I don't know how much error there is in Rainey, and I do not ever
validate sloppy editing, but what I do know to my sorrow and exhaustion
is that we have not caught up with the extent to which error can be
introduced when texts are scanned, combined from more than one computer,
and/or sent to a different computer. This happened to me with a text I
had meticulously edited many times but then gave to an assistant to
combine and resend because I had hurt my back and was not supposed to
sit at the screen for long periods. The text apparently arrived at the
publisher with many errors. Fortunately it was carefully read and sent
back, so the final version was re-edited and combined by my colleague.
I wonder if something like that could have happened here because
extremely close examination of the originals is part of what Rainey was
doing. It is hard for me to imagine he just did not check or did it
None of this means it is ok, only that I would never have anticipated
the introduction of error in transmission, and I think we all need to
watch for that.
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/28/06 10:21 PM >>>
I should add that I have not read Rainey and have no opinion on the
book; but I did notice that all the misquotations listed in the original
post were, as far as I could tell, did not change the meaning much if at
all. It's still obnoxiously sloppy, but not _necessarily_ fatal. Does
the article go into the effect that the errors have on the core
arguments of the book?
Carrol Cox wrote:
> > Marcia Karp wrote:
> > The only error I've found so far in _Understanding Poetry_ one in
> > Blake's "London."
> > I disagree that sloppy editing is not a discrediting factor.
> Yes -- a discrediting _factor_. I agree. One uses such a work more
> cautiously for that reason. Example: Tocqueville's _Democracy in
> America_ is riddled with stupidities, i.e., with discrediting factors.
> It is still a work of some importance.