What We Talk About When We Talk About Author-Editor Relationships: Collaboration and Intention in the Production of Twentieth-Century Literary Texts

This article is an examination of the author–editor relationship as it relates to the production of literary texts in the twentieth century. It begins by rejecting the dominance of the false romantic ontology in literary and textual criticism, which has obscured the production of texts and the editor’s role therein. The invisibility of the editor is then connected to editing in practice and contemporary research on editing studies. Gaps in the research reveal the need for further examination into author–editor relationships in order add nuance to how autonomy functions within them, and to develop an ontology of collaboration in textual production. 
 
This is done using qualitative and historical research methods to examine a chosen historical case: Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish. The study’s analysis of the case is framed by field theory and a sociology of culture, which underpin the study’s proposed model of the field of literary authors and editors. The field’s scope is restricted to Anglo-American literary textual production between the 1940s-1980s and focuses on the relation between symbolic and cultural capital and the position of influence of authors and editors in the literary field. 
 
The historical case of Carver and Lish is used to examine the application of the field in textual production in practice. Beginning with Carver’s pre-Lish production and tracing their collaboration through to its dissolution, the study is able to trace the effects of their changing positions in the field on their collaboration and textual production, and from this, draw conclusions about the nature of authors’ negotiations between their literary and social intentions. The analysis closes with a discussion of Lish’s qualities in relation to the wider field of editors. 
 
The article concludes that textual production, regardless of the author’s possession of cultural capital, is inherently social and collaborative, though the extent and source of editorial intervention may vary. It, therefore, calls for the death of the romantic author and a new approach to literary and textual criticism. Finally, it suggests further areas for research, including other factors such as race/ethnicity or gender, which may also influence authorial negotiations with editors and their textual production. Most importantly, the underlying power structures of the literary field revealed in this article are evidence that the literary canon must be reconsidered.


ABSTRACT
This article is an examination of the author-editor relationship as it relates to the production of literary texts in the twentieth century. It begins by rejecting the dominance of the false romantic ontology in literary and textual criticism, which has obscured the production of texts and the editor's role therein. The invisibility of the editor is then connected to editing in practice and contemporary research on editing studies. Gaps in the research reveal the need for further examination into author-editor relationships in order add nuance to how autonomy functions within them, and to develop an ontology of collaboration in textual production. This is done using qualitative and historical research methods to examine a chosen historical case: Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish. The study's analysis of the case is framed by field theory and a sociology of culture, which underpin the study's proposed model of the field of literary authors and editors. The field's scope is restricted to Anglo-American literary textual production between the 1940s-1980s and focuses on the relation between symbolic and cultural capital and the position of influence of authors and editors in the literary field.
The historical case of Carver and Lish is used to examine the application of the field in textual production in practice. Beginning with Carver's pre-Lish production and tracing their collaboration through to its dissolution, the study is able to trace the effects of their changing positions in the field on their collaboration and textual production, and from this, draw conclusions about the nature of authors' negotiations between their literary and social intentions. The analysis closes with a discussion of Lish's qualities in relation to the wider field of editors.
The article concludes that textual production, regardless of the author's possession of cultural capital, is inherently social and collaborative, though the extent and source of editorial intervention may vary. It, therefore, calls for the death of the romantic author and a new approach to literary and textual criticism. Finally, it suggests further areas for research, including other factors such as race/ethnicity or gender, which may also influence authorial negotiations with editors and their textual production. Most importantly, the underlying power structures of the literary field revealed in this article are evidence that the literary canon must be reconsidered.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
"No author is a man of genius to his publisher." -Heinrich Heine 1 This article is concerned with the relationship between authors and editors in the production of literary 2 texts. There is a mistaken ontology underpinning much of the research surrounding textual production, which this article aims to address. To achieve this, it proposes its own model of the field of literary production (section 2.1), which maps the positions of authors and editors producing literary texts in the twentieth century. Using this model, the article explores the negotiation of authority between authors and editors and its effects on the production of literary texts. In showing the complexity of the relationship between authors and editors, this study ultimately contributes to publishing studies scholarship by countering claims made within other cultural production studies, which position publishing as non-collaborative production. 3 In examining the collaborative relationship between authors and editors, this article seeks to challenge the romantic ontological fallacy underpinning scholarly approaches to textual production.

