The Trouble with Dreiser: Harper and the Editing of Jennie Gerhar ...

After he read Dreiser's manuscript, H. L. Mencken wrote to Dreiser: “I needn't say that it seems to me an advance above ‘Sister Carrie’. Its obvious superiority lies in its better form” (Dreiser-Mencken I 68). Lillian Rosenthal writes similarly of the original text in her letter of January 25, 1911: “It is aesthetic and convincing, and one is constrained to recognize the truth about life” (Dreiser Collection).

The critical opinion that the restored Pennsylvania edition is a better novel, however, is not unanimous among Dreiser scholars. Lawrence Hussman, in his essay on the restored edition, states:

Hussman adds that Jennie remains a “plaster saint” even in the restored edition (“Jennie” 44). Stephen Brennan argues that the 1911 “Jennie Gerhardt is preferable because it is a historical artifact that not only reflects the conditions of its production but also has served generations of scholars as object of study” (37). Specifically, Brennan takes issue with the textual method West used to restore the novel. He argues that because West preserves some of the original Harper editorial changes and introduces a few of his own, the novel cannot be considered a pure restored text. Issues of textual scholarship, however, are tricky and complex, and to date textual scholars have achieved no consensus as to the best method of textual restoration. Most agree, however, that textual restoration is not simply a matter of tossing aside all editorial changes simply because they are not the author's. Yet, the question remains, how many editorial changes should be retained and why?

Textual editors have tried to answer these questions, but to date have not. Rather, they have arrived at various textual methods of restoration. The method an editor chooses depends on the type of text, the available extant texts, and the intended use of the restored text. The simplest is to create a non-critical edition. This type of restoration does not attempt