Date of this Version
Newsletter of the Association for Documentary Editing, Volume 2, Number 1, February 1980. ISSN 0196-7134
For this feature, which is designed to promote that exchange of ideas for which the Association for Documentary Editing exists, the reviewer was instructed to focus his comments on two aspects of the work under examination--one thing done well and one thing that might have been done differently. Admittedly, when the perfect editor produces the perfect edition the flaw in this contrived format shall stand exposed. Yet, even when that perfect edition comes to hand we mortal editors are likely to benefit when one of our number, forced to write about something "that might have been done differently," describes those lesser alternatives to which the perfect editor said No. The review, with its author's name deleted, was sent to the editor of the reviewed work, who was asked to comment on the reviewer's observations. Again, the intention is to foster constructive dialogue. Although the etiquette of some scholarly periodicals suggests that a reply to a review is evidence of ill grace, we stress here that Mr. Smith's comments were invited. In the months before the arrival of that perfect edition exposes our contrivance to public ridicule, we trust that we may generate light, not heat. We are especially grateful to Messrs. Tarter and Smith for graciously accommodating the deadlines that circumstances imposed for this issue of the Newsletter.