THEORY, CRITICISM AND THE AUTHOR
Despite the enduring prevalence of the romantic notion of authorship, the process of textual production is a collaborative one. The author may maintain a 'genius-like' figure to readers and critics, but publishers and publishing studies scholars know, in reality, authors do not create works of literary genius independently. In his critique of modern textual criticism, Jerome McGann summarises the ontological problem at the heart of textual production: Implicit in it [textual theory] are ideas about the nature of literary production and textual authority which so emphasize the autonomy of the isolated author as to distort our theoretical grasp of the 'mode of existence of a literary work of art' (a mode of existence which is fundamentally social rather than personal). 4 1 William Rossa Cole, "'No Author is a Man of Genius to His Publisher'", New York Times (Archive), 3 September 1989, accessed 9 August 2019 < https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/03/books/no-author-is-aman-of-genius-to-his-publisher.html > 2 For the purposes of this study, 'literary texts' refers to the production of fiction which would be considered 'literary', as opposed to genre fiction or commercial fiction. Literary texts are understood as concerned primarily with furthering and contributing to the art of literature. Though other forms of literary texts exist-poetry and non-fiction, for example-the structures which underpin their production are distinct enough from that of fiction so as to require independent study. 3 For example, film studies frequently positions itself against publishing, arguing that publishing's production is the solitary work of one producer, whereas film is the result of collaboration between multiple agents. The romantic ontology of authorship is so pervasive, that even when textual collaboration is revealed-such as the extensive contributions of Percy Shelley to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein 5 -it is often contextualised in terms of co-authorship. 6 Tim Groenland explains that "fram[ing] a work as 'co-authored' or 'collaborative' risks a merging of creative agency that effectively subsumes the editorial role within the authorial". 7 This observation highlights the ontological misunderstanding behind textual production: anything deemed 'creative', anything related to literary meaning or to textual authority is only understood in terms of authorship. It denies the distinct agency of those acting in an editorial capacity by refusing to allow for more complex conceptions of collaboration and textual production.
Groenland considers editors' contributions by examining the "pre-publication moment when the text" becomes social, 8 referring to McGann's theory of textual editing. 9 McGann argues that author-editor collaboration does not occur after the finalisation of authorial intent but is part of its development. He highlights the inherently collaborative nature of textual production, 10 arguing that "literary works are fundamentally social". 11 The manuscript submitted to publishers is not a fixed text-it is a starting point for the published (social) text, which is inseparable from authorial intention. 12 However, in trying to refute authorial intentionalism, McGann fails to escape its ontology, arguing that autonomy can only exist in an unsocialised text. 13 This simplified conception of autonomy does not examine the negotiation of authority which occurs between authors and editors. Within McGann's theoretical framework, there is a hard break between authorial and editorial authority, with the latter overriding or negating the former at the point of 'socialisation'. Editorial intervention, however, is not a negation of authorial autonomy, but rather a negotiation between two textual authorities. By examining author-editor collaboration, this article reveals a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of an author's intention and textual authority (i.e. autonomy), relative to their position in the field of literary production.

THE HIDDEN NATURE OF EDITING
The romantic ontology of authorship also affects how editing is understood in practice, with editors largely obscured 14 -a state editors help maintain. 15 Considering the editors' invisibility and the reading public's belief in romantic authorship as the source of literary value, it is not surprising that the editorial role is often ignored or misunderstood. The value of editors is obscured by various factors, including the dominance of singleauthorship, 16 the concealed nature of the creative process behind literary texts, and the conflation of author-editor collaboration with co-authorship. Greenberg's A Poetics of Editing is an attempt to amend this.

THE EMERGENCE OF "EDITING STUDIES"
Greenberg's research shows that the body of editing-related scholarship is fragmented and often anecdotal. She attempts to fill the gaps by examining editing in its own right rather than as a secondary concern to another area of study (e.g. writing, authorship). 17 In doing so, Greenberg reveals that textual production is actually a triangular process in which editor, author and text are equal players, and collaboration is at the heart of the process. 18 This conceptualisation of editors' relationship to textual production corrects assessments of author-editor relationships in terms of co-authorship or 'corruption'. Editors are active participants: mediating between author and text, text and audience. They do not amend or alter a 'finalised intention'-they see the multiple possibilities inherent in a text and help the author choose a path, adding considerable value in the process. 19 In her effort to provide a general foundation for editing studies, Greenberg's approach to editing is broad; however, as such, she excludes nuances specific to the production of literary texts. Greenberg maintains a hierarchy between authors and editors which, by focusing on audience perception, has its ontological basis in romantic ideology. 20 14 Greenberg, A Poetics of Editing, p. 5. 15 Greenberg, A Poetics of Editing, p. 5. 16 As the focus of theory and practice, authors have become the main public authority on editors/ editing. In interviews, this usually involves excluding or minimising the editor's role in textual production. See, for example, Groenland, The Art of Editing, pp. 90-91. However, this illusion can be disrupted by author's personal correspondence with their editors, where acknowledgement of editorial contribution does not threaten an author's perceived textual authority. For example, see: Mulford, "Fitzgerald, Perkins and 'The Great Gatsby'", p. 210. 17 Greenberg, A Poetics of Editing. 18 Greenberg, A Poetics of Editing, p. 19. 19 Greenberg, A Poetics of Editing. 20 Greenberg, A Poetics of Editing, p. 9.
The author's possession of copyright is the only hierarchy inherent to the authoreditor relationship. 21 However, possession of copyright does not automatically give literary authors, especially debuts, more status (i.e. power). Greenberg's map is unable to investigate or account for the complex power dynamics of author-editor relationships in the production of literary texts, as it ignores the sociological factors which influence the status of authors and editors in the field.

