Critic speak is tough, but we've got you covered.
Quote :Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age: Theory and Practice Quote 1
Editing is, above all else, a matter of forms. […] Forms are patterns. Violations of form are recognized as such because they break a pattern. Literary works of art exist in language, the patterns of which are extremely complex and allow for tremendous variation. Editors have traditionally recognized the need to train themselves in philology, grammar, orthography, paleography, generic forms, and other areas, in order to be prepared to recognize the difference between a variation in and a violation of form.
A literary work is made up of a bunch of linguistic patterns. Some writers, like William Faulkner, like to write in super long sentences. Some writers, like Ernest Hemingway, like to write in super short sentences.
The job of Textual Critics is to identify these forms and patterns. Only by identifying patterns can you notice when the patterns are broken—a sure sign that something sketchy is going on. If a pattern is broken, it's probable that someone other than the author has interfered and corrupted the literary work. A Textual Critic then has to try to figure out where the text goes wrong and how we it can be corrected.
Quote :Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age: Theory and Practice Quote 2
[I]f we are to speak of authoritative texts, it seems necessary to locate the authority that controls the text. Some think of the text as belonging to the reader. Some think the text is autonomous—once existing, becoming inviolably a thing in itself. Some think the text belongs to the social institution that includes publishers and editors as well as the author. And others think of the text as belonging solely to the author. Of these last, some think the author retains authority as long as he lives and revises; others think authority resides with the author only as long as he is controlled by the coherent intention of active creativity but is lost to him when that control passes.
As diverse as these positions may seem—and they can produce tremendous differences in the editing of any given text—they all share one thing in common: each is a means by which the critic or editor can select a text of the work of art that excludes all or most other versions of the text from the category of authoritative text.
Who has authority over a literary work? That's a really thorny question in the field of Textual Criticism.
Depending on your perspective, you could say that the literary work is controlled by the reader. Or you could say that no one controls the text once it's out there in the world. You could also say that it's just the author who has authority over the work—after all, he or she did write it. Or you might say that not only the author but also his or her editors and publishers have authority over the literary work.
So, an "authoritative text" can be defined very differently from one person to the next. That has huge consequences for how we approach a text. Depending on what our position is, we will exclude certain versions of a literary work in favor of others. For instance, if we believe that it's only the author who has authority over a literary work, then we might throw out all versions of the literary work that have been meddled in by editors or publishers. But if we think that publishers and editors also have a say, then we might throw out the versions of the work that only the author worked on.