UK English or US?

Christine N. · Dec 11, 2006

Ok, I'm having a bit of an argument here with someone. I was given a story to read over, look for mistakes, fix things, etc.. And I get this piece, which is going into an anthology for US children, and find it's written in UK English. Recognised, etc..

I say that it should be written in US English, based on the audience. He says leave it UK, since that's where the story is set, and try to teach children to broaden their horizons. He argues Harry Potter. I say, whoa! HP was rewritten in US English for US distribution, or else we all would have read "The Philosopher's Stone" instead of Sorcerer's. I say it's not about being ethno-centric, it's about not confusing the little darlings, especially when this is the ONLY story in the anthology (I think) that was written this way.

So who is right? When British books come over here for US distribution, aren't they usually re-done for American audiences?

Zolah · Dec 11, 2006

Christine N. said:
Ok, I'm having a bit of an argument here with someone. I was given a story to read over, look for mistakes, fix things, etc.. And I get this piece, which is going into an anthology for US children, and find it's written in UK English. Recognised, etc..

I say that it should be written in US English, based on the audience. He says leave it UK, since that's where the story is set, and try to teach children to broaden their horizons. He argues Harry Potter. I say, whoa! HP was rewritten in US English for US distribution, or else we all would have read "The Philosopher's Stone" instead of Sorcerer's. I say it's not about being ethno-centric, it's about not confusing the little darlings, especially when this is the ONLY story in the anthology (I think) that was written this way.

So who is right? When British books come over here for US distribution, aren't they usually re-done for American audiences?

Well, I'd point to the precedent of 'Firebirds' and 'Firebirds Rising', edited by Josephina Sherman. Those anthologies contained work by some of the most distinguished children's writers living in both the UK and the US (and Oz, and other assorted places). And all the stories within were left in their 'native' state - that is, stories from the US used US spelling and grammer, ditto with UK ones and OZ ones. It made each story feel authentic and unique and real, and it didn't confuse anyone, as far as I'm aware.

Maryn · Dec 11, 2006

I confess that I harbor a bias. UK English jars my reader's eye. I'd be perfectly happy if novels set in the UK and penned by UK authors were Americanized for my reading pleasure. This remains true in anthologies published in the US, where consistency seems desirable.

There, I said it!

Maryn, ignorant hillbilly

scarletpeaches · Dec 11, 2006

US books aren't rewritten for UK audiences and it hasn't corrupted anyone...maybe UK audiences are more accepting?

As for Harry Potter...what was wrong with reading of a Philosopher's Stone? I don't get the re-editing...if a book's set in the UK, let it be written in 'UK English'...otherwise this will teach American audiences that every other country is like them, when this is not true. If you see what I mean.

Christine N. · Dec 11, 2006

I don't get it either. I mean, it jumped right out at me, first thing. And I can see the point, but if every other story in the book is written one way, and this one story is different...

I didn't know that US books weren't re-done for UK audiences. Maybe it's only when a different publisher is doing it? Bloomsbury did HP in the UK, but Scholastic did it in the US.

I don't think the spelling teaches kids that everyone's like them - I think there are plenty of cultural references in HP that kids get it. The use of words like 'knicked' to mean stole and that word that I think is 'shrived' or shived, to mean skipped, we get it.

I guess it's fine, I was just wondering what the general opinion was.

scarletpeaches · Dec 11, 2006

I say, just use the English of where you're from. Americans, use US English, and people from the UK...use 'proper' English.

veinglory · Dec 11, 2006

It's a stylistic choice, typically made by the paublisher as part of their hous style. As a reader and writer it doesn't bother me either way. IMHO the main reason small countries don't get versions in their dialect is that the sales are worth it but there sure are UK versions of many US written works and changes of cover art on foreign markets is very common.

Novelist in Paradise · Dec 11, 2006

My novels, written in American English, were re-edited for the UK market.

Ken Schneider · Dec 11, 2006

I think his side of the argument stems from the writers feelings of creative freedom.
Submit as is, and whoever is in charge will decide if it is what the anthology calls for.

MHO

Christine N. · Dec 11, 2006

Well, he kind of IS in charge. I'm making my argument. I told him I guess it's fine, he's the editor, but I stated my case. I guess my biggest argument is consistency's sake.

Gillhoughly · Dec 11, 2006

:editor hat on:

USA publisher, USA spellings.

Brit publisher, Brit spellings.

A USA or Brit editor will change the spelling to suit the country. The less work the editor has to do the better the chance of selling the book.

(Ask your bud how many books he's sold or edited, then send him over to see me.

Then again, better not. I'm in a *SUCH* a MOOD!

)

Christine N. · Dec 11, 2006

THANK YOU GILLHOUGHLY!

That's what I thought.

Ken Schneider · Dec 11, 2006

Christine N. said:
Well, he kind of IS in charge.quote]
Oh, I see. The old, if you don't play my game I'm taking my ball home.I doubt anything you say will change his mind, Chris.

Éclairer · Dec 11, 2006

Christine N. said:
So who is right? When British books come over here for US distribution, aren't they usually re-done for American audiences?

I'm from Canada so I don't really care personally (I actually write in both... my computer corrects me.)

HOWEVER, people don't distribute books written in the northern dialect of western Nunavut, in Istanbul, heck people don't do that in Quebec, and they live here.

That being said... I know it's only a matter of miniscule differences where the UK and the US are concerned; I still think books should be distributed in the primary language of the country (however tiny the differences --I feel like a stick in the mud. I care not! I will stand by my beliefs.)

pdr · Dec 11, 2006

Me too!

The story is British, it is not American.
And it won't be a matter of simply spellings. The whole way the story was written is British, based on their culture not the American.

It is ethno-centric, indeed xenophobic, to insist that the rest of the world's cultures be Americanised.

aliajohnson · Dec 11, 2006

I'd say keep it, if it were for adults--but it's not. I agree that change of spelling, etc. may very well just confuse a child. We want to encourage them to read, not make it a struggle.

pdr · Dec 11, 2006

But perhaps...

you haven't allowed for a child's natural curiosity? And I understand this isn't a beginner's school reader but a book of stories.

A parent or teacher should welcome the questions rising from the whys and whats of reading another culture's story in that culture's English.

AdamH · Dec 11, 2006

Color. Colour. Humor. Humour. Doughnut. Donut.

Potato. Pot-Ah-to.

I think Gillhoughy has it right (Or 'Gillhoghy' if it was Americanized

...only being silly).

If a British publisher wants it for a British audience, no matter if it's based in rural Iowa with a guy building a ball park in the middle of his cornfield or not, spelling will be adjusted based on the market. And vica versa with American markets.

As for "broadening children's horizons", the way something is spelled doesn't broaden any horizon as much as a well written story. And, when it comes down to it, if you're caught up in a great story, do you really notice the spelling? (OK...granted, I do...usually on the second pass...sometimes it's appalling what gets missed...another subject for another day)

But, I think, when something becomes a classic like Great Expectations or Catcher in the Rye or whatever, they're more apt to be published in their original spelling.

Just my two and a half pence.

Mark Lazer · Dec 12, 2006

My thought is, if you write for the US market, you ought to write US language.

Flapdoodle · Dec 12, 2006

Christine N. said:
Ok, I'm having a bit of an argument here with someone. I was given a story to read over, look for mistakes, fix things, etc.. And I get this piece, which is going into an anthology for US children, and find it's written in UK English. Recognised, etc..

I say that it should be written in US English, based on the audience. He says leave it UK, since that's where the story is set, and try to teach children to broaden their horizons. He argues Harry Potter. I say, whoa! HP was rewritten in US English for US distribution, or else we all would have read "The Philosopher's Stone" instead of Sorcerer's. I say it's not about being ethno-centric, it's about not confusing the little darlings, especially when this is the ONLY story in the anthology (I think) that was written this way.

So who is right? When British books come over here for US distribution, aren't they usually re-done for American audiences?

Are there that many differences? I've read plenty of US books and I've never noticed any difference between US and UK English apart from the odd spelling difference and the insidious use of "gotten", the vilest word on the planet. The main differences would be cultural references - "Fanny" would leave old duffers in the UK aghast, and if you talked about the "Hood" on a car, people would be a bit confused. A coat has a hood, not a car. However, I suspect the majority of folk would understand. Folk like Stephen King fill their stuff with cultural references and brand names that can sometimes lose a UK reader, but I managed to read a Bill Bryson book about his childhood in the US and never found it in the slightest bit difficult to understand.

Dictionary.com is your friend, anyway.

blacbird · Dec 12, 2006

Gillhoughly said:
:editor hat on:

USA publisher, USA spellings.

Brit publisher, Brit spellings.

A USA or Brit editor will change the spelling to suit the country. The less work the editor has to do the better the chance of selling the book.

Having lived on both countries, I can assure you this is the way it's done. I have in my library books purchased in both countries, and, regardless of authorship, the Brit publishers use Brit spellings, the Yank publishers use Yank spellings.

caw

seun · Dec 12, 2006

I'm reading an Americanised copy of Clive Barker's The Thief of Always and I have to admit the changes from UK English to US English are grating. This may be because I think it's essentially an English story or because I'm not sure how neccessary the changes are. For example, would it really confuse an American kid if 'mom' was 'mum' or 'sidewalk' was 'pavement'? Or my personal favourite: 'England' becomes 'Americaland'.

What's wrong with reading a book in its original form as long as it's still readable? Doesn't changing such things just tell people that other languages don't matter?

Christine N. · Dec 12, 2006

I wouldn't say things like sidewalk/pavement. It's more 'practice/practise', 'Defense/Defence', 'realize/realise'. I mean, I know by know what a hosepipe is.

I guess it really doesn't matter. It's his book after all.

Vincent · Dec 12, 2006

All long as we all talk American, I'm sure we'll all get along.

spacejock2 · Dec 12, 2006

I help to publish an SF mag in Australia, and our rule is - use the language of origin. US submitters, US language, UK or Aus writers, UK/Aus spelling.

An anthology is not the same as a novel - for a start, you're more likely to include works by a number of different writers, and readers will be more forgiving.

UK English or US?

haz a shiny new book cover

Over the hills and far away

I Tried

haz a shiny new book cover

volitare nequeo

Ah, the joys of dengue fever

Absolute sagebrush

haz a shiny new book cover

Grumpy writer and editor

haz a shiny new book cover

Absolute sagebrush

Pumped Up Kicks

Horror Man

haz a shiny new book cover

Cheers