AUTHOR-EDITOR RELATIONSHIPS IN THE PRODUCTION OF LITERARY TEXTS
Though editors are instrumental to literary production, McGann's, Greenland's and Groenland's research shows their role in the process has rarely, if ever, been considered by scholarship. All three demonstrate the value and contribution of editors to literary texts: McGann, the value of publishing; Greenberg, the value of all acts of editing; and Groenland, the value of literary editors.
By considering the literary author-editor relationship within a sociological framework, this study seeks to deepen understanding of literary textual production, adding nuance to how authorial autonomy functions alongside editorial autonomy and furthering an ontology that recognises the collaborative nature of textual production. To achieve these objectives, the study uses field theory to examine the sociological relationship between authors and editors and analyse how this impacts their relative authority in textual production through the use of a historical case.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section sets out the theoretical framework for the model and subsequent historical analysis. The model is followed by an explanation of field theory and sociology of culture; historical context for the field's applicational scope; and a critical explanation of the field's structure and how it relates to the chosen case study.

21
Even this hierarchy has been challenged by publishers generating their own IP. However, as this study is concerned with the production of literary texts, it is assumed the copyright lay with the authors, as IP-generation is generally the practice of more commercial fiction.

BOURDIEU AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF LITERARY PRODUCTION
In The Rules of Art, Pierre Bourdieu argues that the romantic ideology of authorship ignores the structural elements of the field which impact the author's status. 22 However, though Bourdieu "does pay some attention to publishers", 23 he ignores their role in the 'creation' of the author's position in the field. This study adapts Bourdieu's field to examine the complex relations between authors and editors of literary texts.
As gatekeepers, 24 editors are responsible for which authors occupy the literary field. 25 To enter these spaces (via publication), an author must negotiate between complete autonomy and their desire for an audience, and cultural and symbolic capital. An author's autonomy, therefore, is contextual-relative to their position in the field of textual production, as well as to their editor's position. Authorial intention of texts produced in collaboration with publishers must be understood as existing with some level of negotiated autonomy, as authors who seek contracts with publishers prioritise the ability to engage audiences over complete authorial autonomy.

24
A critical discussion of gatekeeping is outside the scope of this study. For gatekeeping in publishing see: Lewis Coser, and John B. Thompson

FALSE DICHOTOMIES: CULTURAL/ECONOMIC CAPITAL; AUTONOMY/LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION
To adapt Bourdieu's model, it is necessary to address the dichotomies Bourdieu erects between cultural and economic capital, and autonomy and large-scale production. In Bourdieu's field, 26 economic capital and 'art' are diametrically opposed. 27 However, in the twentieth-century, "a huge amount of cultural production was taking place on the boundaries between sub-fields of mass and restricted production". 28 It was in this new liminal space that literary fiction was being produced.

SCOPE OF FIELD: ANGLO-AMERICAN PUBLISHING, 1940S-1980S
This study focuses on Anglo-American publishing in the 1940s-1980s because of key qualities identified in the publishing houses and the position and influence of editors during this time.
Following the advent of the paperback and the increased demand for entertainment during and after WWII, publishers in the 1940s had become commercially successful and culturally influential, with larger independents capable of reaching commercial markets. The 1960s marked the first wave of conglomeration, but literary publishers continued to prioritise symbolic capital above economic capital. 29 It was the second wave (1980s onward)-characterised by increased marketisation and globalisationthat destabilised and disrupted the editor's position in the publishing house, as well as in the wider literary field.
With the increase of marketisation, sales and marketing assumed a central position in the commissioning 30 of books. Commissioning decisions, once left to an editor's literary taste and judgment, were now subject to considerations of pre-existing markets and sales figures; the results of a Profit & Loss sheet (P&L) could make or break an author's chance of publication. These structural and practical changes altered the editorial role, bringing increased commercial considerations whether external or self-imposed.
Lastly, the period between 1940-1980 was chosen as the literary agent's role had not yet developed to where it significantly altered the author-editor relationship as it existed in the twentieth-century. 31 Within this study's scope, editors were still the central publishing figure involved in textual production. 32

