§ 109. Answers to Correspondents
1 July 1865
Clemens' fifth column for the Californian contained some further comments about his contemporary journalists on the San Francisco American Flag, the Golden Era, and the Gold Hill News. It also contained a charming essay on one of his favorite euphemisms, “Geewhillikins.” But the main preoccupation of the column, taking up more than half its length, was his critique of San Francisco theatrical criticism as practiced by the local papers and literary journals.
Theatrical criticism as described by “Young Actor” was, as Clemens had good reason to know, common—not to say universal. Newspaper critics combined an inclination to be capricious and arbitrary with a taste for rivalry and quarreling: witness the longstanding public disagreement between Thomas Maguire and the de Young brothers, publishers of the newly founded San Francisco Dramatic Chronicle. When Clemens worked for the San Francisco Call he, like other reporters, “wrote up” the city's plays and operas without having time to witness the whole performance, much less think of anything intelligent to say about it.1 The combination of the critics' temperament and such circumstances was, as he well knew, deadly.
Four months after this column appeared in the Californian, Clemens went to work once again as a critic, this time for the Dramatic Chronicle, but his opinion of his colleagues' work was never lower. It was probably he who published “ ‘Call’ Style of Criticism” in the Chronicle on 4 November 1865. This was a severe attack on the “critical honesty of the Morning Call” because “its estimates of histrionic talent are susceptible of change under a change of circumstances.” He went on to point [begin page 209] out that the Call's criticism of Felicita Vestvali during September did not “jibe” with its comments on her in October, after she had brought “suit against the manager [Thomas Maguire] for money she thinks justly due her.” While the earlier comments amounted to strong praise, and characterized her as a “star” and “in almost the ‘first rank of leading artistes,’ ” later criticisms reversed this trend:
Her enthusiastic admirer—the Call man—throws off on her instantly—sweeps all his former praise to the winds and stultifies himself with a single telling expression of irony. He opens his account of the suit in this way: “Mademoiselle starts in by declaring herself a star (extraordinary conceit!)” etc., etc., etc. O, what a falling off was there, my countrymen! He first went to work and convinced her that she was a star by argument and illustration, and now turns round and makes fun of her for believing him! We cannot put any confidence in such oscillating criticism as that. If she wasn't a star, what did you go and pretend to the public that she was one for?2
Somewhat later the same year, on December 13, Clemens reiterated this sardonic view of theater critics—this time in connection with the projected visit of Edwin Forrest to San Francisco in May 1866. In a letter to the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise he anticipated their response as follows:
These mosquitoes would swarm around him and bleed dramatic imperfections from him by the column. With their accustomed shameless presumption, they would tear the fabric of his well earned reputation to rags, and call him a poor, cheap humbug and an over[r]ated concentration of mediocrity. . . . They would always wind up their long-winded “critiques”—these promoted newsboys and shoemakers would—with the caustic, the cutting, the withering old stand-by which they have used with such blighting effect on so many similar occasions, to wit: “If Mr. Forrest calls that sort of thing acting—very well; but we must inform him, that although it may answer in other places, it will not do here.” . . . Their grand final shot is always a six-hundred pounder, and always comes in the same elegant phraseology: they would pronounce Mr. Forrest a “bilk!” You cannot tell me anything about these ignorant asses who do up what is called “criticism” hereabouts—I know them “by the back.”3
Clemens did not think that bad drama criticism was necessarily provincial criticism—as his allusion in the sketch to the New York Herald's [begin page 210] earlier abuse of Forrest shows. In the long invented letter from “Young Actor” he was giving a fictional rendering based upon his own experience as a newspaper critic, and reader. That experience led him, as his answer to “Young Actor” shows, to some genuine wisdom: “Pay no attention to the papers, but watch the audience.”
Clemens and Webb considered including the section on “Geewhillikins” in the composite sketch “Burlesque ‘Answers to Correspondents’ ” (no. 201), published in the 1867 Jumping Frog book. But perhaps because they had already found ample material for a long sketch in the four previous columns, no part of this one or the final one (no. 110) was reprinted.
