow! Just... wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the current release was deliberately crippled knowing the next incarnation was going to add some of the missing bits, he showed Apple how to do it.

  5. For the record, his stance on copyright by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Informative

    from a speech which he gave before Congress:

    http://www.bpmlegal.com/cotwain.html

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I like that extension of copyright life to the author's life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take care of his children."

      Sorry Mr. Twain but I don't think your daughters should be able to live in luxury, without working, while they collect money off your books for another 50 years. If you want to pass your existing money to them, that's fine, but the copyright should end the moment you die. Let your daughters go-out and work for themselves if they want to continue collecting money.

      Copyright is intended to benefit the original laborer, not to set up an eternal money-making machine for people who did not do the original labor.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    3. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

      A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.

      That sounds more like a movie-plot risk than a serious concern.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I made an estimate some years ago, when I appeared before a committee of the House of Lords, that we had published in this country since the Declaration of Independence 220,000 books. They have all gone. They had all perished before they were ten years old. It is only one book in 1000 that can outlive the forty-two-year limit.

      Therefore why put a limit at all? You might as well limit the family to twenty-two children. "

      Which is interesting, since, our problem now is the many many many works that have not disappeared, that cannot be used by new authors.

      That and concept of corporate ownership which he didn't seem to really be concerned about (Disney).

      http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
      http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/zoomcomic.html

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    5. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a shitty reason.

    6. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Making it life + anything doesn't really help there. There's still an incentive to kill the author as soon as he stops regularly producing new work. Shorter terms provide a better incentive to keep creating. I have absolutely no sympathy with the idea that your descendants should get money from the work - if you want to provide for them, invest some of the royalties, or give them a decent education so they can earn their own money.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is intended to benefit the original laborer, not to set up an eternal money-making machine for people who did not do the original labor.

      This is why death taxes, despite the scary name, are a great idea. Eternal money-making machines for people who do nothing of genuine value are bad.

    8. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Cool -- thanks for the link! The quick summary, for those who aren't going to read the whole speech, is that he wanted copyright to be a permanent property right, but since that was unconstitutional, he wanted it to last as long as possible. He makes the argument that putting a shorter term on copyright, such as the 42-year term they had at the time, is pointless, because so few books remain in print after 42 years. He claims that at that time less than 100 authors or descendants of authors in the US had ever benefited financially from a book that was more than 42 years old. Since there are so few of them, he claims that no harm is done by letting copyright last long enough to provide an income for their children. It's still true today that a copyrighted work's chance of remaining profitable for more than a few decades is virtually zero. But a lot of things have changed since the 19th century. The amount of copyrighted material is vastly greater. We have, say, Winnie the Pooh -- I don't know how much money Disney makes from Pooh merchandise every year, but I'm sure it's a lot of money. I don't know what the commercial situation was for sheet music copyrights in the 19th century, but America's only indigenous art form, jazz, relies heavily on a shared vocabulary of "standards." If a group of serious jazz musicians get together, one of them can call a tune like "Green Dolphin Street," or "A Train," and they're all supposed to know the changes and be able to start playing it. Because of our screwed up copyright system, these standards are never, ever going to come into the public domain. Even really square old tunes from 1923 are still under copyright, and I'm sure that Congress will keep extending their copyrights until after I'm dead.

    9. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make sense. If copyright expires at the time of the creator's death then the copyrighted work becomes public domain. So who, exactly, is going to murder somebody just so that everybody (including competitors if we are talking about corporations here) can use the material freely? It's not like you get awarded the intellectual property rights of your murder victims. In what kind of situation would somebody murder a copyright holder to get 'access' to their work? Where's the incentive?

      The only possibility I could foresee is if a beneficiary knocked off somebody that had written copyrighted works into their will, although that's no more encouraged by copyright expiration upon death than normal probate law encourages murder when people know they are written into a will.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    10. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.

      Here's the choice:

      1) Expiration at death -> Murder to put something into the public domain where EVERYBODY has access to it.
      2) Expiration after death -> Murder by a family member to get control of the income from the copyright today

      Seems to me that copyright extending past death is much more of an incentive for murder than it is against it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I think a better way for authors to avoid being murdered is not to write crap novels. Dan Brown, I'm talking to you.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    12. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "take care of the kids" sentiment isn't bad by itself, but then, the 50 years part makes it absurd. Whether in Twain's day or the modern era or anywhere in between or before, I find it hard to justify more than 25 years on the basis of helping the kids out. I mean, really... if you die while your youngest is still in the womb, 25 years later they're not only an adult, but also probably already a college graduate (assuming they had the inclination, and your copyright protection's royalty payments were sufficient), and may very well have a job, a spouse, a house, and multiple children.

      If he'd been concerned about taking care of his wife, then *in that era* he may have had something of an argument, but even then, 50 years past the author's death is still almost excessive; after all, it's well past the life expectancy back then, even if you married a 15 year old, published the famous work, and died at the end of that same year. For today? I'd fall back on the 25 year version; it covers taking care of the kids, if there are any; if the spouse is already elderly, it's probably long enough to outlive the spouse; if the spouse is young, it's long enough to go back to school and start a career and be self sufficient before the royalties are lost.

      Today it's, what, life+75 (or a flat 95 for corporations)? That means if I make something cool at 30 and get hit by a bus at 50, the copyright's probably going to outlive my grandchildren (and *everyone else who was alive when I copyrighted it*). That's pretty much bullshit. No one who makes anything would suddenly decide it wasn't worth it if the copyright terms got cut to a flat 50, or even a flat 25 years. There would be bitching from the ones who owned things that would expire, sure - but no one would actually produce any less than they already were.

    13. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by batquux · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's wrong with wanting to take care of your children? Some publisher is going to continue to profit from his work, regardless, so why not let his family benefit, too?

    14. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.

      Since the date is controlled by death, murder still gets access to the material sooner, while a simple fixed term -- which is what existed before the "life plus X" -- model neatly avoids any incentive to murder.

      Its more plausible to say that "a transparently false justification for a substantial fixed term beyond the death of the author is to reduce the incentive to murder an author to get access to the copyrighted material."

    15. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      Where is country and western music indigenous to?