DEVELOPMENT OF THE EDITORIAL ROLE
Between WWI and the 1940s, the editorial role developed from one of relatively low-status into the position of power and influence that defines the literary field under examination. Greenberg attributes this to distinctive material and cultural changes which led to "advice […] relating to structural and stylistic concerns about narrative craft" becoming a cornerstone of editorial service. 33 This established the editor's central position in textual production, as authors felt they needed editorial input more than ever.
Furthermore, shifts in the cultural labour market helped solidify the editor's position during the 1940s-1980s. The mediatory role of editors increased not just in importance, but also in status. 34 'Creative managers' (e.g. editors) had significant economic power over 'complex professionals' (e.g. authors), who were (and are) "underpaid because of permanent oversupply of artistic labour". 35

CASE STUDY: GORDON LISH AND RAYMOND CARVER
Lish and Carver's author-editor relationship is an exemplary case to explore the study's theoretical model. Since the publication of Beginners 36 (Carver's unedited manuscript for WWTA) 37 there has been considerable debate concerning Carver's authorship and authorial intention under Lish's editorial influence. 38 Lish broke the tradition of editorial silence after Carver's death, giving multiple interviews on his editing process and textual contributions. These interviews, along with Carver's interviews and Carver and Lish's correspondence, provide a wealth of historical data to analyse. The volume of documents that give insight into Carver and Lish's non-public relationship is a credit to the case's utility for a more nuanced exploration of the usually obscured author-editor relationship. 33 Greenberg  One could argue that many of Lish's qualities-most notably his public declaration of responsibility for Carver's success 39 -preclude this case from extending more generally to other author-editor relationships. However, this quality is precisely why the case is well-suited for gaining insight. Unlike other editors, Lish did not seek to minimise or downplay the value he contributed to his author's text, so Lish's interviews and archival material offer a rare opportunity to see behind the editorial curtain. Though Lish's claims are often inflated by his ego, it is possible to neutralise this bias by contextualising Lish's claims with reference to other accounts of his and Carver's relationship.

LIMITATIONS
Two of Carver's key texts-WWTA (1981) and Cathedral 40 (1983)-fall outside the defined scope. However, the only structural change to the field in the early 1980s was the necessity of literary agents for authors to enter the field. 41 As Carver was already in the field, his production would not be affected.
The study's scope also restricts its application. 42 However, it was necessary to focus on literary texts as: 1) they are the concern of literary and textual criticism; and 2) the methods of data collection for historical analysis (e.g. archives) are biased towards consecrated and canonised literary authors. 43 Finally, this article does not examine additional factors that may impact an author's accumulation of prestige (e.g. the impact of marking, PR and sales teams on the positioning of a book to the market, as well as its media coverage 44 ). It also does not challenge the structures or institutions which determine the position of authors in the literary field, as the study is concerned with examining how author-editor relationships exist within these structures. 39 See, for example: Gordon Lish, "Gordon Lish: 'Had I not revised Carver, would be paid the attention given him? Baloney!'", interview by Christian Lorentzen, The Guardian, 5 December 2015, accessed 24 April 2019, < https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/05/gordon-lish-books-interview-editingraymond-carver >. 40 Carver, Cathedral, (New York: Knopf, 1983). 41 See section 2.3. 42 For example, the study would require amendments before it could be applied to examine the production non-literary texts (e.g. genre fiction). Additionally, the scope is limited geographically-a result of the author's academic and cultural background, which has favoured Anglo-American literature. 43 Historical analysis was identified as the preferred method for gaining insight into the authoreditor relationship, as opposed to sociological interviews, as editor interviews conducted by Greenberg revealed that literary editors censored themselves when answering questions in areas where insight to collaboration between author and editor could be gained, thereby negating their usefulness to this study. See: Susan Greenberg, Editors Talk About Editing (New York: Peter Lang, 2015), p. 187. Anonymisation, furthermore, was not a valid solution to this problem, since this would have impeded the researcher's ability to analyse them in their sociological contexts. 44 The second phase of textual production, discussed in: Hesmondhalgh, The Cultural Industries.

CARVER-LISH LITERARY PRODUCTION
Carver scholarship has been characterised by a false binary between authorial intention and editorial intervention. 45 Groenland begins bridging this divide, but his approach does not consider collaboration within the larger sociological field. By examining the negotiation of authority between Carver and Lish and how this relates to their relative positions in the field, this chapter adds nuance to the nature of their textual production.