Young Actor.—This gentleman writes as follows: “I am desperate. Will you tell me how I can possibly please the newspaper critics? I have labored conscientiously to achieve this, ever since I made my début upon the stage, and I have never yet entirely succeeded in a single instance. Listen: The first night I played after I came among you, I judged by the hearty applause that was frequently showered upon me, that I had made a ‘hit’—that my audience were satisfied with me—and I was happy accordingly. I only longed to know if I had been as successful with the critics. The first thing I did in the morning was to send for the papers. I read this: 'Mr. King Lear Macbeth made his first appearance last night, before a large and fashionable audience, as “Lord BlucherⒺexplanatory note,”Ⓐemendation in Bilgewater'sⒺexplanatory note great tragedy of Blood, Hair and the Ground Tore Up Ⓔexplanatory note. In the main, his effort may be set down as a success—a very gratifying success. His voice is good, his manner easy and graceful, and his enunciation clear and distinct; his conception of the character he personated was good, and his rendition of it almost perfect. This talented young actor will infallibly climb to a dizzy elevation upon the ladder of histrionic fame, but it rests with himself to say whether this shall be accomplished at an early day or years hence. If the former, then he must at onceⒶalteration in the MS correct his one great fault—we refer to his habit of throwing extraordinary spirit into passages which do not require it—his habit of ranting, to speak plainly. It was this same unfortunate habit which caused [begin page 212] him to spoil the noble scene between “Lord Blucher”Ⓐemendation and “Viscount Cranberry,”Ⓐemendation last night, in that portion of the third act where the latter unjustly accuses the former of attempting to seduce his pure and honored grandmother. His rendition of “Lord Blucher's”Ⓐemendation observation—
“Speak but another syllable, vile, hell-spawned miscreant, and thou diest the death of a ter-r-raitor!”Ⓐemendation
was uttered with undue excitement and unseemly asperity—there was too much rant about it. We trust Mr. Macbeth will consider the hint we have given him.' That extract, Mr. Twain, was from the Morning Thunderbolt. The Daily Battering-Ram gave me many compliments, but said that in the great scene referred to above, I gesticulated too wildly and too much—and advised me to be more circumspect in future, in these matters. I played the same piece that night, and toned myself down considerably in the matter of ranting and gesticulation. The next morning neither the Thunderbolt or the Battering-Ram gave me credit for it, but the one said my ‘Lord Blucher’ overdid the pathetic in the scene where his sister died, and the other said I laughed too boisterously in the one where my servant fell in the dyer's vat and came out as green as a meadow in Spring-time. The Daily American Earthquake said I was too tame in the great scene with the ‘Viscount.’ I felt a little discouraged, but I made a note of these suggestions and fell to studying harder than ever. That night I toned down my grief and my mirth, and worked up my passionate anger and my gesticulation just the least in the world. I may remark here that I began to perceive a moderation, both in quantity and quality, of the applause vouchsafed me by the audience. The next morning the papers gave me no credit for my efforts at improvement, but the Thunderbolt said I was too loving in the scene with my new bride, the Battering-Ram said I was not loving enough, and the Earthquake said it was a masterly performance and never surpassed upon these boards. I was check-mated. I sat down and considered how I was going to engineer that love-scene to suit all the critics, until at last I became stupefied with perplexity. I then went down town, much dejected, and got drunk. The next day the Battering-Ram said I was too [begin page 213] spiritless in the scene with the ‘Viscount,’ and remarked sarcastically that I threatened the ‘Viscount's’ life with a subdued voice and manner eminently suited to conversation in a funeral procession. The Thunderbolt said my mirth was too mild in the dyer's vat scene, and observed that instead of laughing heartily, as it was my place to do, I smiled as blandly—and as guardedly, apparently—as an undertaker in the cholera season. These mortuary comparisons had a very depressing effect upon my spirits, and I turned to the Earthquake for comfort. That authority said ‘Lord Blucher’ seemed to take the death of his idolized sister uncommonly easy, and suggested with exquisite irony that if I would use a toothpick, or pretend to pare my nails, in the death-bed scene, my attractive indifference would be the perfection of acting. I was almost desperate, but I went to work earnestly again to apply the newspaper hints to my ‘Lord Blucher.’ I ranted in the ‘Viscount’ scene (this at home in my private apartments) to suit the Battering-Ram, and then toned down considerably, to approach the Earthquake's standard; I worked my grief up strong in the death-bedⒶemendation scene to suit the latter paper, and then modified it a good deal to comply with the Thunderbolt's hint; I laughed boisterously in the dyer's vat scene, in accordance with the suggestion of the Thunderbolt, and then toned down toward the Battering-Ram's notion of excellence. That night my audience did not seem to know whether to applaud or not, and the result was that they came as near doing neither one thing nor the other as was possible. The next morning the Semi-Monthly Literary Bosh said my rendition of the character of ‘Lord Blucher’ was faultless—that it was stamped with the seal of inspiration; the Thunderbolt said I was an industrious, earnest and aspiring young dramatic student, but I was possessed of only ordinary merit, and could not hope to achieve more than a very moderate degree of success in my profession—and added that my engagement was at an end for the [begin page 214] present; the Battering-Ram said I was a tolerably good stock-actor, but that the practice of managers in imposing such people as me upon the public as stars, was very reprehensible—and added that my engagement was at an end for the present; the Earthquake critic said he had seen worse actors, but not much worse—and added that my engagement was at an end for the present. So much for newspapers. The Monthly Magazine of Literature and Art (high authority,) remarked as follows: 'Mr. King Lear Macbeth commenced well, but the longer he played, the worse he played. His first performance of “Lord Blucher”Ⓐemendation in Blood, Hair and the Ground Tore Up, may be entered upon the record as a remarkably fine piece of acting—but toward the last he got to making it the most extraordinary exhibition of theatrical lunacy we ever witnessed. In the scene with the “Viscount,”Ⓐemendation which calls for sustained, vigorous, fiery declamation, his manner was an incomprehensible mixture of “fever-heat”Ⓐemendation and “zero”Ⓐemendation—to borrow the terms of the thermometer; in the dyer's vat scene he was alternately torn by spasms of mirth and oppressed by melancholy; in the death-bed scene his countenance exhibited profound grief one moment and blank vacancy in the next; in the love scene with his bride—but why particularize? throughout the play he was a mixture—a conglomeration—a miracle of indecision—an aimless, purposeless dramatic lunatic. In a word, his concluding performances of the part of “Lord Blucher”Ⓐemendation were execrable. We simply assert this, but do not attempt to account for it—we know his first performance was excellence itself, but how that excellence so soon degenerated into the pitiable exhibition of last night, is beyond our ability to determine.' Now, Mr. Twain, you have the facts in this melancholy case—and any suggestion from you as to how I can please these critics will be gratefully received.”
I can offer no suggestion, “Young Actor,” except that the ordinary run of newspaper criticism will not do to depend upon. If you keep on trying to shape yourself by such models, you will go mad, eventually. Several of the critics you mention probably never saw you play an entire act through in their lives, and it is possible that the balance were no more competent to decide upon the merits of a dramatic performance than of a sermon. Do you note how unconcernedly and how pitilessly they lash you as soon as your engagement is ended? Sometimes those “criticisms” are written and in type before the curtain rises. Don't you remember that the New York Herald once came out with a column of criticism upon Edwin Forrest'sⒶemendation “Hamlet,” when unfortunately the bill had been changed at the last moment, and Mr. Forrest played “Othello”Ⓔexplanatory note [begin page 215] instead of the play criticised? And only lately didn't the same paper publish an elaborate imaginary description of the funeral ceremonies of the late Jacob LittleⒺexplanatory note, unaware that the obsequies had been postponed for twenty-four hours? It is vastly funny, your “working yourself up” to suit the Thunderbolt, and “toning yourself down” to suit the Battering-Ram, and doing all sorts of similarly absurd things to please a lot of “critics” who had probably never seen you play at all, but who threw in a pinch of instruction or censure among their praise merely to give their “notices” a candid, impartial air. Don't bother yourself any more in that way. Pay no attention to the papers, but watch the audience. A silent crowd is damning censure—good, hearty, enthusiastic applause is a sure sign of able acting. It seems you played well at first—I think you had better go back and start over again at the point where you began to instruct yourself from the newspapers. I have often wondered, myself, when reading critiques in the papers, what would become of an actor if he tried to follow all the fearfully conflicting advice they contained.Ⓐalteration in the MS
Mary, Rincon School.—Sends a dainty little note, the contents whereof I take pleasure in printing, as follows, (suppressing, of course, certain expressions of kindness and encouragement which she intended for my eye alone): “Please spell and define gewhilikins for me.”
