Editorial Literacy:Reconsidering Literary Editing As Critical Engagement in Writing Support
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
St. John's University St. John's Scholar Theses and Dissertations 2020 Editorial Literacy:Reconsidering Literary Editing as Critical Engagement in Writing Support Anna Cairney Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/theses_dissertations Part of the Creative Writing Commons EDITORIAL LITERACY: RECONSIDERING LITERARY EDITING AS CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT IN WRITING SUPPORT A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY to the faculty in the department of ENGLISH of ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES at ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY New York by Anna Cairney Date Submitted: 1/27/2020 Date Approved: 1/27/2020 __________________________________ __________________________________ Anna Cairney Derek Owens, D.A. © Copyright by Anna Cairney 2020 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT EDITORIAL LITERACY: RECONSIDERING LITERARY EDITING AS CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT IN WRITING SUPPORT Anna Cairney Editing is usually perceived in the pejorative within in the literature of composition studies generally, and specifically in writing center studies. Regardless if the Writing Center serves mostly undergraduates or graduates, the word “edit” has largely evolved to a narrow definition of copyediting or textual cleanup done by the author at the end of the writing process. Inversely, in trade publishing, editors and agents work with writers at multiple stages of production, providing editorial feedback in the form of reader’s reports and letters. Editing is a rich, intellectual skill of critically engaging with another’s text. What are the implications of differing literacies of editing for two fields dedicated to writing production? This dissertation examines the editorial practices of three leading 20th century editors: Maxwell Perkins, Katharine White, and Ursula Nordstrom. The selected editors worked in three different publishing fields, with three different styles. All were practitioners of editorial literacy supporting some of America’s greatest literary works. This project demonstrates a lack of understanding of the ways professional writing is editorially supported. Editor and author are two distinct contributors to writing, each with a different objective, each learning from the process. Effective editing is prescriptive, additive critique that fosters collaborative relationships between vested parties. Editing is more than mechanical cleanup, performed in the final steps of writing. This dissertation offers suggestions for the writing classroom, where editing might be taught as peer review. Positive editorial practices in the writing center might include consultants reading and responding to each other’s work as a matter of practice. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In a project that stresses the importance of support for a writer, I feel an especially strong burden to be thorough here, as many people have helped me along this part of my academic path. The English Department at St. John’s University has been a fardel of steadfast souls, especially Dr. Ganter, Professor Brownstein, and Dr. King. My hat is tipped to Dr. Jennifer Travis and Dr. Steven Alvarez for their additional direction, time, and energy. It has been a pleasure learning under your guidance. Enthusiasm for this dissertation, in large part, came from Dr. Derek Owens who, with heroic levels of patience, listened my endless editorial ruminations. Thank you for being open to my writing what ifs. Your support and editorial friendship reinforced my thesis that sustained writing conversation is tantamount to success. I wouldn’t be here without the encouragement and advice I received from the people at Writers House. Especially Maria Aughavin who initiated the journey, and Celia Taylor Mobley who offered editorial guidance for my personal narrative, attentively listening as I vacillated between two futures. Allie Levick introduced me to Ursula Nordstrom and described with awe and affection the content of her letters. Alice Martin followed me down the doctoral rabbit hole. I have endless appreciation for my community of peers. So many of my friends, colleagues, and even neighbors offered words of encouragement and reinforced that this lengthy task was worth the effort. For every time you carried my burden, I am grateful. I am thankful for my dissertation workshop readers and the entire cohort of candidates. I also especially want to thank Cristen Fitzpatrick, whom I met in the introductory class, iii learned along with at conferences, and dined with more than any other. Thank you for your participation in this academic expedition. To those who share my home and holidays, Peter, Laurel, John, and Grace, I