“Textual Scholarship” by Leah S. Marcus
Attempted topoi: The Advantageous/Disadvantageous
Is it advantageous to the audience when an editor manipulates the original intention of the author, creating a disadvantage for the audience in the respect that they are losing the originality of the author’s previous work? In some regards yes, the audience is at a great disadvantage because they lose the words that the author had intended. Changing a word or incorporating a different interpretation of a work changes its meaning dramatically. Even though the change may have been for the better, the original work is still original and there is something to be admired through incomplete work and thoughts. Editors take it upon themselves to “override multiple texts in favor of a single definitive version of the literary work” (Nicholls 149). It does not go unnoticed that the editor does provide powerful interpretations that can enhance the text and the readers’ experience with the text, however, something does get lost in translation and whether that translation is advantageous to the understanding of the text is completely subjective.
Whether or not the author does approve of the editors interpretation and whether or no the audience is begging for an altercation of an ending or scene in an authors’ work, there is an element of loss and completion when changing a piece of literary work. In some respects the change can be advantageous because the change enhances the text and provides a deeper understanding. However, the modification can be disadvantageous because the audience loses the voice of the author and their original intent.
I suppose it would be advantageous to the writer changing the work. People may manipulate the text to serve their own purpose to influence other people. The readers of the text that are looking for answers in the text are the ones that need to be concerned. I do agree with the article about needing to read a piece of work through a lens, because that is seeing the work for more than the face value. To read through a lens is challenge and mentally rework the text. I remember when I took a poetry class and my professor shared with us that editors had changed some of Emily Dickenson’s poems because they were sparse, so they either added more words or took out certain poems. History is the memory and interpretation of another person, and usually it is very wrong.
i see where certain editorial practices can enhance the text and offer a different interpretation of the original work. different is good. however, a reinterpretation of a nonfiction text like, say, a history book or encyclopedia, by en editor or “mediating” agent could open the door for oppressive and unaccredited rhetoric to take the place of objective, well researched information.