Print

Print


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.  How can a 
text be credited if it is full of errors?  Must the reader have to 
figure out what the source is, what is right and what is wrong?  The 
minimum job in presenting someone else's text is to be accurate.

Marcia


Carrol Cox wrote:

>>Marcia Karp wrote:
>>
>>No.  It was the fault of the author for not making sure his work was
>>accurate.
>>
>>What is this nonsense about graduate students?  Did your graduate
>>supervisor accept lousy work from you?  I don't get it.
>>    
>>
>
>This is how _Understanding Poetry_ got edited -- though with
>departmental typists rather than grad students. Robert Penn Warren would
>tick off the poems he wanted in some anthology and give it to the
>typist. I've never done any checking to see how accurate the texts are
>in that work.
>
>I agree that there is no excuse for such sloppy editing -- but that does
>not in itself discredit a work either.
>
>Carrol
>
>
>  
>