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    16. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by yariv · · Score: 1

      That's obviously wrong, if this was the goal there was no connection between the time of death and expiration of copyright. There are probably two reasons:
      1) copyright is conceived as actual property, so it should be inheritable.
      2) some (possibly many, I don't want to make any statistical claim) artists create till they're dead, with some works even published after the author's death. It doesn't fit the general approach that those creations would not have any copyright protection.

      This is the general justification, I believe, but it still makes more sense with a fixed period...

    17. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Kaboom13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A better reason to make them static lengths of time and not based on the arbitrary date someone croaks at. Does an author (or his family) deserve less money because they get hit by a car the day after releasing their book? Pick an arbitrary time period of reasonable length, like say 20 years. That means by the time people are old enough to produce creative content of their own, the work they grew up with an were inspired by is fair game. Imagine how awesome it would be if the Ninja Turtles, GI Joe, Star Wars and Transformers were all public domain? There's already plenty of fan work, but they have to constantly dodge lawyers. There's no doubt that for a certain generation these things are a huge part of their culture, with meaning beyond the original works themselves. A person or company should not be allowed to own the common culture, only keep contributing to it.

    18. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by twmcneil · · Score: 1

      able to live in luxury, without working, while they collect money off your books for another 50 years.

      If only that had happened. Clemens had four children, only one, Clara survived him. Yes, he was forced to endure not only the death of his beloved wife but three of his four children as well.

      Clara wrote her own biography of her father and was an accomplished concert singer. She married well and probably had little need of any inheritance from Clemens.

      --
      "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
    19. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      But that's the desire of just about every parent. That their children will have life just a little bit better than they did.

      Of course some of the "50 years" thing is a big concern over what happens if you die early. You children are only 2 years old, and suddenly all means of support is lost. This being 100 years ago your wife can not get a job. You leave behind some debt that is barely manageable with current royalties. So you rely on future income to support your family. It's a fundamental human drive - to protect your offspring.

      Consider an analogy. Someone builds a big house for their family, furnishes it, manages the productive farmlands around it. Then he dies. The bank shows up to the widow and children and says "Sorry you can't have this house, the builder is now dead, we can't let you have it in perpetuity, something this great belongs to all the people. Great things were meant to be shared, not horded by freeloaders."

    20. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why can't the copyright simply be like 15 years after the work is made?
      Regardless of whether the author is dead or alive.

    21. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      And what if you died the day you published your book? Your family shouldn't benefit?
      Hey when you die maybe you shouldn't be abile to leave your house to your family? After all they didn't earn it.
      Or your business?
      I am all for reducing copyright terms from their current whacked out length but it is natural to want to provide for your family.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    22. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by tobiah · · Score: 1

      +1 common sense

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    23. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How's that any different from salary? "Sorry, I know you've worked this farm for 100 years, but now that your father is dead the lease is broken, get off." If you want income in perpetuity, buy life insurance. How hard is that? You don't inherit salary from your parents if they die, so do you want special treatment for creative works? Copyright exists only for increasing works in the Public Domain, and ensuring income for "children" (in quotes because the "think of the children" is a lie, it's "think of the corporations") is irrelevant to that.

    24. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by lgw · · Score: 1

      In Twain's time the corporations were going to make the money off the published works regardless; copyright was the length of time during which they were forced to pay royalties while doing so.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > What's wrong with wanting to take care of your children?

      Nothing. The objection is trying to fix it so that other people take care of your children.

      > Some publisher is going to continue to profit from his work...

      When the work goes into the public domain everyone can benefit from it. That includes "some publisher", but he won't have a monopoly.

      > ...so why not let his family benefit, too?

      He is free to leave his money to his family.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    26. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > ...copyright was the length of time during which they were forced to pay
      > royalties while doing so.

      Copyright was the length of time during which they were going to have a monopoly. Once it expired they had competitors and were forced to reduce prices.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    27. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by hsnewman · · Score: 1

      "I like that extension of copyright life to the author's life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take care of his children."

      Sorry Mr. Twain but I don't think your daughters should be able to live in luxury, without working, while they collect money off your books for another 50 years. If you want to pass your existing money to them, that's fine, but the copyright should end the moment you die. Let your daughters go-out and work for themselves if they want to continue collecting money.

      Copyright is intended to benefit the original laborer, not to set up an eternal money-making machine for people who did not do the original labor.

      The history of passing down property and goods to family members has been around for 10,000+ years. He is passing his intellectual property. To me it is no different.

    28. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by katebet · · Score: 1

      "I like that extension of copyright life to the author's life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take care of his children."

      Sorry Mr. Twain but I don't think your daughters should be able to live in luxury, without working, while they collect money off your books for another 50 years. If you want to pass your existing money to them, that's fine, but the copyright should end the moment you die. Let your daughters go-out and work for themselves if they want to continue collecting money.

      Copyright is intended to benefit the original laborer, not to set up an eternal money-making machine for people who did not do the original labor.

      Whilst I do agree with you to an extent Commodore... ...his children are DEAD, as is his only grandchild...he has no direct descendents...so I'm guessing they won't be working for themselves OR living off the money from Twain's books.

    29. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      In the US it was originally 14 years. The author had the option of renewing it another 14 years. So in theory the copyright would extend beyond the author's death but in most cases the copyright expired several years prior. In any case killing the author did not gain anything for the murderer..... it would still expire at 14 years.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    30. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Sometimes works that "disappear" eventually come back, thanks to copyright expiration. Example: It's A Wonderful Life was a forgotten film, but then it fell into public domain, so various TV stations started playing it for free to fill-in time. It was rediscovered thanks to its cheapness.

      Of course MGM then hired a gaggle of lawyers, who discovered a loophole, and re-copyrighted the work. That simply should not be allowed, because now the movie is becoming scarce again..... I know many younger people who've never seen it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    31. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      In any case killing the author did not gain anything for the murderer..... it would still expire at 14 years.

      Umm... not that I think such a murder scenario is likely, but on the logic of the GP's argument, you're wrong. Most works make most of their money in the first few years after they are released. There are a precious minority that are well-known decades later, but people who want to make money off of derivative works (for example) probably want to do it as soon as possible after a work becomes popular, hence Hollywood adaptations of recent novels, for example. It's pretty rare to see a Hollywood adaptation of a new work of literature more than 14 years after it was published, except for works that have become "classics."

      So in theory the copyright would extend beyond the author's death but in most cases the copyright expired several years prior.

