UK English or US?

[Christine N.]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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

[veinglory]

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]

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

[Ken Schneider]

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.]

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]

: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! http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif)

[Christine N.]

THANK YOU GILLHOUGHLY!

That's what I thought.

[Ken Schneider]

[quote=Christine N.]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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Potato. Pot-Ah-to.

I think Gillhoughy has it right (Or 'Gillhoghy' if it was Americanized :D ...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]

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

[Flapdoodle]

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]

: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]

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.]

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.

[beezle]

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

[spacejock2]

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.

[spacejock2]

Or my personal favourite: 'England' becomes 'Americaland'.

I think I hear bells ringing.

[Carmy]

An anthology for children should use the country's language. Published in the US? Use US English. Children have enough trouble with spelling as it is, so there's no need to confuse them further.

[TrickyFiction]

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.

Actually, I would do it the other way around. I think children are much more adaptable, and can understand variations on their language as well as entirely new languages much more easily than adults. They can learn another language just by watching shows in that language. They're little information sponges. Adults are the ones who are so standardized, we can't stand variations on spelling and get confused by new idioms.

[aliajohnson]

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.

There are better ways to encourage a child's interest in the world around him/her than insisting they confront differences of spelling. In fact, I'd argue that not changing, and thereby possibly frustrating a child who may allready have difficulty reading, would due more harm than good.

Reading is a wonderful way for exploring other cultures. Shouldn't we then, make reading a pleasant experience for them and encourage them to explore?

[farfromfearless]

Imagine if we were having this argument about [English language] audio books. What fun!

[BruceJ]

Imagine if we were having this argument about [English language] audio books. What fun!

Well, ya know, ya bring up a good point. If this were an audio book, when would a British accent be used and when not? If a character were British, obviously it would, but just having the book sold in Britain--would that drive the publisher toward a British accent (except for foreign characters, of course)? I really don't know the answer to that. Anybody have any experience with this?

[Zolah]

Is this really that big a deal anyway? If the story is good, I can't see any kid chucking the book across the room because the word is spelled 'recognise' instead of 'recognize', or because they can't figure out what a pavement is.

[WildScribe]

These are small children. As in: still learning to spell. As in: don't confuse them with a different language (because it is)!

[BruceJ]

Is this really that big a deal anyway? If the story is good, I can't see any kid chucking the book across the room because the word is spelled 'recognise' instead of 'recognize', or because they can't figure out what a pavement is.

True, it's probably not a big deal. But it is kind of an interesting question and a lot of the threads on AW aren't really big deals. I'm sure it'll all get sorted out in the editing process and a good story--as you say--probably won't get bounced just because the MC calls his friend rather than ringing him up.

[Azure Skye]

See, I would rather it remained unedited because I want to learn the rhythm, slang, and spelling of another English speaking country. It wouldn't bother me to read it the way it was originally written.

[flannelberry]

Shouldn't the setting be the determining factor? If I were to write a book set in the US, my language and spelling would reflect that. Being Canadian and writing books set either in Canada or the UK, my language and spelling reflect that.

Obviously this wouldn't work for a fantasy... then I think you go with the author's choice (or whatever you think will work for the editor). I doubt anyone would have their ms rejected *only* as a result of using the "incorrect" English, however, it does seem to me to be respectful to submit in the English of the publishing house/agent (in a work where the setting isn't an issue).

I do realize that in a story where the characters travel you wouldn't be switching your spellings to reflect where they're going.

[farfromfearless]

These are small children. As in: still learning to spell. As in: don't confuse them with a different language (because it is)!

Truth be told, it's not a different language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language). North American English, like many english speaking countries derived from British English (which again was derived from Germanic origins). My point is that we're speaking and writing in what can be considered a dialect, yet another bastardization of English.

[FennelGiraffe]

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.Yes, they should--but most won't.

With children's books, it's really parents, teachers, and librarians you are selling to. Even when it's for pleasure reading, not education. I'm afraid the spelling differences would be perceived* as a source of confusion.

*It doesn't matter whether they actually are. In this case, perception is the important factor.

[icerose]

Everything I've seen points to US publishers using US spellings and terms and UK publishers using UK spellings and terms save the classics outside the abridged versions.

I agree, don't confuse the poor kids!

[aruna]

I wrote mine in UK English for the US market. I'm going to let my editor change it. However, I have some UK terminology that should stay, because that's how the character would speak.

By coincidence, Miss Snark had a quesion regarding US/UK spelling today and she replied:
Will Miss Snark spell cheque with vigour?
Will much depend on the red waggon...yet again?

