Emily Dickinson is without a doubt one of the most celebrated poets of all time. After her death, more than 1800 of her diary-like poems were found by her sister Lavinia and published throughout the following years. This phenomenal post-humous super star in the literary world gained notarity and popularity not only during the initial publication of her work but continually over time.
The only glitch in the whole story was this: Emily never gave her sister permission to publish her poems. In fact, she once said that "publication is the auction of the mind" and stopped trying to publish her work after publishers tried again and again to edit her work to fit the criteria for poems at that time.
While I'm still not her biggest fan (I'm more of a Keats girl myself) I still have to argue for the rights that Emily was denied in her posthumous publication. (I'd also like to discuss the timing of her publication what that was important in her overall reception as a writer).
Discussing moral ethics and publication is a tricky business. Because we tend to place more emphasis on the work rather than on the author we often forget about the author as being more than just a name tagged on to the end of a title. For instance, there are plenty of Emily Dickinson worshippers out there (yes, worshippers) that would fight tooth and nail for Dickinson as an author, preaching her brilliance and textual genius; however, I bet very few would go as far as to say that Dickinson's works should never have been published because they respect her personally. When I asked the question on my facebook page, I received relatively the same response.
I find it incredibly interesting that Melanie (name changed) felt that the editing was "completely unethical" but the actual publication of Dickinson's work was fine, because she "value[d] the work more than [her] feelings" or regards to publication; yet, Melanie raves about her "idealized view" of Dickinson and how she is "obsessed" with her. I think it would be more correct to say that she is obsessed with the poems of Emily Dickinson, not the woman herself.
Melanie represents one of many who idealize an author, whether that be Emily Dickinson or J.K. Rowling (yes, everything does come back to Harry Potter). But somehow the actual feelings/intentions of the author are overlooked in relation to the work they produce. Think of it like a pyramid. At the bottom is the author, next up comes the produced work, and at the top is the consumer, dictating what it is they want, not what they think is moral or ethical.
In this kind of material production, the reader's desire for the text outweighs the value of the author. Is this ethical? Of course not. But questions of morality and ethics get lost in the sea of consumerism. What the public wants overshadows the author.
Concerning the publication of Dickinson's poems, much of her success is owed to the time that her poems were released to the public (at least that's what I believe). There is something incredibly enticing about reading something that was 1) never meant for you to read and 2) never going to have a follow-up publication (not including various editions of the same work). When Dickinson tried to publish her poems when she was still alive, she was met with rejection. Releasing her poems after her death was like releasing a limited edition of prized item. It was something that everyone wanted.
While efforts have been made to return Dickinson's works to their original format, I have to wonder at how editing contributes to the ethical standpoint of publication. As Melanie commented, the publication of Dickinson's work wasn't the problem, but the editing? Now that's altogether a different story. So why is this? Why do we believe that it's okay to edit something for publication if the author says "Yes, please, edit my work for publication" but it's not okay when an author's work is found in a trunk written on pieces of scrap paper. Why does aura matter so much to the intentionality of a work?
In fact, what makes these
any different from this?
No comments:
Post a Comment