      It wasn't just "in theory" that copyright went beyond the author's death. If you read a bit about the history of copyright in the 19th century, you'll quickly uncover debates and people arguing about providing for widows and children in the event of an author's death. When the average lifespan of children who survived infancy was about 55-60 years, 28 years was a significant chunk of an author's life, if not his/her entire adult life. It was quite likely that an author would die before those 28 years had passed.

    32. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said "art form"

    33. Re:For the record, his stance on copyright by lennier · · Score: 1

      1) Expiration at death -> Murder to put something into the public domain where EVERYBODY has access to it.

      That sounds like a great plot for a new Agatha Christie.

      "And so mes amis.... the leetle grey cells tell me that the writer was murdered by the entire Internet!. "

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  6. A hundred years by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please don't read the rest of this post until a hundred years after I'm dead.

    -----No reading below this point-----

    You all suck.

    Cheers,

    -----No reading above this point (in case you're reading this upside down while you drive in circles with an IPad on the steering wheel).-----

    1. Re:A hundred years by selven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, so if I read that upside down I'm allowed to read only the comment that we all suck and nothing else? Reminds me of the signs saying "no smoking outside this building".

    2. Re:A hundred years by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 5, Funny

      I picked up my monitor and rotated it around.

      Screw you too.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:A hundred years by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I got pulled over by a rent-a-cop (was in an apt. complex) years ago for driving the wrong way on a one way street. I told him I never saw the sign and asked where it was, he pointed to the sign sitting at the end of the road that is only visible if you enter the road from the correct direction. Then I just said "that's stupid, I'm going now" and pulled away.

      He'd probably taze me if I did that now... oh for simpler days.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    4. Re:A hundred years by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I just came back in time thanks to my personal time machine to let everyone know that Thanshin was one of those assholes who bought Long Life when it first came out in 2041. So the guy's effectively immortal now; you might as well go ahead and read his post now.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:A hundred years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had text to speech on, you insensitive clod!

  7. alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ...holding back "premium" material for the purposes of beating copyright. Imagine if DaVinci Code was released as a series every other year (if copyright ended 2 years) just to "renew" it.

    1. Re:alternatively... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing wrong with episodic content. I know at the very least a good deal of great Sci-Fi novels were first published one chapter at a time in SF magazines. If you don't make the first "episode" worth it, then nobody will bother with the rest.

      Of course I get what you are driving at, having people fawn over Dan Brown every other year would get pretty tiring. ;)

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:alternatively... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine if that were the case, massive numbers of readers would boycott Davinci Code. Although, is that really any different from how series like Babylon 5, Lost, and Stargate SG1 operate? You don't get the whole story at once... it's stretched out over 5-8 years.

      Also: I think you misinterpreted Twain's point. He didn't "hold back" anything in his stories. He was simply planning to add more material, as a bonus. Since he died, that never happened.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:alternatively... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You mean like every other book series on the market? You mean like serials published in magazines?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:alternatively... by Draek · · Score: 1

      Well, if the content was good (see also: Asimov's Foundation) we'd get more content every other year, and if the content sucked (see also: Star Wars movies) we'd get the parts that didn't suck into the Public Domain available to all. It's a win/win scenario.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    5. Re:alternatively... by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would actually work well, since it would not protect the version as released, only the additions to the work. People can still freely use the old version as-is, or even as a basis for their own derivative works.

      If you want to continue profiting from your intellectual property, release a new version every few years that's better than the one you released before. People can then choose between the older version (which is free of copyright encumbrance) or the newer version (which you've put work into to make it more desirable than the old version). Just make sure you do it better than anyone else, because the instant copyright runs out anyone can use it as the basis for new art.

      This is the way it should be. If you want to keep getting paid for something you wrote 50 years ago, then you should keep working on it and improving it. Your older versions (for what is not currently, and should be, a reasonable definition of "older") should be available for everyone after you've had a reasonable amount of time to profit from it. "Years" is reasonable. "Generations" is not.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:alternatively... by sorak · · Score: 1

      Not only this, but there's also an investment of time and effort. How long does it take for an author to add 1/3 to the content of an established book? He or she would have to choose between devoting effort to milking an old cow, or putting that effort toward writing new books.

    7. Re:alternatively... by pinkj · · Score: 1

      Good idea and I would like it implemented. But then, there still would be abuses of the practice such as The Beatles "White Album" re-reissue with absolute rarities such as "Paul coughs in the microphone," "George breaks a string," and "Ringo punches John in the groin after John tells him Paul's a better drummer."

    8. Re:alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're reading the DaVinci Code you deserve to get mugged off by paying to "renew" it every 2 years. If that's your idea of a good book then being plunged into poverty is quite fair. In fact, perhaps we could just skip the poverty bit and leap right ahead to summary execution?

    9. Re:alternatively... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Do you consider the Beatles Anthology albums to be like that? Most of the 'new' songs were just different versions of the existing songs, and many of them do indeed have goofs in them. (I think they're actually pretty funny, and most are almost complete songs otherwise.)

    10. Re:alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations... you just vindicated George Lucas.

    11. Re:alternatively... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Good idea and I would like it implemented. But then, there still would be abuses of the practice such as The Beatles "White Album" re-reissue with absolute rarities such as "Paul coughs in the microphone," "George breaks a string," and "Ringo punches John in the groin after John tells him Paul's a better drummer."

      Even if this were true, how is this an "abuse" of the practice? The original version would then be copyright free, so you could get it without worrying about copyright. If you actually give a damn about some random crap on a recording, some out-take, or whatever, you can buy the new version. But nobody's forcing you, and you can get/use/distribute the original for free.

  8. Not all that exciting or new really. by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From what I've been reading, all this material has been available for a long time to anyone who wanted to visit the library that holds it, and multiple biographies and even "autobiographies" have been published using information from it.

    So there are unlikely to be any shocking new revelations here.

    People will just get a chance to read things in his own words rather than the paraphrasing of a biographer.

    G.

  9. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    this being Slashdot, everything must automatically connect back to copyright law.

    1. Re:Of course... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, what part of "news for nerds, stuff that matters" don't you understand? While Twain is certainly worthy of an article in his own right, slashdot in general is a community that is very interested in copyright law. This makes sense since OSS/FOSS and copyright law are very much related. If you want articles that focus purely on literature, then I suggest you look elsewhere.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Slashdot has only been interested in all this boring copyright junk in the last few years. Before that, it was a proper technical site where people discussed interesting things (and I don't mean Ubuntu).

