The Writer/Editor Relationship in Nineteenth-Century American Literature
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HANRAHAN, HEIDI MICHELLE. Ph.D. Competing for the Reader: The Writer/Editor Relationship in Nineteenth-Century American Literature. (2005) Directed by Dr. Karen L. Kilcup. 249 pp. This dissertation examines this back-and-forth dynamic between nineteenth- century American authors and their editors, showing the ways that a heterogeneous group of non-elite individuals collaborated and competed with editors from the cultured and educated white middle/upper classes to initiate and continue important, often controversial discussions of literature and its role in the projects of national reform and redemption. Each editor and writer pair I examine show a thorough engagement in various facets of these projects, whether focused on gender, class, race, or aesthetics. Clearly such partnerships, in which the editor provided a voice of authority, respectability, and authentication for the writer, were absolutely necessary for initial public acceptance and recognition of the new ideas each writer advances. Nevertheless, I show the ways that these individuals challenged the traditional hierarchies and chains of influence from editor to writer. I point to the (sometimes covert) competition for the reader, as each side claimed the ultimate voice of authority. As my chapters illustrate, writers often wrote back to and resisted the models, conventions, and assumptions their editors imposed on their works. Additionally, influence clearly worked both ways, as the editors responded to the authors’ texts in their own writing in a continual tug-of-war over the reader’s attention and loyalty. Ultimately, I argue for a new and more fluid definition of editorship in the nineteenth century – one that emphasizes a circular and dialogic model of influence and resistance, as writer and editor continually switch roles as they respond to each other in order to emerge as the voice of authority and authenticity to readers on the very issues that concerned the country throughout the nineteenth century, most importantly the questions of national reform and redemption. COMPETING FOR THE READER: THE WRITER/EDITOR RELATIONSHIP IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICAN LITERATURE by Heidi Michelle Hanrahan A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate School at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Greensboro 2005 Approved by ____________________________ Committee Chair To my parents, Michael and Ingrid Hanrahan, who taught me the importance of hard work and education. ii APPROVAL PAGE This dissertation has been approved by the following committee of the Faculty of the Graduate School at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Committee Chair Committee Members Date of Acceptance by Committee Date of Final Oral Examination iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people deserve my deepest gratitude for their contributions towards my completion of this project. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Karen L. Kilcup for her unwavering support and advice through every step of my graduate career. Dr. Karen Weyler deserves my special thanks for her mentoring and for making me a better writer and scholar. Thanks also to the other members of my committee, Dr. Mary Ellis Gibson and Dr. Elizabeth Chiseri-Strater for their thoughtful readings and guidance. I would also like to acknowledge the support that the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and the English Department has given me, including the Jean Gegan Dissertation Fellowship. Finally, thank you to my family and friends. To my parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, your encouragement and belief in me helped me more than you can know. To my Roanoke friends, especially Jane, Heather, and Shannon, thank you for reminding me of the world beyond academia. To the many friends I have made at UNCG, especially Emily, Tasha, Jackie, Rita, Bonnie, Gretchen, Bethany, David, Shannon, Liz, and Kari, thank you for helping make my time here so enriching, rewarding, and above all, enjoyable. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………..……………….………………1 II. “WHY SHOULD I WRITE WITH YOU ALWAYS HOLDING MY HAND?”: LUCY LARCOM AND JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER....…………………………………………………………15 III. “WITH DELIBERATE CALCULATION”: HARRIET JACOBS AND LYDIA MARIA CHILD....…………………………………………...70 IV. “WORTHY THE IMITATION OF THE WHITES”: SARAH WINNEMUCCA AND MARY MANN…………………………….117 V. “I CANNOT TELL HOW IT WILL END”: THE WHOLE FAMILY’S FAMILY……………………………………………………………..174 VI. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………228 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................233 v 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In a January 1860 letter, Lydia Maria Child updates Harriet Jacobs on the status of Jacobs’s text, which Child is hard at work editing. Child praises Jacobs’s “wonderfully good” and “excellent” manuscript, promising to send the proofs back to Jacobs in a few weeks (Child, Letters 357). She then explains her own interest in the book, which she feels is “likely to do much service to the Anti-Slavery cause.” She adds, “So you need not feel under great personal obligations. You know I would go through fire and water to give a blow to Slavery” (357). Finally, she ends with a suggestion to Jacobs: “I think the last Chapter, about John Brown, had better be omitted. It does not naturally come into your story, and the M.S. is already too long. Nothing can be so appropriate to end with, as the death of your grandmother” (357). While we do not have Jacobs’s exact reply to Child and her suggestions, Jacobs’s text itself bears witness to Child’s influence: when Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl appeared in 1861, it ended not with the violent and controversial John Brown, but in a thoroughly domestic space, with the death of Linda’s grandmother. What this brief letter shows us is the close interaction between writer and editor in shaping a text for the literary marketplace. Together, Jacobs and Child craft a work that will appeal to readers while advancing a social cause in which they both believe. Along the way, they agree and disagree with each other, make suggestions to each other (some 2 ignored and some enacted), and, in many cases, advance competing ideas and claims for authority, power, and ownership of the text. Though united in their ultimate goal-- national redemption and racial equality through the abolition of slavery--Jacobs’s and Child’s differing backgrounds and experiences simultaneously draw them together as collaborators (each needing the other to advance the cause) and as competitors (each claiming ultimate authority). As they work together to create a text that speaks against slavery, writer and editor switch roles, each shaping the text to fit her own visions and conceptions of the audience’s expectations. The writer-editor dynamic continues to occupy scholars today, most significantly in modernist studies and the field of scholarly editing.1 Again and again, writers in these fields ask similar questions about textual authority, authenticity, and shaping: What does it mean to edit a text? Who is in control? Whose version of a text is “the” version? How is a text shaped by its writer, editor, and audience? These same questions, of course, can be applied to nineteenth-century texts. Jerome McGann reminds us, after all, that all editing is “an act of interpretation,” as the editor plugs his or her own reading or interpretation into a text before presenting it to the public. We should not underestimate the power of the editor’s role in a text. The very framing the editor provides, the “editorial horizon,” establishes the “field in which hermeneutical questions are raised and addressed” (39). Indeed, T.H. Howard-Hill considers the editor as a creator of sorts in the text: The text belongs to the editor. As the purger of corruptions and restorer of sense, his function, like the author’s, is creative; editorial conventions and the 3 institutions within which editors are published produce texts that significantly differ overall from any that have existed previously. The editor reaches into the maelstrom of literary production and takes, molds, and (re)produces his version of the author, works and all. (49) The editorial voice, then, is one of power: helping create the text that readers encounter, it demands our critical attention if we are to truly understand the contexts in which a work emerges. At first glance, these critics seem to suggest that editors strip away of the author’s control over a text, calling to mind Barthes’ “death of the author.” Yet they also point out writers’ continued attempts to reach out to readers and shape their texts. Peter Shillingsburg explains: Just read any preface to any book, any prologue to any collection of poems, any interview with any author about his or her works--and you will see authors trying, after the fact, to control how people react to or understand their works. There are exceptions, of course, but the hand from the grave reaches out in prefaces, interviews, and especially in revised editions and in instructions to literary executors in authors’ wills, as authors work to overcome the inevitable loss of control over meaning entailed by publication. (15) What we see in almost any text, then, is writer and editor both engaged in creating and advancing their own conceptions of what a text should do. The dynamic is both collaborative and competitive, as the two voices struggle with and against each other. Significantly, though, critics in editorial studies also remind us that the writer and editor are not the only ones shaping a text. Shillingsburg writes of the multiplicity of voices that mold a text and its reception: “the production voice is not a voice; its voices 4 are legion. Furthermore, it is not an originating voice but a layered, or added voice. Production always takes a sentence, as originated by an author, and re-utters it in a new form” (155).