Pish posh.

As you can tell from all 3000 previous posts, spelling is not Miss Snark's strong suit. Write well. Hook hard. There's always an ascerbic grammarian spell czech to fire off volleys of outraged corrections, bless their little hearts.

[Mike Coombes]

When writing for american markets, I americanize. When writing for English, I anglicise. It's not hard.

[Atlantis]

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?

In the Harry Potter novels, the earlier books were "Americanized" Its true. They went way beyond changing things like "colour" to "color" they (according to websites, I haven't read the American versions of the books myself) changed words like jumper to sweater and I think even removed some of the British foods the kids ate and replaced them with American dishes. That's taking it a little far. For the record, from about book five onwards, the Harry Potter books are now kept in UK English in America.

[FergieC]

These are small children. As in: still learning to spell. As in: don't confuse them with a different language (because it is)!

Kids will cope easily with different spellings.

My cousin's kid has a Spanish speaking mother, a Swiss-German speaking father, an English speaking Grandmother, and will learn to write in High German (because Swiss Germans isn't a written language). He's learning all these languages as he goes, and will switch easily from one to another when different family members are present. It doesn't confuse him that one set of family only understands English words, and another set only understands Spanish.

If that doesn't confuse a kid, and the fact that cough is pronounced differently from though, and through doesn't confuse them, they're not going to be bothered by different word spellings. They'll just pick up that there are alternative spellings of certain words - best to do that young than have to learn later.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, a good many US books are edited for UK readers. It isn't so much for grammar or spelling, but whenever a word or phrase means something different in the UK, and there are many such, it gets changed.

When in doubt, check with the publication, but this really isn't a terribly important issue. The editor will either leave the spelling and punctuation alone, or he'll change it to fit his readership. He isn't likely to reject because of it.

[FennelGiraffe]

changed words like jumper to sweaterCopyeditor Deanna Hoak recently wrote about her approach (http://deannahoak.com/2006/11/28/the-americanization-of-novels/) to this. I haven't re-read to see if she mentioned "jumper" specifically, but she discusses words that have a different meaning in US English than they do in UK English. (It's less familiar, because it's currently out of fashion, but there is an article of clothing called a "jumper" in the US.) She says words like that confuse the reader in a way that merely unfamiliar words don't. On the other hand, I don't think she was addressing children's books.

[Nickie]

I'm out of the publishing industry for the time being, but I know that we used to adapt our manuscripts to the region where the books would be sold. UK English for Great-Britain and Europe, US English for the States and Canada. Odd, but true. Never understood why there should be TWO sorts of English. Wasn't British English good enough????


Nickie

[icerose]

Never understood why there should be TWO sorts of English. Wasn't British English good enough????


Nickie

Well when you figure in that most of the settlers were poor thus under to non-educated. Their spelling wouldn't be worth anything and there were no british lords to keep it correct, then the spelling would vary all over the map.

It has also been over 300 years since America broke free from England and since English isn't a dead language it is going to and has changed.

Just like there is Canadian French and French and African French. When you are that seperated from the source your language isn't going to change the way theirs is.

Also America was/is a smeltering pot of cultures ranging all over the place in terms of education, background, and so forth which influences the change.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

My question:

If this book were sent to Japan, would the writer keep the language in UK English or change it to Japanese?

I realize this is somewhat different than two English-speaking countries, but still. I don't understand why, if a book is written in one language or dialect, and is sent to a land where that language or dialect is not understood, the writer would insist that the book be kept in its original language or dialect. Common sense speaking, here, I really think that if the UK author is sending the work abroad, then he/she needs to change the language to suit the readers.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

[Zolah]

My question:

If this book were sent to Japan, would the writer keep the language in UK English or change it to Japanese?

I realize this is somewhat different than two English-speaking countries, but still. I don't understand why, if a book is written in one language or dialect, and is sent to a land where that language or dialect is not understood, the writer would insist that the book be kept in its original language or dialect. Common sense speaking, here, I really think that if the UK author is sending the work abroad, then he/she needs to change the language to suit the readers.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Actually - it's not the author's job to do this. If a piece of writing is produced by an author from the UK and is sold to the American market it is the copy-editor's job to amend the spelling and look out for easily mis-understood words, just as if their work was sold to Japan it would be the publisher's job to find and pay a translator. Asking an English person to know and understand all the 'Americanisms' that might confuse an American reader would be as silly as asking him or her to translate their own manuscript to Japanese using a Japanese dictionary. Doesn't work.