      It really just illustrates the shift to a more casual readership. Copyright bullshit is easy to debate, as anyone can sound like an authority with only a minimal bit of reading. Plus it appeals to the culture of entitlement that seems to have infected university-aged people nowadays.

    3. Re:Of course... by twmcneil · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. The story is on Slashdot because Clemens was a patent holder. He held three patents. One for a trivia board game, one for some kind of clothing fastener and one for pre-glued scrapbook pages. I once read he sold 25,000 copies of "Mark Twain's Patent Scrapbook".

      --
      "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  10. The truth comes out! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

    We finally get to hear his side of the story of meeting Guinan and Data.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:The truth comes out! by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Funny

      And surely this will create some problems for him in the distant future, when his adversaries on the Riverworld have the benefit of such complete knowledge of his beliefs.

    2. Re:The truth comes out! by ratnerstar · · Score: 1

      And see how he really felt about James Bond.

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    3. Re:The truth comes out! by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      ...and Peter Jairus Frigate.

      rj

    4. Re:The truth comes out! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, best post to Slashdot in weeks. Bravo man, well-played!

  11. Mark, meet George by dafz1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."

    So George Lucas didn't come up with this first. Not that it makes it ok.

    1. Re:Mark, meet George by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but Twain was trying to increase the value of the work not decrease it.

    2. Re:Mark, meet George by orthancstone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, it seems Twain beat the movie industry at its own game. VHS->DVD->BluRay upconverts and "bonus content" releases? That's so 1900.

    3. Re:Mark, meet George by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I doubt that Twain had a Jamaican golden retriever-gecko side-kick planned for Huck.

  12. Olden days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the olden days, authors games the law; they may not like the law, but still obeys the letters of the law. Today publishers BUY the law; they write them and their politicians force them upon the populace.

  13. It Wasn't withheld for the Political Views by tobiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens didn't make any secrets about his political views. If there were personally damaging revelations in there (criminal or moral confession) I could see insisting it only be published after his death. But 100 years later? The only reason I see for that is the autobiagraphies contain socially damaging information about people who were close to him, so that it might not only hurt them but their descendants.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:It Wasn't withheld for the Political Views by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      He was a public figure. Controversial views can easily damage public opinion of someone if they are trying to appeal the mainstream. See Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise etc. My understanding of his late life jottings is that he did have plenty of secrets about his personal views. His more popular works obviously covered a wide spectrum, but he didn't often blatantly criticize he felt were absurd. Instead he wrapped his criticisms in humor and innuendo, letting the reader explore the view in a more self discovering manner.

      Sadly, I don't think 100 years was enough as US has regressed enough in it views in the last 10 years to put us right at the trailing edge of Clemens era again in many ways.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    2. Re:It Wasn't withheld for the Political Views by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      First, I'm a huge fan of Twain, both as a man and an author.

      That said, the forward for an early edition of a compilation of Twain's short works of social commentary, Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race suggested that he was bisexual and was fond of black men.

      I personally doubt this and I don't know if this same forward is included in the current edition, but if it is true, it might be one of the things revealed in his memoirs. Given the societal views of his era when it came to homosexuality, I could certainly understand why he'd want to wait for a full century after his death to let the world know about it.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    3. Re:It Wasn't withheld for the Political Views by tool462 · · Score: 1

      Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens didn't make any secrets about his political views. If there were personally damaging revelations in there (criminal or moral confession) I could see insisting it only be published after his death. But 100 years later?

      I assume he wanted to wait to publish until AFTER the Lost series finale. Nobody wants to compete with that.

    4. Re:It Wasn't withheld for the Political Views by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      We're just going to see that things haven't changed much in 100 years. Corporate colonialism, Guilded capitalism, the American dream, etc. etc. The last 20 years have been a repeat of 120-100 years ago.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  14. But will it by Crash+McBang · · Score: 1

    Be in 3D and have a tie-in to LOST?

    --
    To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
  15. Copyrights by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ok, he wrote this thing over 100 years ago. So, who owns the copyrights to it?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Copyrights by Loadmaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not sure, but judging by the history of copyright laws I'd say no one/public, or Disney.

    2. Re:Copyrights by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nobody. Even if you were using today's rules, it's life + 70 years, which means that it would have expired 30 years ago. That makes this public domain.

    3. Re:Copyrights by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nobody. It's before the existence of Steamboat Willie, and all the retroactive copyright extensions start right about there for some reason.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting question. Does the copyright date take effect from when it was penned, or from when it was released? If it is the latter, surely his estate will hold the copyright. If it is the former, one can only assume it will be public domain the moment it is released.

    5. Re:Copyrights by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Copyright extends from the date when it is published, not from when it is written (which is much harder to prove). The question is whether handing it over to UCB counted as publication - probably not, in which case the copyright is owned by whoever owns the physical manuscript.

      In most cases this makes sense. Copyright doesn't exist to encourage people to write, it exists to encourage them to publish their writings and you shouldn't get any benefit from it if you are not publishing (DRM-locked distribution channels and regional distribution agreements violate the spirit of this).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Copyrights by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not true, in most countries, including the US I think, the copyright can start from the date of creation as well, depending on circumstances. To prove something like this, you could mail the work to yourself, and use the post's stamps for date verification, for example.

      Anyhow, in this case the work is in public domain, since unpublished and unregistered works get life of author + 70 years.

    7. Re:Copyrights by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      Copyright extends from the date when it is published

      Only in the case of a) works that were created before 1978 and published before 2003, and b) works made for hire. Everything else is life plus 70.

    8. Re:Copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AH but it is *LIFE*+70. The dude who wrote it is dead. So there is no question about exactly when his copyrights ran out. The people who held the manuscripts could have published them 30 years ago if they chose. Instead they followed his last wishes which is cool of them. But they were under no obligation to do so.

      For 'work for hire' type items it is date of publish + 95 years.

    9. Re:Copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same. It seems to me that if the manuscripts are published "as is" then the book is public domain as soon as it comes off the presses ( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf , page 5, section title "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date"). On the other hand, if the editing process at UC Berkeley is extensive, then the university will have some copyright in the final product, and that copyright will last 95 years from publication (same page, 95 years because UC Berkeley is not a person with an obvious death date).

