I found Mahaffey’s explanation of Gabler’s edition of Ulysses interesting in that her definition of editing, and what a good edition of a ([n] especially dated) text should do, seemed weirdly synonymous with the organic way she described Joyce’s process–“continu[ing] to write Ulysses in the margins of anywhere from two to nine sets of proof per episode, right up until two days before its ate of publication”( 241). This seemed to align really nicely with the editing process, which seemed equally organic in the way she describes Gabler’s attempt to “encourage a reader to move…forwards and backwards along the axis of diachrony of the work’s total text” in order to make it possible for us to “read backward as well as forward in narrative time” (241). If the job of the editor, as she says, is to make a dated piece accessible, she argues that it’s necessary to make an edition that looks both forward and backwards. With this understanding of the edition we’ve been reading, I’m interested in seeing how the prose and content of the original version could be altered or even obscured by the “grime of history” editing seeks to clear away.