[Flapdoodle]

Well when you figure in that most of the settlers were poor thus under to non-educated. Their spelling wouldn't be worth anything and there were no british lords to keep it correct, then the spelling would vary all over the map.

It has also been over 300 years since America broke free from England and since English isn't a dead language it is going to and has changed.

Just like there is Canadian French and French and African French. When you are that seperated from the source your language isn't going to change the way theirs is.

Also America was/is a smeltering pot of cultures ranging all over the place in terms of education, background, and so forth which influences the change.

The language itself is a melting pot! England was invaded by Romans, Saxons, Normans, Danes & also had a huge influx of people from the Empire. All these have had their influence, alongside the Celts. Then there're Greek words, Latin words, etc, etc. (Although Norse is another Germanic language). Of course, some Welsh still speak Welsh and there's also a few people speaking Cornish now.

English changes anyway, and has done before and since the US dropped our tea in the sea. MUCH of UK English has its origins in the US with the settlers - Bill Bryson wrote a book about it. Well worth checking out. I'd say there are more differences between dialects in Lancashire and the Midlands than there are between US and UK EnglisH!

The thing about English is that it wasn't an "official" language for some years after the Norman Invasion - for years the royals only spoke a variant of French. Hence there is a lot of French derived words in English, alongside Celtic words and no doubt Norse Words (Some parts of the city I live in have Norse-based names.)

[bethannerickson]

Tons of advice here. Guess I'll jump in anyway.

As a rule, "speak" the language of your reader. After all, we're writing to connect with our readers. The only way to do this is to write using their language.

My two cents,

Beth

[pdr]

As I understand it this is a British story the editor wants in his anthology. It wasn't written specifically for the market.

So, it's a British story. It's set in a different culture. Isn't that one of the things the editor liked about it?
He doesn't want to tamper with the text. Why does the OP?

And before anyone rushes to reply, please think about it seriously. From what I have read here there's a lot more than 'we must be careful of the spelling for the poor little children' at work in posters' heads.

[Jo]

Personally, I can't see what's wrong with keeping the UK form of the piece. Then again, I grew up in Australia, the flipside of the world. Our children grow up exchanging Christmas cards with winter scenes, even though our Christmas is in the height of summer. As preschoolers, they watch and learn from Sesame Street, Barney and Friends, Blue's Clues (US) and Thomas the Tank Engine, Postman Pat, Bob the Builder, Teletubbies (UK), as well as the Wiggles, High Five and Play School (AUS). Even our own country has many dialects: port=bag/backpack, togs=bathers/swimmers, etc., and kids from a young age travel the country and world, both physically and via visual/audio/audiovisual media, and learn to adapt and grow.

As a young reader, I revelled in the Trixie Belden series (US version) and, although I didn't understand everything at the time, especially the school system, I came to appreciate a different culture. Did the spelling mix me up? No. It actually helped me to "hear" the characters. (I also grew up watching Sesame Street...) My own children tell me they have similar experiences--Harry Potter uses UK English terminology, and US books use "mom" and sometimes "pa", etc. and both are set in northern hemisphere climates/seasons, yet the kids get the gist of the stories. They even aspire to travel up north one day, with their acquired knowledge (fictional or otherwise) firmly in head.

I believe changing our writing to suit an unfamiliar (to the writer) audience would only stifle our unique creations that children may be eager to experience. The world is at our fingertips, whether we like it or not, and it's our kids who'll have to adapt to this more than ever.

[aruna]

Personally, I can't see what's wrong with keeping the UK form of the piece. Then again, I grew up in Australia, the flipside of the world. Our children grow up exchanging Christmas cards with winter scenes, even though our Christmas is in the height of summer. .....

I believe changing our writing to suit an unfamiliar (to the writer) audience would only stifle our unique creations that children may be eager to experience. The world is at our fingertips, whether we like it or not, and it's our kids who'll have to adapt to this more than ever.

I so, so agree with you! I am from Guyana, which is even more our of the world. I grew up reading about oak trees and apples amd buttercups, whereas out local scenery included coconut palms, mangoes and hibiscus. I know all about American Thanksgiving and Halloween and British boarding schools by the time I was 10. I think letting kids see how it;s done in other countries broadens their horizons, not confuse them.
My own children grew up bi-lingual; they heard English from me, German from everyone else. They could switch between German and English within one sentence, and now they are fluent in both. That's an asset!
So: change the spelling by all means, but switching sweater to jumper or diaper to nappy and vice versa is just silly.

[RTH]

Some words are better UK-style. "Grey" just looks so much better on the page than "gray..."