    10. Re:Copyrights by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      WTF. Wasn’t giving money or gifts to a government person once not only a crime but treason? (A crime that is[/was?] punished like murder.)

      What happened, that someone who does it doesn’t instantly get shot? I mean isn’t it still law?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    11. Re:Copyrights by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Wasn't giving money or gifts to a government person once not only a crime
      > but treason?

      Not in the USA.

      > A crime that is[/was?] punished like murder.

      Bribery has never been equated to murder under USA law.

      > What happened, that someone who does it doesn't instantly get shot?

      Have you ever heard of something called a "trial"? (admittedly out of favor with the current adminstration, but most criminals still get one).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    12. Re:Copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're in the US, which means 90 years after date of publication.

  16. Lost by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is actually his "spoilers" on the "Lost" show. He was the original author of that too, but didn't want it to be shown on TV until now. He was too ashamed to admit that he wrote something that bad while he was alive.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  17. Interesting by calderra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...and takes the view that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel". Mark Twain, 1835 to 1910. World War I, 1914 to 1918. Imagine if work like this would have been taken seriously back then.

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming wide-spread adoption (global), then WWI wouldnt have happened either, because nobody would have been raised up by nationalist fervor.

      Patriotism fueled the assassination of the arch duke. Patriotism fueled the angry mobs of people which flocked to war after said assassination.

      I'd say Mr Twain has it right on the money.

    2. Re:Interesting by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Doubt it would've changed anything. There were a lot of scoundrels back then, same as today.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:Interesting by blackjackshellac · · Score: 1

      I kind of prefer Ambrose Bierce's take on patriotism,

      In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort
      of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer,
      I beg to submit that it is the first -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

      --
      Salut,

      Jacques

    4. Re:Interesting by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Both recited by countries who's laws protected them from retribution by people feeling differently. In some countries, saying such a thing might get you killed.

      And witty humor aside, I doubt that you'd be willing to speak freely where free speech is not allowed. And when it comes to TRUE patriotism, I have more respect for people in Saudi Arabia (or similar) that are true patriots trying to better their country and getting killed for it in the process.

      Which only proves, you're a patriot when it is convenient. Much like the whole "Dissent is patriotism" crowd quashing dissent now that they are in power.

      My point, be consistent and apply your principles even when they work against your agenda.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  18. "Doubts about God"? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, for those who can't wait, you should read his Letters From The Earth, published 30 years after his death....

    A paraphrase, Lucifer writing to St. Pete: these folks think that there's no sex in heaven... and those who hate utterly boring sermons and harp music are really looking forward to an eternity of that"

                      mark

  19. Nothing shocking, probably. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    Samuel Clemens was a hell of a salesman.

    He's going to be dead, he's not going to a dime of those sales.

    However, if he puts his writings on hold for 100 years, then, well, that's a bit more of a sale than if he simply sold them posthumously.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  20. Mod Samuel Clemens +5 insightful by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I have always enjoyed his works and his point of view. Calling "patriotism the last refuge of the scoundrel" is a statement that is true in our times and should have been stated 10+ years ago even though I doubt it could have stopped the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan.

    As far back as the beginning of the 20th century, the color of the hat of the U.S. shifted from white to grey... and lately from grey to black. In my opinion, this is simply tragic.

  21. The politicians sold you a line of BS there by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.

    I'm sure that's the spin policymakers put on it when they deformed copyright law. A better approach to discouraging murder would be to have set copyright terms...which coincidentally, was what we used to have. It used to be you could tell if a work was in copyright or not by looking at the copyright notice, subtracting it from the current year, and seeing if the result was greater than the copyright term. If you want the equivalent of "life plus fifty years" to benefit the kids, make copyright equal to the median life span + 50 years, and make that the set term. If you want more innovation, reduce that back to something reasonable, like 20 years.

    Making copyright life+50 to avoid a mass of murdered authors is bullshit...that problem goes away as soon as you decouple copyright from an author's demise, as was its original implementation (in the US at least...in the UK, the earliest forms of proto-copyright went on forever, and some works still fall in the category).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:The politicians sold you a line of BS there by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      I've always liked the compromise of something fairly long, like 50 years, so long as it continues to be made available. If a work is no longer produced for sale, that exclusive right should be forfeit in a much shorter time like, say, 10 years. There's no reason to protect the income of someone who's making none by choice. Orphaned works should go into the public domain sooner than actively marketed works because the balance of public good versus the rights of the copyright holder change when the holder is just burying the work.

  22. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He came from the future in to the past through LHC.
    He didn't want them to come out until LHC was nearly ready to go in to full swing.

    He placed a bet on LHCs first find so he can get the money in the future and so he can stop himself going back and breaking the loop ONCE AND FOR ALL.

  23. As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain failed by Latent+Heat · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Mark Twain aka Samuel Clemens was a person who came from a humble background and married into wealth, but his appetite for the fine things that money could bring exceeded whatever came his way by way of his wife's family.

    Having worked as a newspaper "printer's devil", he saw his path to the riches required for the life style to which he had become accustomed in the Paige Compositor -- essentially a Victorian Era version of MS-Word implemented largely in hardware, making "leveraged" investments in this invention.

    The Paige compositor failed in the marketplace, more sophisticated than its competitor the Linotype -- kind of like the tale of a "death march" failed software or computer hardware project some 100 years later. Twain lost all of his money and then money he didn't have. To make good on his debts, he went on a worldwide lecture tool, essentially doing impressions of Hal Holbrooke pretending to be Mark Twain.

    Not only did the speaking fees from this grueling tour pay back his debts in full and then some, it made him immortal. Were it not for the fame of the speaking tour and connecting with audiences around the world with his personal appearances in a day before TV and cable and talk shows, he may as well been forgetten as many a 19'th century humorist.

    So remember, what made Mark Twain a household word even into the 21'st Century was one, the man's greed, and two, an antecedant to the personal computer.

  24. Smart move! by challman1 · · Score: 1

    So he proposed a scheme that the pharmaceutical companies use today; take a protected work (drug) and modify it just enough as to make it a (derivative) new product and enjoy the benefits of the new span of copyright protection.

