Monstrous Regiment: buy British or American edition?
Henry Polard
to the British edition? I ask this because significant differences in
editions of The Truth were detailed here, and similar differences might
be present in editions of The Monstrous Regiment. I would like to know
so that I can decide whether to buy the American edition or the far more
expensive (for me) British edition.
Henry Polard || The author of Beowulf was an alliterate.
Richard Eney
Henry Polard <h_po...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How close is the American edition of The Monstrous Regiment likely to be
>to the British edition? I ask this because significant differences in
>editions of The Truth were detailed here, and similar differences might
>be present in editions of The Monstrous Regiment. I would like to know
>so that I can decide whether to buy the American edition or the far more
>expensive (for me) British edition.
As the person who listed the differences, I'd say that if you just want
the story (and money is a problem), buy the American edition. If you want
every picky little detail that would give a possible allusion or small
verbal joke, buy the British edition. Only one of the differences in TT
made a character-note difference, and that was a subtle one; the general
idea was still there.
=Tamar
John Duncan Yoyo
The British edition is listed on amazon.ca for CDN$28 which is around
$20 US. I don't know how bad shipping would be.
<http://tinyurl.com/nrui>
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Henry Polard
John Duncan Yoyo <john-dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2003 00:30:38 GMT, dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
>
> >In article <h_polard-4ACDDA...@news04.west.earthlink.net>,
> >Henry Polard <h_po...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>How close is the American edition of The Monstrous Regiment likely to be
> >>to the British edition? I ask this because significant differences in
> >>editions of The Truth were detailed here, and similar differences might
> >>be present in editions of The Monstrous Regiment. I would like to know
> >>so that I can decide whether to buy the American edition or the far more
> >>expensive (for me) British edition.
> >
> >As the person who listed the differences, I'd say that if you just want
> >the story (and money is a problem), buy the American edition. If you want
> >every picky little detail that would give a possible allusion or small
> >verbal joke, buy the British edition. Only one of the differences in TT
> >made a character-note difference, and that was a subtle one; the general
> >idea was still there.
>
> The British edition is listed on amazon.ca for CDN$28 which is around
> $20 US. I don't know how bad shipping would be.
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/nrui>
Here is what I found out:
Monstrous Regiment
Canada:
Amazon: 27.92 = US 20.43 + 7.30 shipping Total US$27.73
Munro's Books: 39.95 + 8.00 shipping = 47.95 = US$35.26
US:
Amazon: 17.47 +3.99 = 21.46 (free shipping if the order is $25 or more)
UK:
Amazon UK: 8.99 = US14.44 +6.98= US 11.21 Total = $25.65
Internet bookshop: 12.59 +7.98 = 20.57 = US $43.44
Since I need another book, the Merkin price has swayed me, so that's
what I'll get.
Henry Poalrd || A bird on rollers - a real cheepskate.
Hologhost
Amazon UK: 8.99 = US14.44 +6.98= US 11.21 Total = $25.65 >>
You can also order the new Christopher Lee bio from here, which come out at the
same time and covers up through LOTR. Why not take the opportunity to get a
few things at once that you can't get on our side of the pond? Perhaps a few
of the Pratchett's that aren't for sale here?
John Duncan Yoyo
wrote:
Wasn't the shipping in canadian dollars as well?
Square Bear
"Henry Polard" <h_po...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h_polard-4ACDDA...@news04.west.earthlink.net...
At least you can find an edition to choose from!
I am left with no option than to wait and watch you all read an then
annotate the book before it is even released here in OZ :'(
oh well, enough of my rantings, back to the beer.....
Square Bear
bewtifulfreak
>>>>> likely to be to the British edition?
>>>> As the person who listed the differences, I'd say that if you just
>>>> want the story (and money is a problem), buy the American edition.
>>>> If you want every picky little detail that would give a possible
>>>> allusion or small verbal joke, buy the British edition. Only one
>>>> of the differences in TT made a character-note difference, and
>>>> that was a subtle one; the general idea was still there.
You mean, they actually edit the text of the books when publishing in
another English-speaking (and, as an American, I use that term loosely)
country?? Yes, there are some little subtleties Americans might miss, but
as a Yank now living in England, I'm horrified to think that my fellows
aren't given the books in their pure form, complete with the joy of research
and discovery into what those little subtleties might allude to. Have they
done the same to Tolkein, Dickens, or god knows how many other brilliant
British authors? The mind boggles! I can only hope and pray that Terry is
in on this process, to keep the books as true to their original intention as
possible, but even still, it bothers me that the books are not readily
available in U.S. in the form they were intended. America, the Land of
Dumbing Down.... :\
Ann
P.S. Don't even get me started on what they tried to do to Red Dwarf....!