EARLY TO MID-CAREER PRODUCTION
Carver's early production was highly restricted: his short stories 46 were published mostly in university or regional magazines, though he had also been included in some prize anthologies. 47 When Carver and Lish met, Carver was relatively anonymous, 48 and thus would not have had much power.
Nevertheless, in 1967, Carver had been a 'contributing author' for nearly ten years and had acquired symbolic capital (albeit of restricted value). Carver also possessed cultural capital from studying creative writing and editing literary magazines. All of this would have given Carver an informed position in negotiation with Lish, as he was familiar with the nature of editing and textual production. Lish was the editor of a largepress magazine, but Carver was still in the same subfield, and thus can be said to have possessed at least some authority over his work. Nevertheless, in order to socialise his work, Carver would be required to negotiate between his literary and social intentions. As this study is concerned with Carver's fiction production, it does not consider his poetry production. Bourdieu (The Rules of Art) recognises poetry production as extremely restricted, effectively functioning within a structure distinct from that of fiction. This is reflected in Hills' map of the 60s literary field in Esquire ("The Structure of the American Literary Establishment"). As its production falls outside the literary fiction subfield of production, any value derived from affirmation of Carver's poetry, due to its highly restricted production, would have been negligible in the literary fiction fields. It has, therefore, been categorised as cultural capital, rather than affirmation, and will not be considered further in this study. 47 Carver recognised the restricted nature of this affirmation in an interview, where he reflected on his early publication. See: Marshall Bruce Gentry and William L. Stull, eds., Conversations with Raymond Carver, (London: University Press of Mississippi, 1990), p. 19. 48 Max, "The Carver Chronicles", n.p.

THE BEGINNING OF CARVER-LISH PRODUCTION
When Lish first began editing Carver in the late 1960s, he was not Carver's official editor, but "fulfilled many of the same functions of the role, as the men's correspondence would subject the story to the processes of revision and rewriting". 49 Their back-andforth collaboration accords with Greenberg's description of the editorial process, 50 thus contradicting understandings of Lish's role as superseding Carver's authority. 51 Carver's letters do not suggest passivity to Lish's authority; they illustrate active participation in the collaboration: "Took about all yr [sic] changes, added a few things here and there. [...] lean on it, if you see things. If I don't agree, I'll say something, never fear". 52 Max interprets this letter differently, claiming it shows Carver's "unease". 53 However, at the beginning of their collaboration, Carver actively consents to Lish's changes, and moreover, is conscious and appreciative of the value Lish's interventions add to his texts: [T]hanks for the superb assist on the stories. Lish's interventions-especially during early Carver-Lish production-should not be understood as contrary to Carver's intention. Carver requested and accepted Lish's edits to his text, countering claims made in literary and textual criticism about authorial intention being 'corrupted' by editorial intervention. The 'unease' Max projects on Carver's early letters does not actually appear until later, as Carver's symbolic capital increases. In such moments of unease Groenland distances the text from Carver's intention. However, this does not consider the social aspect of intention-i.e. Carver's intention to be published-which exists alongside literary intention. As Carver's career progresses, one sees Carver negotiate his authority over the text in order to secure Lish's affirmation and thereby advance further in the field.
As an editor at Esquire, Lish was positioned to give Carver's stories a wider audience and less-restricted symbolic capital. In the period between 1969 and 1976, Lish publishes one of Carver's stories in Esquire and secures another's publication in Harper's Bazaar-national (large press) magazines Carver had been unable to 49 Groenland, The Art of Editing, p. 43. 50 Greenberg,A Poetics of Editing,p. 15. 51 For example: Hemmingson, "Saying More without Trying to Say More". 52 Carver, "Letters to an Editor". 53 Max, "The Carver Chronicles", n.p. 54 Carver refers here to his teacher and mentor John Gardner, whom he met as a student at Chico State. (Carver misremembers his age, as he would have been around 21 at the time.) Gardner's editorial feedback on Carver's early work is further evidence that, even before Lish, Carver's textual production was never solitary. See: Gentry and Stull, eds., Conversations with Raymond Carver, Raymond Carver, "Letters to an Editor: Letters from Raymond Carver to Gordon Lish", The New Yorker, 16 December 2007, accessed 24 April 2019, < https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/24/lettersto-an-editor >. access during his early production, capable of engaging a much wider audience and bestowing more valuable affirmation. Lish's affirmation of Carver's work was instrumental in Carver reaching a "'mainstream' reading public"; and therefore, of Carver's acquisition of a higher, more widely recognised form of symbolic capital. 56 Carver's textual production must be understood as a complex, social process. Carver was neither in complete control of his work, nor was he, as Max suggests, 'complacent' towards Lish's edits. The reality, much like editing, is a liminal thing: Carver's position in the field required that he negotiate his intention with his editor's interventions in order to socialise his text. Over the course of their collaboration on Carver's debut fiction book, WYPBQP?, 57 Carver would confirm his intention to reach a higher position in the field.