  25. Nobody is perfect by aepervius · · Score: 1

    By using your definition anyone could use *some* defect in anybody to destitute them from being "great men". I don't care shit that people were not great husband or father (and many will probably do too), as somebody said there is aplenty of them, so why should your definition have ANY bearing ? Heck some people might object declaring somebody a great man or woman because of their religious belief. Try picture "charles Darwin" a great man for some cultural group... [b]Somebody (man or woman) which research/scientific discovery/writing/philosophy/politics/whatever enhanced humanity's culture in a good way, is a great man, independently of his familial success[/b]. "we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work" Indeed we do, and we routinely do so. Because what define a great man, is not being a good neighbour or a good dad. It is doing something great for humanity at large.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  26. wrong example by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Darwin was a christian, put instead anybody else atheist , or non christian. You get my drift on the definition of "great men".

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  27. Why should copyright take care of one's kids? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why should copyright take care of one's kids almost indefinitely? Sudden death apart, what right do children have to be treated well by their deceased predecessor? Why shouldn't I have to earn my living if my dad was a dead -pun not intended- good writer?

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Why should copyright take care of one's kids? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Conversely, what right do you have to copy his words or print words he wrote and sell them for your profit? I'd give his kids the rights before I'd give some random bastard those rights.

    2. Re:Why should copyright take care of one's kids? by calderra · · Score: 1

      I think he would have admitted to pure selfishness on this point- see his speech before congress. However, he meant that the author should keep the copyright, not the publisher. The publisher would continue to make money as a necessity, but the profit would stay with the author('s family). He would have still opposed, I think, Disney making money off Mickey Mouse forever, instead of the people and families who animated him.

    3. Re:Why should copyright take care of one's kids? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      Conversely, what right do you have to copy his words or print words he wrote and sell them for your profit?

      What right do we have to express our thoughts and then expect others to refrain from repeating or perhaps being influenced by these? If you want to ultimately own your thoughts then don't express them.

      I think it's bloody convenient to have a system in place whereby your particular ordering of words suddenly and perpetually brings you riches. I utterly agree with copyright during lifetime and for a limited time after. But in the referred articles Twain is speaking about 50 years after his death. 50 years! Say you die when your kids are 20 and they get to benefit from your work for almost the complete rest of their lives. An absolutely berserk idea and probably the best means in producing absolute, lazy bastards.

      Make money during your lifetime, snuff it and pass the dough on to your kids. And 10-20 years after your death, your kids should be able to take care of themselves.

      I'd give his kids the rights before I'd give some random bastard those rights.

      There's no difference between the kids and "some random bastard". All of them were not involved in the producing of the works. And I tell you that publishing works from the public domain will NOT bring anyone heaps of money. Competition will take care of that. "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" goes for about GBP 5.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    4. Re:Why should copyright take care of one's kids? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well think about it. Back in his day a man could get a homestead and work and improve the land. Out of that he got the profits of his labor but his kids also got them when he passed them on to them.
      Same with someone that build a business.
      And I think you have it wrong. What right do you have to pass on the fruits of your labor to you children? I think that puts it a bit more in perspective.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  28. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He also invented that little tie on the back of a men's dress vest that brings it in around the waist and was awarded a patent for it, but to no monetary gain. It originally had uses on other garments as patented and was sometimes detachable, but it's still there on many suit vests.

    He also patented a self-pasting scrapbook which did sell really well and a trivia game.

  29. Actually, it would be like saying Turing was bad by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Actually, it would be like saying Turing was bad because he way gay, which he was and people did.

    Humanity, not very nice at all.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  30. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    To make good on his debts, he went on a worldwide lecture tool

    Going on a "lecture tool" makes no sense. Did you mean "tour"?

    Isn't Steve Balmer a lecture tool?

  31. he wouldn't have gamed anything by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The OLD original book would still have been free of copyright. Copyright would NOT have been extended on the ORIGINAL book. He just hoped that the NEW edition with its own new copyright would be worth buying from him for the new content.

    But the OLD content would have been free of copyright. So basically, Mark Twain wanted people to pay him for freshly written new content.

    That is not gaming the system, that is called selling stuff. nobody complains that the baker wants paid for his bread today even if you bought bread of him yesterday. New stuff, new payment.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  32. Time travel by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    It is simple, after meeting Guinan and Data (if you don't get the reference, hand in your geek card right now) he got a marvelous idea. He would publish a book a century after his death, collect the royalties, transport them back in time and be the richest man on the planet thanks to reverse inflation. And all that with not a single demand to sign an autograph or appear on chat shows.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  33. Great headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought I was reading The Onion for a minute.

  34. someone fails at satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That whole speech is satire. Try re-reading it with that knowledge & you may understand what he's trying to say.

  35. Its obvious by isobvious · · Score: 1

    He wanted to reveal his best kept secret: Meeting aliens from the future http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708828/

  36. Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you appear to be having an arugment with a dead man.

  37. Read it by technosattva · · Score: 0

    I recall visiting a public library near Woodstock NY, in September of 2004. The person who was giving me a ride to the bank wanted to use the internet... While I was there, I browsed the stacks and found a copy of 'The Autobiography of Mark Twain'. I haven't read many of his works, but I consider myself to be a fan of his work and literary style. I didn't know he'd written an autobiography, and so I skimmed through it. I remember a short passage in the midst of the book that I flipped to was a remark about writing an autobiography, where he said that it is best to not bother with chronological order and instead tell the story in anecdotes as it comes to mind. As much as this sounds impossible now, it also seems strangely appropriate for Mark Twain.

    1. Re:Read it by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 0

      Why did the parent post get modded down to zero, I wonder? The only reason I can imagine is that it rambles on for a while before arriving at the main point. The parent poster wants to make an observation about a book he read, but takes time to mention that he read the book in a library in Woodstock, NY, that he wasn't originally planning to go to the library on that day but was going to the bank, that the person who was giving him a ride to the bank wanted to go to the library to use the Internet, etc.

      All of which makes it the most Mark Twain-ian comment posted thus far.

      Anyway, I thought the PP's point (when he finally got around to it) was an interesting one. Twain's idea that you could write an autobiography without following a chronological structure was a) manifestly ridiculous-sounding and b) the sort of thing he would have been able to pull off brilliantly. It's been done recently, BTW, in at least one book I can think of: Dylan's "Chronicles Part One".

