Hidden Literacies

chosen to annotate

I have chosen to annotate the text lightly and have included a separate document detailing sources for Johnson’s more obvious allusions to Whitman’s poetry and prose. But I chose not to provide a regularized text of the letter. As a long line of textual scholars has observed, regularization may open a work’s audience a bit, but it has the potential to oversimplify the text and certainly to create a more subtle but not necessarily helpful interpretation of it at the same time. The drawbacks are exacerbated here by the many illegible parts of the letter, which make determining tense and sometimes vocabulary choice difficult. These gaps and illegibilities in the letter themselves prompt a concluding thought. We tend to prefer “whole” or  “complete” documents when we are teaching, which is partly a function of a persistent emphasis on close reading that, at least in the New Critical model, requires an integral text, and partly a function of what kinds of things we imagine our students are learning—reading, not decipherment; interpretation of text, not of the material properties thereof; a window onto literary history, not a broken mirror or half-heard echo.
 

This page has paths: