Now there are two readers' editions of Emily Dickinson's poems that are usable for close readings and scholarship. By usable, I mean that the texts--note the word "texts"--are close to what Emily Dickinson wanted them to be. The earlier Thomas H. Johnson text has been an acceptable and competent version since it was published in 1955. Johnson's readers' edition-the one without all the scholarly apparatus-contains 1775 poems. (In the same year Belknap Press of Harvard University Press issued his three-volume variorum of all the known poems.) This is cool. This new version of Emily Dickinson poems was edited by R.W. Franklin, and the readers' edition was published in 1999. It contains 1789 poems-unfortunately with a different numbering than Johnson--based, we are told, on probable date of composition. Franklin also edited a fresh variorum edition also published by Belknap Press of Harvard. I am boring you with all of this detail to tell you that although the Johnson texts are good texts if you are serious about Dickinson--meaning if you actually care about what she wrote on the page--the Franklin will give accurate texts and is the new authority. F.W. Franklin has been working since the '60's on details where Johnson perhaps lacked information and insight. He knows whereof he speaks, and he has done his utmost to reassemble Ms. Dickinson's original manuscripts in their proper order. Previous versions of the poems--those before Johnson and Franklin--regularized rhyme and otherwise abrogated the accuracy of the poems. They were cleaned up according to late 19th century standards, and the texts--despite editorial comments to the contrary--are corrupt. That means that they are inaccurate. In conclusion, if you want Emily Dickinson with accuracy--despite the rapturous testimony of some reviewers of other presentations of the poems--go for the Johnson or Franklin texts. Franklin is most current and should be impeccable. Other texts, including some that are in supposedly respectable American literature anthologies, may be suspect. (One of the most respectable uses texts that derive from late 19th century texts that were declared corrupt some 40 years ago.)