  38. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by thomst · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mark Twain aka Samuel Clemens was a person who came from a humble background and married into wealth, but his appetite for the fine things that money could bring exceeded whatever came his way by way of his wife's family.

    Having worked as a newspaper "printer's devil", he saw his path to the riches required for the life style to which he had become accustomed in the Paige Compositor -- essentially a Victorian Era version of MS-Word implemented largely in hardware, making "leveraged" investments in this invention.

    The Paige compositor failed in the marketplace, more sophisticated than its competitor the Linotype -- kind of like the tale of a "death march" failed software or computer hardware project some 100 years later. Twain lost all of his money and then money he didn't have. To make good on his debts, he went on a worldwide lecture tool, essentially doing impressions of Hal Holbrooke pretending to be Mark Twain.

    Not only did the speaking fees from this grueling tour pay back his debts in full and then some, it made him immortal. Were it not for the fame of the speaking tour and connecting with audiences around the world with his personal appearances in a day before TV and cable and talk shows, he may as well been forgetten as many a 19'th century humorist.

    So remember, what made Mark Twain a household word even into the 21'st Century was one, the man's greed, and two, an antecedant to the personal computer.

    Uh ... no, not really. Not at all, in fact.

    True, Twain put most the considerable wealth he had gained into the development of the Compositor (he himself estimated he spent $150,000 on it, but his biographer A. B. Paine estimated his investment at $190,000, and his friend William Dean Howells put the figure at $3000,000 - and these estimate are all in 19th century dollars). He believed there was both a demand and a need for it, based on his early career as a printer's devil. It did not "fail in the marketplace", however. In fact, only two prototypes were ever built, and the machine "collapsed" prior to its only demonstration before a group of investors in 1890.

    It wasn't greed that motivated him. Like modern Internet billionaires investing in private space travel, he believed in the technology, and put his money where his mouth was.

    As for the allegations of his being a "poor husband and neglectful father", nothing could be further from the truth. He adored his wife Livy, worshipped his daughters, and was devastated when his only son Langdon died of diptheria at age two. It was at Livy's insistence that he undertook a worldwide lecture tour to repay 100 cents on the dollar of the debts from his various bad investments (Paige's Compositor wasn't the only one), particularly the collapse of his publishing house, The Charles L. Webster Company. And, after their daughter Susy died of meningitis on a visit to their mansion in Hartford, Connecticut while Twain was on tour in Europe, he and Livy were so overcome with grief that they were never able to bring themselves to return to Hartford.

    "Poor husband and neglectful father?" I don' theeng so, Quickstraw ...

    --
    Check out my novel.
  39. From Twain himself! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Twain had a cunning plan to beat the early 20th century copyright law with its short copyright terms. Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."

          Wait, so shortening the terms of a copyright law actually INCREASES creativity by forcing the author to modify, amend and add to his work, instead of resting on his laurels? Perish the thought! No we need indefinite term copyright laws so that works can stagnate and progress can come screeching to a halt.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  40. Texas school board editing style? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    left behind 5,000 unedited pages of memoirs when he died in 1910

    Does that mean someone is going to distill it down to 300 pages, inevitably introducing his own bias and priorities?

    Let’s hope it’s not the Texas school board...

    Ok, actually let’s hope it’s nobody. (There is no such thing as a physical object without “bias”.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  41. He also invented bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One-third more content. Let that sink in for a moment. One-third more content. In a book. Not "modify third of the content", not "improve third of it" or anything like that. Just "Let's sell exactly what we sold before but let's just add some bloat and call it a new version."

    Naturally, "content" is somewhat vague term. A book could have more content while not having any less pages, for certain definitions of the word... But if he meant it the way that this description seems to imply, I wish I could punch every genital he owns.

  42. Was he the father of built in obsolensence? by computerchimp · · Score: 1

    "Twain had a cunning plan to beat the early 20th century copyright law with its short copyright terms. Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."

    Where is the wrath of the slashdot crowd?
    Microsoft and a few other companies likely have secret shrines honouring him. The man was a scoundrel or just doing right the capatalism way.....I am don't know what to say, I might do the same thing if I could.

  43. Dante by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

    So I wonder what level of Hell he is on? My guess is 1 :-)

    --
    The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
  44. Good Copyright Idea! by otaku244 · · Score: 1

    I think adding 30% more information at the time the copyright is an ingenious idea! Publishers could really learn from this guy. In fact, I had a similar.... (Copyright 2010, Otaku244) [continued in 16 years]

    --
    Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
  45. No Wrath necessary. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    I think this is a great example of how shorter copyright terms encourage more production.

    The original would be public domain and the author would be forced to make it more desirable if he wanted to keep milking it.

    Plus other people could also easily make derivative works.

  46. Newsflash!! Misogynist fails in threadjacking ! by rts008 · · Score: 1

    ...the destruction of families taking place as women seek divorces and full-time employment at their children's and family's expense.

    Yes, they should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, dutifully following their master's wishes.*sarcasm*

    Now, back to your regularly scheduled program....

    And what about good mothers and wives?

    Since Mark Twain was neither of those things, how is that relevant to the discussion?

    Take your bad manners and personal agenda elsewhere.

    Note to mod's:
    Both this post and parent I replied to should be modded 'into the basement' as 'offtopic', IMHO.
    I just felt it needed said, but it contributes nothing to the topic of discussion.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  47. Twain's Apostacy Hardly News by Brian+Cantin · · Score: 1

    Mark Twain's sceptical views of religion are hardly news. Twain was a prominent member of the Anti-Imperialist League. So, the general outlines of his religious and political views are pretty well known. Perhaps Twain withheld pubiication for 100 years because of personal revelations.

  48. 100 years by brettz9 · · Score: 1

    Delaying publication 100 years is a long way to go for getting in the last laugh...

  49. What is there to doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God doesn't exist, period.

  50. Re:Adding to the Specularation by aqk · · Score: 0

    Golly! You think Twain was a bad father? Turing was a total loss!

  51. And by mahadiga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The best quote from Mark Twain is
    "Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  52. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    If he was a good father he would not have to to do the tour to pay his debts. It seems he picked the lesser of 2 evils to try to prevent his kids from starving, but he had to abandon his family to keep the banks off his ass from decisions he made prior.