Geewhillikins is an ejaculation or exclamation, and expresses surprise, astonishment, amazement, delight, admiration, disappointment, deprecation, disgust, sudden conviction, incredulity, joy, sorrow—well, it is capable of expressing pretty nearly any abrupt emotion that flashes through one's heart. For instance, I say to Jones, “Old Grimes is dead!” Jones knowing old Grimes was in good health the last time he heard from him, is surprised, and he naturally exclaims, “Geewhillikins! is that so?” In this case the word simply expresses surprise, mixed with neither joy norⒶemendation Ⓐtextual note Ⓐalteration in the MS sorrow, Grimes' affairs being nothing to Jones. I meet Morgan, and I say, “Well, I saw Johnson, and he refuses to pay that bill.” Johnson exclaims, “Geewhillikins! is that so?” In this case the word expresses astonishment and disappointment, together with a considerable degree of irritation. I meet young Yank, and I ob- [begin page 216] serve , “The country is safe now—peace is declared!” Yank swings his hat and shouts, “Geewhillikins! is that so?”—which expresses surprise and extreme delight. I stumble on Thompson, and remark,Ⓐemendation “There was a tornado in Washoe yesterday which picked up a church in Virginia and blew it to Reed's Station, on the Carson river, eighteen miles away!” Thompson says, “Gee-e-e-whillikins!” with a falling inflection and strong emphasis on that portion of the word which I have italicized—thus, with discriminating judgment, imbuing the phrase with the nicest shades of amazement, wonder, and mild incredulity. Stephens, who is carrying home some eggs in his “hind-coat pocket,” sits down on them and mashes them—exclaiming, as he rises, gingerly exploring the mucilaginous locality of his misfortune with his hand, “Gee-whillikins!”—with strong emphasis and falling inflection on the first syllable, and falling inflection on the last syllable also—thus expressing an extremity of grief and unmitigated disgust which no other word in our whole language is capable of conveying. That will do, I suppose—you cannot help understanding my definition, now, and neither will you fail to appreciate the extraordinary comprehensiveness of the word. We will now consider its orthography. You perceive that I spell it with two e's and two l's,Ⓐalteration in the MS which I think is the proper method, though I confess the matter is open to argument. Different people spell it in different ways. Let us give a few examples:
“The horse ‘raired’ up with a furious neigh,And over the hills he scoured away!
Mazeppa closed his despairing eye,
And murmured, 'Alas! and must I die!Ⓔexplanatory note
‘Gee-whilikins!’ ”
[Byron's Mazeppa.
“Sir Hilary charged at Agincourt—Sooth 'twas an awful day!
And though in that old age of sport
The rufflers of the camp and court
Had little time to pray,
'Tis said Sir Hilary muttered there
Four syllables by way of prayer:Ⓔexplanatory note
‘Gee-whillikins!’ ”
[Winthrop Mackworth Praed.
[begin page 217]If the Gold Hill News or the American Flag say the above excerpts are misquotations, pay no attention to them—they are anything but good authority in matters of this kind. The Flag does not spell the word we are speaking of properly, either, in my opinion. I have in my mind a communication which I remember having seen in that paper the morning the result of the presidential election was made known. It possessed something of an exulting tone, and was addressed to a heavy gun among the Copperheads—the editor of the late Democratic Press Ⓔexplanatory note, I think—and read as follows:
“ Beriah Brown Ⓔexplanatory note, Esq.—Dear Sir: How are you now?
“Yours, truly,
G. Whillikins.”
You will have to accept my definition, Mary, for want of a better. As far as the spelling is concerned, you must choose between Mr. Praed and myself on the one hand, and Lord Byron and the American Flag on the other, bearing in mind that the two last named authorities disagree, and that neither of them ever knew much about the matter in dispute, anyhow.
Anxiety.—S. F.—Need have no fear of General Halleck. There is no truth in the report that he will compel approaching maternity to take the oath of allegiance.—Golden Era.Ⓐemendation Ⓔexplanatory note
Another impenetrable conundrum—or, to speak more properly, another fathomless riddle. I shall have to refer to WebsterⒺexplanatory note:
“Approaching, ppr. Drawing nearer; advancing toward.”
“Maternity, n. The character or relation of a mother.”
