Author of “Editing Emily Dickinson: The Production of an Author,” Lena Christensen’s definition of unediting is as follows: “to “unedit” [texts] is to discover a vast array of possibilities suppressed or neglected in modern editions. Her version of unediting “analyzes specific periods of Dickinson studies for which the status of the texts of Dickinson, and the editorial questions related to the editing of those texts as works, have been articulated as problematic. There are so many versions of ‘Emily Dickinson’ available that the critic who wants to ‘figure her out’ finds herself wandering through a maze of ddifferent and differing voices.”

In her doctoral project on Dickinson, she claims that “Emily Dickinson is treated as an intertextual constellation of editorial and critical narratives.”

Christensen approaches Dickinson as a collective voice, aiming not to dress Dickinson’s work down to what it originally was because of the vast number of versions there are in publication, but to take the editorial voices into account when reading Dickinson’s work so as not to disregard editorial effect whilst not obsessing over an “original.” Christensen does not desire to figure Emily Dickinson out, nor do I.

It is argued that a poem ceases to be what it truly is at even the slightest change, alteration, or dismissal of any aspect of the original manuscript, including handwriting, paper stock, spacing, and so on. Cristanne Miller writes that “most debate on Dickinson’s letters has focused either on their aesthetics or on the look of manuscript pages.” (2012) This approach emphasizes the radical end of the spectrum away from all editorial processes.

My aim at “unediting,” inspired by Christensen, is simply to view Dickinson’s work as a fluid process of her own doing, as originally as possible without the confinement and limitations of what an original manuscript may or may not represent in this fluid, poetic process.

A prime example of the variations of Dickinson’s work comes down to the particular. Her poem “Truth is as old as God” is available in two “original manuscripts” and countless edited version in various collections and analyses. Because we have more than one copy in Dickinson’s handwriting and drafting process, we are able to look at her poetry as a personal process as well as an editorial autopsy through the years of pokes, prods, and collections.

After collecting as many variant printed editions of this poem I will close read and analyze the differing versions and contextualize the editorial changes through the years.