I did not have to do ‸take‸ the initiative with House; he asked for the things himself, & cheerfully waded through them, & made useful corrections & suggestions. . . . Well, he liked the Gilded Age, & tried ‸wanted‸ to do it a favor. He proposed to review it in the New York Tribune before some other journal should get a chance to give it a start which might not be to its advantage. But the project failed. He said Whitelaw Reid abused him & charged him with bringing a dishonorable proposal from Warner & me. That seemed strange; indeed unaccountable, for there was nothing improper about the House the proposition, & would not have been if it really had come from House & Warner & me. Eight or ten years later I made the a like proposition to Col. John Hay when he was temporarily editing the Tribune, & when I {i.e., he} accepted it he I inquired into the former case. He said that the explanation of that case was, that Reid did not like House, & would not have entertained a proposition of any kind from him. However, I had taken House’s report at its face value; & as his effort to do me a service had apparently gotten him into trouble I felt that the effort & the result placed me under a double obligation to him. I withdrew my smile from Reid, with a & did not speak to him again for twelve or thirteen years—1886; then I asked him to do a certain kindness for House, & he said he would, & kept his word. (SLC 1890, 6–9)

As to Twain. It isn’t good journalism to let a warm personal friend & in some matters literary partner, write a critical review of him in a paper wh. has good reason to think little of his delicacy & highly of his greed. So, if you haven’t published it yet, I wld. think of this point before doing so. If you have, there’s no harm done. But, as you remember we agreed, years ago, a new book by Twain is not (as he modestly suggested) a literary event of such importance that it makes much difference whether we have our dear friend Howells write the review, or whether indeed we have any review. (Reid to Hay, 25 Sept 81, RPB-JH; see also Monteiro and Murphy, 53)

Reid and Edward H. House had a falling out. House told me his side of the matter, and at second-hand I got Reid’s side of it—which was simply that he considered House a “blatherskite,” and wouldn’t have anything to do with him. I ranged myself on House’s side, and relations between Reid and me ceased; they were not resumed for twenty-two years; and then not cordially, but merely diplomatically, so to speak. . . . In justice to Reid I confess that . . . I found out that he was right concerning Edward H. House. Reid had labeled him correctly; he was a blatherskite. (AD, 28 Aug 1907, CU-MARK)

[George W.] Smalley and yourself both speak of Mark Twain. I hear he says that he has a quarrel with The Tribune. If so, it is simply that The Tribune declined to allow him to dictate the person who should review his forthcoming novel. His modest suggestion was that Ned House should do it, he having previously interested House in the success of the book by taking him into partnership in dramatizing it. There is a nice correspondence on a part of the subject which would make pleasant reading; and if Twain gives us trouble, I’m very much tempted to make him a more ridiculous object than he has ever made anybody else. (Whitelaw Reid Papers, DLC)

Who would have thought it? The extremely staid and dignified Boston Advertiser has actually engaged “Mark Twain” to contribute to its columns; and he will soon begin to be funny at so much per 1,000 words. I did not think this of the Advertiser; but then the world moves, and even the Advertiser must move with it. (Colstoun 1873)

I made a mark in the index opposite to each of the ones I liked; gave him the book & told him I would prefer that he should use one of the sketches thus marked.

Traveling on the Erie road yesterday (May 15) I found the newsman Blauvelt selling this pamphlet with this extraordinary feature in the title page: “Revised & selected for this work, by Mark Twain!” I never rev And furthermore, the pamphlet contained five of my sketches instead of one. And furthermore still, it contained ‸(with my name attached)‸ a bit of execrable rubbish entitled “A Self-Made Man,” which I never wrote!—could not write, indeed, unless freighted with more

My sketches are copyrighted in my own name.

I consider a volume of them worth (to me) not less than $25,000, & certainly would not publish a volume of them unless I felt sure of getting that much for it—one of my reasons being that I consider that an author cannot bunch a mass of disconnected humorous sketches together & publish the same without sickening the public stomach & damaging his own reputation. (SLC 1873 [MT01119], 2–4)