    "Your life is your own damn fault" - Larry Winget

  53. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by katebet · · Score: 1

    Thank you, thank you, thank you for setting the record straight! He was apparently a wonderful father - people who are quick to judge him as not being so need to remember that he did experience depression, lost his infant son (as has been mentioned) and two daughters before they were 30 years of age. That would be pretty tough to deal with. And Latent Heat - I know about Mark Twain through his books, not through the Compositor or speaking tours...and so what if he did do these things? Are you saying that anyone who earns good money by one means or another isn't deserving of acclaim as a great writer or artist? What made Twain a household name is his fantastic stories...

  54. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by katebet · · Score: 1

    If he was a good father he would not have to to do the tour to pay his debts. It seems he picked the lesser of 2 evils to try to prevent his kids from starving, but he had to abandon his family to keep the banks off his ass from decisions he made prior.

    "Your life is your own damn fault" - Larry Winget

    Yeah, cause no good father would ever have to leave their family to work and keep them from starving...!! Seriously, come on mate! People make bad decisions all the time and then have to take actions they might not like to fix the situation - it doesn't make them a bad parent, it just makes them human. Or are you saying no one should take risks, because if they do and they fail, Child Welfare will knock on their door for child neglect?

  55. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by thomst · · Score: 1

    If he was a good father he would not have to to do the tour to pay his debts. It seems he picked the lesser of 2 evils to try to prevent his kids from starving, but he had to abandon his family to keep the banks off his ass from decisions he made prior.

    What in the fuck are you talking about?

    In what twisted worldview does picking bad investments have to do with the quality of one's parenthood? You are an illiterate troll, and your argument is utter bullshit.

    Twain did not "abandon his family in order to keep the banks off his ass", you ass. Did you even read what I posted? His wife Livy INSISTED he pay off 100 cents on the dollar (because it was the honorable thing to do), rather than take refuge in bankruptcy and simply walk away from his debts.

    Why don't you go back to sticking crayons up your nose and leave the discussion to adults?

    --
    Check out my novel.
  56. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    No one should take excessive risks after they have kids. Its selfish.

    People in jail are full of risk takers. You need to make risks and do what you love to do before you have children. After having kids the importance is on money and stability. As sarcastic as you were it is true that Child Welfare will take your kids away if you can't feed them. This is true whether it is taking a funner higher risk job over your boring stable one or excessive investing or starting a business. You should not do these things until your kids are 18. It is a fact of life.

    In the 19th century you could go to debtors prison and lose your kids if you went bankrupt. There was no bankruptcy laws ... at least none I am aware of.

    Don't like it? Then do not have kids. Its capitalism and a fact of life. The mistakes need to be low risk as the kids come first in every decision.

  57. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    If he made better investments he could have spent more time with his kids and give them a better a life.

    Livy insisted this only because he neglected the stability of his family for high risk investing on himself rather than focusing on his kids. It is all about choices when it comes to money and he made a bad one.

    People need to relearn this moral as many are losing their homes by record numbers! The kids and spouses end up being screwed by the greed of owning big houses, cars, and ceilings on credit cards. In the end you take the risks and your family pays the price by going into poverty after the bank mortgages most of your income away.

    My argument is true. You choose either your kids or yourself whenever you make a risk and investing is a parents soul responsibility. Prove me wrong?

     

  58. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by katebet · · Score: 1

    No one should take excessive risks after they have kids. Its selfish.

    People in jail are full of risk takers. You need to make risks and do what you love to do before you have children. After having kids the importance is on money and stability. As sarcastic as you were it is true that Child Welfare will take your kids away if you can't feed them. This is true whether it is taking a funner higher risk job over your boring stable one or excessive investing or starting a business. You should not do these things until your kids are 18. It is a fact of life.

    In the 19th century you could go to debtors prison and lose your kids if you went bankrupt. There was no bankruptcy laws ... at least none I am aware of.

    Don't like it? Then do not have kids. Its capitalism and a fact of life. The mistakes need to be low risk as the kids come first in every decision.

    It's not a fact of life - it's your opinion which you are entitled to. I'm sure he didn't think his investments would fail - and given we weren't there it's impossible to know what facts he had in order to make his decision to invest. I'm also not sure that his children went without food - does anyone have info on this? He also did his best to get things back on track. I'm thinking the lessons he taught his children - take a risk, if it doesn't work then do what's needed to get back on track - are probably good to learn.

  59. Re:As a competitor to Bill Gates, Mark Twain faile by thomst · · Score: 1

    If he made better investments he could have spent more time with his kids and give them a better a life.

    You are a moron. All investments entail risk - even U.S. Treasury notes. And Twain's children enjoyed a life of fabulous privilege - they met and mingled with celebrities from every field from royalty to captains of industry to artists. They lived in luxury, especially by the standards of the time. They adored Twain, and he them. Because he wrote for a living, and thus worked from home, they had his company 24x7 whenever he was not touring as a lecturer. And they often went on tour with him during summer vacations.

    Livy insisted this only because he neglected the stability of his family for high risk investing on himself rather than focusing on his kids.

    You are as full of shit as a Thanksgiving turkey. You obviously have never read Twain's correspondence with his wife, nor the parts of his extant autobiography that deal with his financial problems and Livy's part in his decision to tour to repay them. Likewise, you seem not to grasp that Twain had made a good part of his income as a touring speaker from the time he first became a superstar journalist, after reporting on the fire that swept the clipper ship Hornet, and scooping every other reporter by more than a week.

    People need to relearn this moral as many are losing their homes by record numbers!

    You need to learn to shut the fuck up about subjects where you betray your deep, abiding ignorance with every character you type. You know nothing about Mark Twain. Your sole source is a statement somebody recalls as having been mentioned in "some documentary". You are clearly a pinwit, whose opinion is of no value to anyone other than you.

    My argument is true.

    Your "argument" is utter, complete, and comprehensive horseshit. Your grasp of the facts would need to improve by several orders of magnitude to achieve "tenous" status. Your imbecilic moralizing reveals your intellectual depth as approximating that of a paper plate.

    And you smell like an elephant's butt.

    --
    Check out my novel.
  60. Looking Forward to Reading These Volumes by Super+Marx+Brothers · · Score: 0

    Whether or not one agrees with every tenant of Clemens' philosophy, the soon-to-be published work should prove to be a fascinating read. I am particularly interested in Twain's views on President Roosevelt, as both men are representative of the times they lived in.