Text 1: Critic Avila argues that Emily Dickinson's dashes function as musical rests, signaling pauses in a meditative voice. To regularize the dashes — as nineteenth-century editors did — is to silence Dickinson's rhythm. Modern editions, Avila insists, must preserve every dash exactly as Dickinson penned it.
Text 2: Critic Morales agrees that the dashes are central to Dickinson's poetry but warns against fetishizing the manuscripts. Dickinson, she notes, varied the length and angle of her dashes wildly, sometimes seemingly at random. Reproducing every quirk in print risks confusing modern readers without revealing the poet's intent. Some standardization, Morales argues, serves Dickinson better than rigid fidelity.
Both authors would most likely agree with which statement about Dickinson's dashes?
- A
They should be reproduced with absolute fidelity to the manuscripts.
- B
They were simply random marks with no artistic purpose.
- Ccheck_circle
They are essential to Dickinson's poetic effect.
- D
They should be eliminated in modern editions for clarity.
Explanation
Both critics treat the dashes as central — Avila as musical rests, Morales as essential to her poetry. They disagree on reproduction policy. A captures their shared premise. B reflects only Avila; C and D contradict both.