I participated in a seminar several years ago concerned with ways to use "editing" in the classroom when teaching Shakespeare. You propose that teachers should offer "some kind of basic bibliographical training" to themselves and students. How much of a role do you think the actual practice of editing in the classroom could play in helping to provide the kind of knowledge that you suggest students and professors need to know? Besides providing a "How to use this book" section in editions (I have actually seen this in a few editions), what else might editors do to disparage the obvious unwillingness of most readers to pay attention to introductions, "the band of terror," etc.

The "crisis in editing" seems to have been averted (if it was ever there), as evidenced by the numerous critical editions you point out. However, I wonder, as the struggles continue between the "stubborn contingency of physical materials and the the aspirational endeavor of the editor," what is it that editors should aspire to? And what of the arguments that continue to be made that editors need to avoid "editing" the texts? You point out that this mistakenly assumes a reading base that is trained and interested in all things bibliographical, which is clearly a stretch today. Is there a middle ground in which an editor can provide choices within the text and avoid making the readers' choices for them?