LARGE PRESS DEBUT: NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY
During the production of WYPBQP?, Groenland notes that Lish made considerable contributions to the style and tone of the stories, some of which "represent clear indications of Lish's own ideas on fiction". 58 By connecting Lish's edits to his personal literary intentions, Groenland argues the text may be more representative of Lish's authority. Groenland supports this with Carver's hesitant comment on Lish's edits of "Neighbors": "it looks & feels a little thin now". 59 However, this moment of hesitation is actually evidence that Carver negotiated his literary intention in order to achieve his social one.
Carver's symbolic capital had increased, but WYPBQP? was Carver's first publication with a large press (books). 60 As the editor responsible for this opportunity, "Lish was [Carver's] way to a readership". 61 However, like Groenland, Max incorrectly provides this as evidence that Lish's edits should be seen as 'corruptions'. If complete, nonnegotiated autonomy over his work had been Carver's primary intention, he could have continued publishing his stories in regional magazines. But Carver's intention included the desire for affirmation and critical attention: [C]an't tell you how pleased [I am] and so on about the prospects of having a collection under your aegis [...] I intend, brother, to set the globe afire". 62 Carver explicitly states his intention to capture the attention of a larger audience with his text ("set the globe afire"). Furthermore, "under [Lish's] aegis" reads like pointed acknowledgment of Lish's role in Carver achieving this attention. 56 Hemmingson, "Saying More without Trying to Say More", p. 480. This is also discussed by Groenland, The Art of Editing, in terms of Lish shaping Carver's critical reception. 57 Carver, Will You Please Be Quiet, Please? (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976). 58 Groenland, The Art of Editing, p. 44. Emphasis added. 59 Groenland, The Art of Editing,p. 47. 60 His previous publications, furthermore, were poetry collections, and thus their publication occurred outside the field of literary fiction. 61 Max, "The Carver Chronicles", n.p. 62 Carver, "Letters to an Editor", n.p. Emphasis added.
It was Lish's affirmation 63 of the text under his imprint at McGraw-Hill that would enable Carver's text to engage more readers. Thus, Carver ultimately accepted Lish's edits, despite his earlier hesitation: "all in all, you did a superb job of cutting and fixing the stories [...] Reading them through the cumulative effect is very powerful indeed". 64 WYPBQP? resulted in Carver's rise in status from 'contributing author'. After its publication, Carver received attention from consecrating institutions: a National Book Award (NBA) nomination in 1977, and a Guggenheim Fellowship the next year. 65 Lish's own position had risen considerably months before Carver's NBA nomination, when Lish was hired as an editor at Knopf, a publisher of the considerable literary influence. 66 As an editor during the first phase of conglomeration, Lish possessed a great deal of commissioning autonomy. His position was a chance for Carver to continue gaining more valuable symbolic capital, as publication through Knopf functioned as a form of consecration. Furthermore, the production power of Knopf was a chance to reach mass audiences. All this would help Carver attract more attention from consecrating institutions. 67 With Carver's increased position, the importance of his single authorship in the market had also increased. The appearance of single authorship is especially important to an author's status in literary fiction, where greater emphasis is placed on "craft" or style. 68 Thus, in the course of their collaboration on WWTA, one sees an increased pressure for Carver to maintain authority over his text when confronted with Lish's extensive edits.

63
Though McGraw-Hill is a 'large press' publisher, affirmation is used to describe the value of Lish's support in this case versus his later support as an editor at Knopf. Knopf's symbolic capital was of a higher quality than McGraw-Hill's, and thus publication under Knopf functioned closer to consecration than publication at McGraw-Hill. Furthermore, the distinction between affirmation and consecration is made here to reflect Lish's position in the field, which was predominantly in the magazines field, as his main position was that of editor at Esquire. 64 Groenland, The Art of Editing, Note: Not every debut author will receive the same level of attention and symbolic capital from their publication. The model reflects this with the inclusion of different stages, such as 'literary author', which reflect a non-debut author's general position in the field in the absence of affirmation or consecration. 66 L. Rust Hills, "The Structure of the American Literary Establishment: Who makes or breaks a writer's reputation?", Esquire, 1 July 1963, 40-43, accessed 2 July 2019, < https://classic.esquire.com/article/1963/7/1/the-structure-of-the-american-literary-establishment >. 67 See English, The Economy of Prestige. As English notes, recognition is usually given to work which has already achieved a certain level of 'prestige' or recognition. Furthermore, during this period of literary production, English notes a correlation between bestsellers and recognition from consecrating institutions, thus further supporting the argument that Lish's position at Knopf-possessing both symbolic capital and the means of mass-production-would enable Carver to rise in the field. 68 Groenland, The Art of Editing, p. 96.