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Richard Eney
bewtifulfreak <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How close is the American edition of The Monstrous Regiment
>>>>>> likely to be to the British edition?
>
>>>>> As the person who listed the differences, I'd say that if you just
>>>>> want the story (and money is a problem), buy the American edition.
>>>>> If you want every picky little detail that would give a possible
>>>>> allusion or small verbal joke, buy the British edition. Only one
>>>>> of the differences in TT made a character-note difference, and
>>>>> that was a subtle one; the general idea was still there.
>
>You mean, they actually edit the text of the books when publishing in
>another English-speaking (and, as an American, I use that term loosely)
>country?? Yes, there are some little subtleties Americans might miss, but
>as a Yank now living in England, I'm horrified to think that my fellows
>aren't given the books in their pure form, complete with the joy of research
>and discovery into what those little subtleties might allude to. Have they
>done the same to Tolkein, Dickens, or god knows how many other brilliant
>British authors? The mind boggles!
The "classics" tend to be printed in the form they became famous in, but
it depends on the editor and on the publisher's policy. If they adhere to
the Chicago Style Sheet, everything must be changed to that version of
spelling and punctuation, and in some cases grammar. Then the meddling
morons get their fingers on it.
However, there are some instances in which the same has been done in
reverse. _Catcher in the Rye_ was heavily edited until relatively
recently, and comic books would have the spelling changed ("u" added to
words like "color") in noticeably after-the-fact lettering. UK's official
censorship has also led to some changes; I think (ICBW) the name of one
minor character in _Catch-22_ was changed in the UK edition for that
reason. I think one of Herbert's _Dune_ books had the preface removed
because it referred to the Mu'ad D'ib famiy as the Trinity. It happens to
movies too; in 1979 the version of "The Wizard of Speed and Time" that was
shown at Worldcon had one tiny segment removed in which the Wizard runs
across the surface of a pond, because only Jesus was allowed to walk on
water.
> I can only hope and pray that Terry is in on this process, to keep the
>books as true to their original intention as possible.
He is, now that Harper are publishing the books concurrently. It used to
be they just scanned in a copy of the UK edition, made the Chicago Style
Sheet changes, and printed it. Now he gets to fight with the editor over
some things. However, sometimes in order to get one thing right, he has
to let something else slide, so, for instance, in The Truth, "biscuit" was
kept but the meddling moron played with Otto Chriek's accent and some
clumsy person dropped the piece of type that had one word of dialogue on
it. ("Good." Spoken by Mr Tulip near the end.)
=Tamar
Keith Edgerley
bkth7m$2g5$1...@news1.radix.net...
It would seem that the editing perpetrated on the US versions was originally
a result of the old US legal provision (the "manufacturing clause") imposed
by the printing industry, whereby any book, to qualify for copyright in the
States, had to be reset in that country, and publishers took advantage of
this to apply their house styles. The alternative was to import not more
than 1,500 copies of a foreign printing, saving expense but also leaving the
work open to reprinting by all comers, without any right to royalties. It
was immaterial whether the author claimed copyright or not; the
"manufacturing clause" of 1909 overrode all that.
Importing such a small number could be a gamble, and there have been cases
of authors later becoming famous whose works were "legally" pirated. A
notorious instance was Tolkien, with LOTR. In the end, he had to introduce
changes in order to create a "new" edition which could then be copyrighted.
--
Keith
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>Date: 25/09/03 02:43 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bkth7m$2g5$1...@news1.radix.net>
>
>In article <bksleq$5fbgp$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>bewtifulfreak <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You mean, they actually edit the text of the books when publishing in
>>another English-speaking (and, as an American, I use that term loosely)
>>country??
<snip>
>However, there are some instances in which the same has been done in
>reverse. _Catcher in the Rye_ was heavily edited until relatively
>recently, and comic books would have the spelling changed ("u" added to
>words like "color") in noticeably after-the-fact lettering.
I remember buying the UK Spider-Man reprints when his parents were brought back
to life, and that drove me mad. I almost wrote to the editor saying "Peter
wouldn't say "Mum"! "Mom" is actually pronnounced differently!! I'm not sure
you *can* say "Mum" in a New York accent!!!"
But I didn't. Because I'm not quite *that* sad.
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for FOUR years
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"We have no listing for the Cult of Fish in Edinburgh."
The Number 118-118, asked for the number of the Court of Session.
William Black
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:bkth7m$2g5$1...@news1.radix.net...
. UK's official
> censorship has also led to some changes; I think (ICBW) the name of one
> minor character in _Catch-22_ was changed in the UK edition for that
> reason. I think one of Herbert's _Dune_ books had the preface removed
> because it referred to the Mu'ad D'ib famiy as the Trinity.
