University of Virginia Library

Revision of the Manuscript

Dreiser did not use the typewriter in composition.[29] He wrote in ink, the lines of legible words evenly spaced on white paper. Multiple revisions, by himself and by others, were part of his method, stemming, perhaps, from the practice learned in journalism of turning over one's writing to be reworked by an assistant city editor.[30] Comparison of the manuscript or holograph copy of The "Genius" with the typescript in Boxes 162 (84) and 163 (85) and, when necessary, in Boxes 160 and 161 (87) reveals a large number of changes. On the holograph and also the "First Typed Copy," the title appears without

quotation marks. A second cover sheet only in the holograph copy bears Dreiser's handwritten note: "Alternate Titles. Would those who read this manuscript kindly indicate here any other title which may occur to them as appropriate and forceful. Or check the one they prefer. This Matter of Marriage, Now. The Story of Eugene. Eugene Witla. The Hedonist. The Dreamer. The Sensualist." Like the holograph, the "First Typed Copy," but not the "First Carbon Copy," contains Dreiser's cautionary word following the title-page. The author asks of each reader of "this story" that she or he not pass it "indiscriminately into the hands of the too young. Its psychology and philosophy should forfend it against general and immature reading but there are those who read only for suggestive incidents." Of "the elders" who might be offended by action diverging from current conventions, he appeals that they "suspend judgment until the last page is reached."[31]

Many variants in the typescript resulted from errors, omissions, or alterations by the typist.[32] One of the most pervasive variants in the typescript is the alteration of Dreiser's paragraphing in the holograph, either by dividing a single paragraph into two or more or by combining separate paragraphs into one.[33] In addition to the misspelling of "all right," the typist introduced the incorrect "Strathmeyer" for "Shottmeyer" and "Smith" for "Smite."[34] The order of items in a series is sometimes transposed in the typescript, words and phrases omitted, punctuation replaced.[35] Such changes are usually of minor significance; but in instances in which the altered passage was not excised in subsequent revision, the original form is well-nigh always restored in the published version.

Weightier changes also appear in the typescript, however, as a result either of Dreiser's penciled revisions in the holograph or of his supposed revisions of the 1911 typescript (see Elias, "Bibliography": 30-34). A striking instance of such revision occurs in Chapter 34 of the typescript and of the holograph (Book 2, Chapter 3, of the published text). The typescript incorporates material penciled by Dreiser on the holograph concerning the relationship of the newly married Witla and Angela—namely, the expression of his worry and of her dissatisfaction over Witla's not having informed his family and friends of the wedding. In Chapter 40 (Book 2, Chapter 9), the typescript omits Eugene's contemptuous thoughts about Angela's knowing little outside conventional rules, a passage which Dreiser had marked for deletion on the holograph. The typescript omits from Chapter 43 (Book 3,

Chapter 11) three brief paragraphs, crossed out by Dreiser in the holograph, which present Angela's wish that Witla be morally impeccable as well as Witla's problem of how long he can endure his failing marriage. The typescript similarly omits from Chapter 48 (Book 2, Chapter 17) a paragraph cancelled by Dreiser which expresses Witla's reflection that it will be easier to bear the siege of breakdown alone, without Angela to feel sorry for, and his sense of relief that there are no children to care for. Another alteration from the manuscript is the supplying in Chapter 104 (Book 3, Chapter 28) of Witla's rumination on his recent conduct, including his rueful attitude toward Suzanne. Pointing out discrepancies between the holograph and what he calls "the 1913 typescript," Elias cites in the manuscript further conversations between Witla and Althea Johns, the Christian Science practitioner, further letters between Witla and Suzanne, etc. ("Bibliography": 34-44, especially 38). Elias interprets such deletions mainly as authorial comment containing no dramatic or thematic force. Yet some of the revisions which Elias notes and each of the changes cited from my own investigation involves Dreiser's characterization of Witla and of Angela either by clarifying motive or by striking out an explanation or too close an autobiographical parallel, the latter seemingly a step in the transformation of lived experience into literary form.

More salient than the discrepancies between typescript and holograph, however, is what they hold in common, in particular the happy ending of Witla's story. For one thing, they present Witla's personal acceptance of Christian Science and the spiritual nature of reality. For another, remaining haunted by the image of Suzanne, herself still deeply affected, Witla at first resents her for having abandoned him in the climax of passion. Later, as his practice of art distracts him from bitter feelings, he writes to Suzanne to explain his altered view of life, his recognition of his selfishness, and his realization that desire is not everything. He also asks that she either return or destroy his letters. Subsequently, they meet on Fifth Avenue at Thirty-Fourth Street. Smiling but aloof, Witla "had himself well in hand." As they part, he aches a little; Suzanne is left wondering about his feeling for her. A month afterward, she visits his studio in Montclair, where "unregenerate, love-tortured" Witla asks, "'You love me then?'" "'Ah, yes! yes! yes!'" Suzanne replies, and "with that old time cry that brought back a lost paradise to him she yielded herself to his eager . . . arms."[36] Witla and Suzanne marry six months later and achieve unity also of soul ("L'Envoi"). His interest in idealism has become part of his pursuit of beauty. Life for him "was no longer the thing it had once seemed. It was calmer, sweeter. 'There is a ruling power,' he said. 'It rules all—is all, and it is not malicious.'"

Comparison of typescript and holograph yields information on a further matter. In letters, Dreiser mentioned his deficiency in knowledge of grammar and syntax. To May Calvert Baker, a former teacher, he wrote on 15 February 1917: "Do you recall that I couldn't learn grammar? I don't know a

single thing about it yet" (UPDC; also Dreiser to Baker, 23 July 1917, UPDC). To Robert James Ullman, who complained of grammatical errors in the published "Genius", Dreiser wrote: Yet Dreiser's slips in grammar and spelling during the writing of the holograph seem inconsequential. In Chapters 10 and 33, for instance, he uses "your" for "you're," fails to use the possessive case in Chapter 13, and misspells "across" with two c's in Chapter 20. In Chapter 79, he misspells "divine" "devine"; in Chapter 80, he uses e instead of a in "thousand"; in Chapters 80, 90, and 91, he punctuates with a period when a question mark is needed. In sum, this is evidence that Dreiser was maladept neither at spelling nor at grammar, though his typists were. The typescript contains several times the number of errors in the holograph.