THE INTENTION PARADOX: EDITORIAL INTERVENTION, AUTHORIAL ANXIETY AND THE TEXTUAL PRODUCTION OF WWTA
As with their previous collaborations, the final text of WWTA was a combination of Carver and Lish's literary authorities; however, as Carver's literary intention was compromised by a loss of negotiating power, many commentators dismiss WWTA's textual authority entirely-an intentionalist argument which fails to capture the sociological reality of textual production. This section seeks to bring nuance to the production of WWTA by examining Carver's changing authority over the text and how this can be understood within his larger textual production.
Carver accepted Lish's first round of edits and returned his signed contracts without seeing the final typescript. 69 Groenland moves quickly from this point, adding only that Carver "had 'entered a binding contract for his book' without the advice of a literary agent or lawyer. 70 But this moment is crucial to understanding the function of an author's autonomy within textual production. Carver's power to negotiate with Lish is not only relative to his symbolic capital, but is intrinsically tied to his possession of copyright. 71 By signing his contract, Carver severed his main source of negotiation: the possibility of finding another publisher. Thus, when Lish sent his second round of editswhich significantly distanced the collection from Carver's original literary intention 72 -Carver became distressed and anxious. His intention had been threatened, but he was no longer in a strong position to negotiate.
This adds context to his emotionally-charged letter to Lish, in which he begs his editor to cease or delay publication of the collection. 73 Two days later, Carver sent another letter attempting to restore some of his literary intention, while still accepting Lish's earlier interventions. 74  Though a discussion of copyright is outside this article's scope, Feather notes its connection with the development of author's rights: Feather, A History of British Publishing. 72 An extended excerpt of the letter appears in: Carver, "Letters to an Editor", 8 July 1980. 73 An extended excerpt of the letter appears in: Carver, "Letters to an Editor", 8 July 1980. 74 Carver, "Letters to an Editor", n.p. 75 Carver, "Letter to an Editor", 14 July 1980. 76 Groenland, The Art of Editing, p. 65. reductive in its conclusion. Groenland uses Sklenicka's claim that Carver's "feelings about the matter [WWTA's publication] may be discerned in the fact that [Carver] would subsequently republish several of the stories in their original forms". 77 However, Groenland ignores that Carver's intention for WWTA included Lish's intervention in the first manuscript edits, which by Groenland's estimation still contained significant contributions to the text. 78 Furthermore, Carver did not attempt to republish every story in its original form: of the seven WWTA stories Carver included in his collection Where I'm Calling From 79 , three were included in their 'socialised' form. 80 Authorial intention should not be constructed from literary intention alone; it must also include considerations of the author's social intention to be published. The reality of the dissolution of Carver and Lish's relationship is more complicated than most commentators recognise. Carver's opportunity to later publish his 'original' texts was, in part, predicated on his increased status after the critical success of WWTA (and later Cathedral), and thus is intrinsically connected to Lish's intervention and affirmation of the edited versions. Career-spanning collections of an author's work-much like textual editions-are reserved for consecrated and canonised authors. 81 The paradox of the primacy given to literary intention is that it rejects editorial intervention and the socialisation process necessary for authors to achieve a position in the field wherein their literary intention is believed to warrant such attention.

AUTHORIAL ANXIETY AND SYMBOLIC CAPITAL
Carver's anxiety also stemmed from his position in the field, as his authorial identity and perceived authority had increased in importance. In a letter, 82 Carver expresses concerns that others had already seen Carver's original texts, some of which were committed to publication in magazines which would not publish until after WWTA. 83 The concern is that the collection would require him to be defensive-force him to explain a textual production process that, from Carver's perspective, reveals too much about the nature of Lish's intervention and, therefore, threatens his perceived authority. 84 Carver's anxiety about maintaining the appearance of singular authorship is also evident in the sub-textual shift in his interviews before and after WWTA. In 1978, Carver's explanation of his process reflected the reality of the textual production between him 77 Groenland, Exceptions might include posthumous editions, whereby the scholarly editor is attempting to bring critical attention to an author they feel was 'ignored' in their time. However, this supports the argument at hand, as such an author's lack of critical attention is tied to the author's lack of symbolic capital during their lifetime. 82 On 8 July. See: Carver, "Letters to an Editor", n.p. 83 Carver, "Letters to an Editor", n.p. 84 Carver, "Letters to an Editor". and Lish. 85 However, after the publication of WWTA, Carver rewrote the narrative of its textual production, claiming the longer stories published in magazines were 'expansions' of the 'originals' published in WWTA. 86 These interviews show the development of tension between the increased importance of Carver's perceived authority and the extent of Lish's editorial intervention. The textual production of WWTA reveals the complex nature of an author's negotiation between their literary and social intentions, as well as the connection between authorial power and copyright. It shows an extreme situation in which an author's autonomy (and intention) is overpowered by their editor, but also shows that it was the extent, not the presence, of editorial intervention that caused the author anxiety.
Nevertheless, Lish had severed Carver's trust. In their third, and final, book-length collaboration, Carver used his status to establish his authority from the outset.

