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.


Carrol Cox wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Marcia Karp wrote:

No.  It was the fault of the author for not making sure his work was

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.