Consequently, “approaching maternity” means the condition of being about to become a mother. And according to the profound, the deep, the bottomless expounder who instructs “Anxiety” in my text, General HalleckⒺexplanatory note “will not compel” that condition to “take the oath of allegiance.” Any numscull could have told that—because how can an insensible, impalpable, invisible condition take an oath? That expounder comes as near being a “condition” as anybody, no doubt, but still he cannot take an oath in his character as a “condition;” he must take it simply in his character as a man. None but human beings can take the oath of [begin page 218] allegiance under our constitution. But didn't you mean that women in the said condition would not be required to take the oath merely because they happened to be in that condition?—or didn't you mean that the woman wouldn't have to take it on behalf of her forthcoming progeny?—or didn't you mean that the forthcoming progeny wouldn't be required to take it itself, either before or immediately after it was born? Or, what in the very mischief did you mean?—what were you driving at?—what were you trying to ferry across the trackless ocean of your intellect? Now you had better stop this sort of thing, because it is becoming a very serious matter. If you keep it up, you will eventually get some of your subscribers so tangled up that they will seek relief from their troubles and perplexities in the grave of the suicide.
Mark Twain.—'Twas a burning shame to misquote Burns. The wretch who deliberately substituted italic for the original would, we verily believe, enjoy martyrdom. Previous thereto his eyes should be stuck full of exclamation points!—Golden Era.Ⓐemendation Ⓔexplanatory note
Are you wool-gathering, or is it I? I have read that paragraph fourteen or fifteen times, very slowly and carefully, but I can't see that it means anything. Does the point lie in a darkly suggested pun upon “original would” (original wood?)—or in the “exclamation points?”—or in the bad grammar of the last sentence?—or in— Come, now—explain your ingenious little riddle, and don't go on badgering and bullyragging people in this mysterious way.
Gold Hill News.—This old scoundrel calls me an “old humbug from Dutch Nick's.Ⓔexplanatory note” Now this is not fair. It is highly improper for gentlemen of the press to descend to personalities, and I never permit myself to do it. However, as this abandoned outcast evidently meant his remark as complimentary, I take pleasure in so receiving it, in consideration of the fact that the fervent cordiality of his language fully makes up for its want of elegance.Ⓐalteration in the MS
The first printing in the Californian 3 (1 July 1865): 4–5 (Cal) is copy-text for all but the two items that Mark Twain quotes from the San Francisco Golden Era 13 (25 June 1865): 4 (GE), which is copy-text at 217.20–22 and 218.14–17. Collation suggests that clippings of GE were part of Mark Twain's manuscript: Cal reproduced GE without substantive error, except for one inadvertent omission (“verily” at 218.16). Since this is the only variant between Cal and GE, no historical collation for these texts has been provided. The quotation from Winthrop Macworth Praed (216.31–38) does not vary substantively from the 1865 edition of his works cited in the explanatory notes, except in two obviously deliberate changes: “four” instead of “two,” and the addition of “Gee-whillikins.” Since the precise source of Mark Twain's quotation is not known, however, the copy-text remains the first printing of this sketch, Cal. Likewise, since the exact edition of Webster's dictionary, which served as the source of the quotation at 217.25–26, is not known, Cal remains copy-text for this passage also. Copies: Bancroft (Cal); PH from Yale (Cal); PH of the Yale Scrapbook, pp. 27A–28A (Cal); PH from Bancroft (GE).
Reprintings and Revisions. Mark Twain revised clippings of this sketch and four similar sketches from the Californian (nos. 105–109) in the Yale Scrapbook (YSMT), rejecting portions of each and revising others to assemble a composite sketch for JF1. Only one portion of the present sketch, from “correct” (211.21) to “two l's” (216.22), now survives in the scrapbook (pp. 27A–28A), but it is evident that a clipping for the portion from the title through “at once” (211.21) once occupied the top of page 27A; the remainder of the sketch was evidently never in the scrapbook. Mark Twain canceled the parts of the sketch that remain in the scrapbook, except for the section called “Mary, Rincon School,” which survives uncanceled. He slightly revised this section, and sometime after the main selections for JF1 had been made, he listed it as “Geewhillikens” in the back of the scrapbook, along with six other sketches that did not “run average” (see the textual introduction, volume 1, pp. 538–539). Mark Twain may have considered using this section as a separate piece, and he almost certainly intended using other parts of the sketch for his composite version “Burlesque ‘Answers to Correspondents’ ” (no. 201). Yet even though a section of the Cal clipping was scissored out of the scrapbook, no part of the sketch was included in the composite sketch, and Mark Twain did not subsequently reprint any of it.