CATHEDRAL AND THE DISSOLUTION OF CARVER-LISH PRODUCTION
Wary of his editor's previous abuse of power, Carver established his intention for greater autonomy over the text from the start. 87 Lish submitted to Carver's authority, 88 and "contributed changes of varying degree to almost all of the stories in the book, but both the nature and volume of these edits were minor in comparison to the previous collections". 89 Regardless, Carver's acceptance of Lish's (relatively) minor edits still supports this study's argument that authorial intention includes, rather than excludes editorial intervention.
Though Carver "declared his literary independence" from Lish in the summer of 1983, 90 the end of their collaboration did not mark the beginning of the 'true' Carver text, one of pure authorial intention. Carver's textual production remained collaborative, with Gallagher taking Lish's place as an editorial influence. 91 After Carver's consecration via Cathedral's Pulitzer Prize nomination, he no longer needed to negotiate his autonomy to gain exposure through Lish's position in the field. Nevertheless, Carver's textual production was continually marked by collaboration and editorial intervention-first with John Gardner, then Lish and, finally, with Gallagher. Groenland, The Art of Editing, p. 95. This independence coincides with a considerable award/ stipend from a consecrating institution. The need to consider the impact such economic capital may have on an author's autonomy is discussed in Chapter IV. 91 As she had begun to do in the course of WWTA.

LISH: AN EXCEPTION
Lish is an exceptional case in many ways. As mentioned in section 2.5, his editorial candor is contrary to Greenberg's 'invisible editor'; and his conduct with Carver concerning the second edits on the WWTA shows a blatant disregard for an author's emotional connection to their work. Nevertheless, the Carver-Lish case's extreme nature illustrates the extent of power possessed by editors in Lish's position, 92 by virtue of their symbolic capital and access to mass audiences. Furthermore, while Lish is egotistical and biased in his representation of his and Carver's relationship, he correctly identifies the importance of the editor in the creation of literary works.
If one disregards Lish's egotism and examines his attentiveness to Carver's prose, Lish's actions are not extraordinary but commonplace and can be found in the collaborative relationship between a great number of authors and editors: e.g., Percy Shelley's editing of Mary Shelley; Maxwell Perkins', of F. Scott Fitzgerald; Ezra Pound's, of T.S. Eliot; Tay Hohoff's, of Harper Lee. 93 Regardless of how they approached and idealised their role, these editors all intervened significantly in their authors' work, adding value and helping to increase their authors' positions in the field.
Furthermore, Lish's unofficial editing of Carver in the 1960s, as well as Gallagher's involvement in Carver's later production, shows that a text's 'socialisation' often begins long before a manuscript reaches a publisher. This furthers the argument that collaboration is an inherent part of textual production, rather than a form of 'corruption' at the hands of editors.

CONCLUSION: DEATH OF THE (ROMANTIC) AUTHOR
This article has proposed a new framework under which author-editor relationships and textual production can be considered. More case studies are necessary to further test its accuracy and applications, and the limitations of its model mean the analysis may at times be reductive. Nevertheless, this article presents a new way of thinking about textual production which corrects the false ontology of textual and literary criticism and seeks to create a new dialogue based on textual production's inherently collaborative and social nature.
Literature is not created in a vacuum. The sociological circumstances of its production must be considered in order to avoid the false ontology of romantic authorship, which 92 As well as the importance of interpersonal relationship training and authorship management modules on publishing courses. 93 Hohoff's involvement in Lee's textual production is particularly interesting in its parallels between the extent of her interventions and Lish's. For an overview, see: Jonathan Mahler, "The Invisible Hand Behind Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'", New York Times, 12 July 2015, accessed 13 June 2019, < https:// www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/books/the-invisible-hand-behind-harper-lees-to-kill-a-mockingbird.html >.
obscures the actual textual production process and its underlying power structures. The death of the (romantic) author requires a new approach to literary and textual criticism. If, moving forward, scholarship accepts the ontology of collaborative textual production, it will also be necessary to question the structures and institutions that facilitate an author's rise in influence. However, as mentioned in section 2, second-wave conglomeration fundamentally altered the publishing industry. Adjustments, therefore, are needed in order to apply this study's model to the current field: for example, a consideration of the literary agent's role in author's status and textual production. 94

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This article has established that affirmation is necessary for an author to increase their position in the field; however, it has not examined other factors which can influence an author's negotiations with editors, such as race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or socio-economic background. These factors should be examined in order to deepen scholarly approaches to textual production and consider how the literary field's structures are inherently biased. The evidence of the power structures responsible for our literary foundation show that the canon needs reconsidering, since its basis has not been one of pure literary quality. 94 Groenland also discusses this need to consider literary agents in textual production. See: Groenland, The Art of Editing, p. 230.