Hidden LiteraciesMain MenuHidden Literacies - An IntroductionPhillis Wheatley, Amanuensisa letter from Susanna Wheatley, likely dictated to the famous poet she enslaved — with commentary by Katy L. ChilesWalt Whitman’s Baby Talka Confederate veteran writes fan mail in the voice of his infant son — with commentary by Matt Cohen‘Permit Us to Speak Plainly’the 1849 Munsee Petition to Zachary Taylor — with commentary by Andrew NewmanJuvenile Journalism and Genocidea manuscript magazine by three young boys — with commentary by Karen Sánchez-EpplerVisions, Versions, and DeedsCreek Sovereignty in Coosaponakeesa’s Memorials — with commentary by Caroline WiggintonAccounting for Mary Fowler Occoma household inventory of Mary Occom — with commentary by Kelly WisecupLetters and Charactersletter from Walter Duncan to Dollie Duncan from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary — with commentary by Ellen CushmanWriting the Prisoncongregate literacy in the New York penitentiary — with commentary by Jodi Schorb‘Outlandish Characters’a Kickapoo prayer stick — with commentary by Phillip RoundCesar Lyndon Was Herethe account book of an enslaved man in colonial Rhode Island — with commentary by Tara A. BynumBirch-Bark Publications of Simon PokaganMargaret NoodinHidden Literacies - The PodcastAll podcast episodesHidden Literacies - CreditsIndexIndex of all pages
the area of scholarly editing
12019-07-12T11:53:29+00:00Joelle Thomas0feb3b2b7a8befeee2c7d2d710d303ed9677214111Cohen page 4plain2019-07-12T11:53:29+00:00Joelle Thomas0feb3b2b7a8befeee2c7d2d710d303ed96772141In the area of scholarly editing, the struggles are over both the lenses scholarly editions offer for viewing the past and the ways those editions constitute historical actions themselves. If an author—let us say, Willa Cather—expressly specified that she did not want her letters published under any circumstances, how then could the editors of the Willa Cather Archive have justified publishing them? Despite the careful historicization that characterizes the methods of the Cather Archive, such a justification has to be summoned transhistorically: in this case, by claiming that a better understanding of the writer in her moment will lead to better appreciation of her and her work in the future. Who is to adjudicate what the needs of the present are, sufficient to such a resurrection against the will of the deceased? Or take Alan Gribben’s controversial version of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, in which instances of racist terminology were replaced with less potentially offensive terms. Two editions, one more or less faithful, as it were, to the original and one modified, were published with the same press as part of that project. The debate over whether or not this was a good idea was not located only or principally in scholarly editing circles, but substantially in public conversations about the language we use in front of our children and in disagreements among education experts about secondary school classroom priorities.
This page has paths:
12019-07-11T16:28:05+00:00Joelle Thomas0feb3b2b7a8befeee2c7d2d710d303ed96772141Commentary: Essay and PodcastJoelle Thomas13Cohen 1plain1102021-01-15T17:36:15+00:00Joelle Thomas0feb3b2b7a8befeee2c7d2d710d303ed96772141