He set forth his views and promised his assistance when enough of the
letters should be completed.
Clemens allowed his name to be included with the list of spelling
reformers, but he never employed any of the reforms in his letters or
writing. His interest was mainly theoretical, and when he wrote or spoke
on the subject his remarks were not likely to be testimonials in its
favor. His own theory was that the alphabet needed reform, first of all,
so that each letter or character should have one sound, and one sound
only; and he offered as a solution of this an adaptation of shorthand.
He wrote and dictated in favor of this idea to the end of his life. Once
he said:
“Our alphabet is pure insanity. It can hardly spell any large word in
the English language with any degree of certainty. Its sillinesses are
quite beyond enumeration. English orthography may need reforming and
simplifying, but the English alphabet needs it a good many times as
much.”
He would naturally favor simplicity in anything. I remember him reading,
as an example of beautiful English, The Death of King Arthur, by Sir
Thomas Malory, and his verdict:
“That is one of the most beautiful things ever written in English, and
written when we had no vocabulary.”
“A vocabulary, then, is sometimes a handicap?”
“It is indeed.”
Still I think it was never a handicap with him, but rather the plumage
of flight. Sometimes, when just the right word did not come, he would
turn his head a little at different angles, as if looking about him for
the precise term. He would find it directly, and it was invariably the
word needed. Most writers employ, now and again, phrases that do not
sharply present the idea--that blur the picture like a poor opera-glass.
Mark Twain's English always focused exactly.