love you all. You have been on the frontline of my preoccupied life this past year. I completely embodied the cliché of the absent-minded professor; I am sorry for my dull existence and obvious distractedness. To you I dedicate this project; set a goal and go get it. Thank you to Mary Lee, the respite of your homestead was a needed salve. Thank you as well to my extended family, Cairneys, Jensens, and Navases, your support has been vital in the success of this project. I would also like to acknowledge the International Writing Center Association who awarded me the Ben Rafoth Grant in support of this research. Their financial contribution eased the burden of such focused study. I look forward to sharing my project with the writing center community. Lastly, I want to acknowledge my mother whose nomadic writing life sustained our family and forged my tenacity. It was through her I discovered editing and learned that literature can be the best teacher. She also brought me Mike Thaler, a gift for which I am ever thankful. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements …………………………………………….…………. ii Introduction …………………………………………………….…………. 1 Part 1 Perceptions of Editing ……………………………..…………………………….. 22 Ch. 1 Edit: A Four-Letter Word in Writing Center Scholarship …….….… 22 1.1. A Brief History ……………………………….………………. 22 1.2. Historical Designations ………….…………………...………. 24 1.3. A Shift in Scholarship ….…………...………………..………. 25 1.4. An Appeal for Consistency ……………………….………….. 28 1.5. Firsthand Observations ……………...……………..………… 29 1.6. Narrow Definitions of Editing ……………………….…….… 30 a. Editing is Correction Only ……………………………... 31 b. Editing is Not Teaching …………………………….….. 31 c. Editing is Not Constructive Feedback …………..……… 32 d. Editing is Correcting Standard Writing Conventions.….. 33 e. Editing is Not Learning ……………...……………….… 35 1.7. Editorial Needs of Graduate Students ………………...……… 35 1.8. Editing is Not Concerned with Development ……...………… 36 1.9. Skillsets for Line and Copy Editors ………………….……..... 37 1.10. Editing is Not Collaborative Conversation …………….…… 38 1.11. Editing is Proofreading to Be Paid for Privately …….....…… 40 1.12. Editing is Not Writing Center Work …………….……..…… 41 Ch. 2 Literary Editing in Practice …………………………….…..……….. 45 2.1. The Anonymous Nature of Literary Editing ………….……… 45 2.2. Specific Editorial Terms and Definitions ………………..…… 47 a. The Acquisitions Editor………………….....…………… 48 b. The Development Editor………………………………… 48 c. The Line Editor ………………...……….….…………… 48 2.3. The Editor-in-Chief …………………………..….…………… 49 2.4. A Brief History of Editing …………………………….……… 50 2.5. The Emergence of Modern Editing ……………...…………… 52 2.6. The Writer-Editor Relationship …………………………….… 55 v 2.7. The Focus of This Project ……….....…………............…...…. 59 2.8. Personal Investment ……………………………...……...…… 61 Part 2 Case Studies in Literary Editing ………………………................…….......…… 64 Ch. 3 Editing Thrives with Knowledge and Patience ……………......……. 64 Case Study: Maxwell Perkins ……………………................…….......…… 64 3.1. Background and Influence ….………...………………….…… 64 3.2. Project Source Materials ………………...…………….……… 65 3.3. Editorial Beliefs and Practices …………..………………….… 66 3.4. The Editorial We …………………………….…………..….… 68 3.5. Chapter Format and Historical Note ……………..…………… 69 3.6. Editorial Integrity …………………………….………….…… 70 3.7. Editorial Vision …………………………….……...…..……… 72 3.8. Editorial Awareness of Genre and Rhetorical Conventions ….. 74 3.9. Do Not Let Mechanics Get in the Way of Voice ……...……… 79 3.10. A Conduit Between Voice and Audience ……………....…… 82 3.11. Editing’s Reward is Different from a Writer’s Success …..… 87 3.12. How Maxwell Perkins Reads a Book ………...……………... 89 Ch. 4 Editing is Directive Guidance ………………………………………. 93 Case Study: Katharine S. White …….......………………………………….93 4.1. Background and Influence …….....……….…......…….…....… 93 4.2. Editorial Beliefs and Practices …………………..........….…… 95 4.3. Project Source Materials …………….................………...…… 98 4.4. Union of Editor and Author ….....…………….........…….…… 99 4.5. Raising the Bar for Children’s Literature ……..…………….…101 4.6. Acumen in Dealing with Difficulty ……………..……….…… 103 4.7. Editing is Brainstorming ………….......………….…............… 107 4.8. Finding and Developing New Talent …………....………….… 109 4.9. Editors Mentor Editors ………….............………….……......... 113 4.10. Steadfast Encouragement …................………………….…… 115 Ch. 5 Editing is Overwhelmingly Affirming ……………...………………. 117 Case Study: Ursula Nordstrom....…………….........………………............. 117 vi 5.1. Background and Influence ……………………….…....…….... 117 5.2. Project Source Materials …….......…………...….………….… 120 5.3. Developing New Talent ………….......…….……………..……122 5.4. Guiding Established Authors …………….……………….……126 5.5. Supporting Speculative Projects ………….…...……………….129 5.6. Understanding the Audience …….……….……………….……131 5.7.