McCue's words, which I endorse, are "Whatever the audience, it is an
editor's first duty to present a reliable text." You may not realize
that many of the errors are in that part of the book that are in effect
an edition of the essays. Argument is not the point there; the point is
to give the reader Eliot's words, no matter what they were.
Rainey's argument are taken up when pertinent.
It isn't fair to argue with McCue until you read what he wrote.
Though he adduces principles, he isn't jumping over the books, as what
you said might suggest.
>It's still obnoxiously sloppy, but not _necessarily_ fatal.
And if you think he is unfair to his author, read the books under
review. I've read Rainey's paired books carefully and reviewed them for
the Eliot Society. There is much that should have been worked on before
the books were printed.
Carrol Cox wrote:
>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?