You really will have to give me details of the UK official book censorship
organisation.
Because not only isn't there one, there hasn't been one for centuries...
Film however...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
James Kemp
following at 18:27:54 on Thu, 25 Sep 2003, allegedly:
>"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:bkth7m$2g5$1...@news1.radix.net...
>
>. UK's official
>> censorship has also led to some changes; I think (ICBW) the name of one
>> minor character in _Catch-22_ was changed in the UK edition for that
>> reason. I think one of Herbert's _Dune_ books had the preface removed
>> because it referred to the Mu'ad D'ib famiy as the Trinity.
>
>You really will have to give me details of the UK official book censorship
>organisation.
The Lord Chancellor was responsible for making sure that nothing likely
to contravene public decency was published or performed in the UK. This
lasted up until the late 60s when they gave up on print because they
lost several cases and they were obviously out of touch with reality.
Also I suspect that there was a feeling that intellectuals (i.e. book
readers) were unlikely to be corrupted too easily...
More likely though are the lawyers at the publishing house worried that
they might get sued for libelling someone or something else.
--
Jas
Dumbarton Games Group - http://www.castlegreen.org.uk/
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>Date: 25/09/03 19:27 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bkvc39$10i$1...@titan.btinternet.com>
>
>
>"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:bkth7m$2g5$1...@news1.radix.net...
>
>. UK's official
>> censorship has also led to some changes; I think (ICBW) the name of one
>> minor character in _Catch-22_ was changed in the UK edition for that
>> reason. I think one of Herbert's _Dune_ books had the preface removed
>> because it referred to the Mu'ad D'ib famiy as the Trinity.
>
>You really will have to give me details of the UK official book censorship
>organisation.
>
>Because not only isn't there one, there hasn't been one for centuries...
Of course there hasn't. Lady Chatterly's Lover was the victim of bad
marketing...
Mike Stevens
> The Lord Chancellor was responsible for making sure that nothing
> likely to contravene public decency was published or performed in the
> UK.
Shum mishtake shurely! The Lord Chamberlain was responsible for
censorship of theatrical performances from the Licensing Act of 1773
until that responsibility was abolished by the Theatres Act of 1968.
The original Act was introduced by the then Prime Minister Robert
Walpole to silence playwrights who were using the stage to attack the
Government. Dr Johnson, a vehement opponent of the Act, published a
satirical pamphlet suggesting that it should be extended to cover the
teaching of reading, in order to ensure proper subservience to the
Government.
The Lord Chamberlain is an officer of the Royal Household, quite
different from the Lord Chancellor who is the head of the Judiciary (and
in the last century or two a member of the Cabinet). I don't think
either of them has ever had any responsibility for censoring printed
publications.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Mike Stevens
>> From: "William Black" black_...@hotmail.com
>> Date: 25/09/03 19:27 GMT Daylight Time
>> Message-id: <bkvc39$10i$1...@titan.btinternet.com>
>>
>>
>> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>> news:bkth7m$2g5$1...@news1.radix.net...
>>
>> . UK's official
>>> censorship has also led to some changes; I think (ICBW) the name of
>>> one minor character in _Catch-22_ was changed in the UK edition for
>>> that reason. I think one of Herbert's _Dune_ books had the preface
>>> removed because it referred to the Mu'ad D'ib famiy as the Trinity.
>>
>> You really will have to give me details of the UK official book
>> censorship organisation.
>>
>> Because not only isn't there one, there hasn't been one for
>> centuries...
>
> Of course there hasn't. Lady Chatterly's Lover was the victim of bad
> marketing...
The book was written in 1928 and first published in the UK in 1932 in an
expurgated edition with a very small print run. The expurgation was
done by the publishers, not any official censor. There were
prosecutions (for obscenity) of publishers of editions of the book in
the USA in 1930 and 1944.
The famous UK trial was of Penguin Books in 1960 when they published the
unexpurgated text in a popular edition for the first time in the UK.
This prosecution came about not through the instigation of any official
"censor", but was brought by the legal authorities under the common-law
offence of "obscenity".
William Black
"James Kemp" <Ja...@the-kemps.org> wrote in message
news:F$C9ZkP6xzc$Ew...@jmkemp.demon.co.uk...
> Someone known as William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> scribed the
> following at 18:27:54 on Thu, 25 Sep 2003, allegedly:
> >You really will have to give me details of the UK official book
censorship
> >organisation.
>
> The Lord Chancellor was responsible for making sure that nothing likely
> to contravene public decency was published or performed in the UK. This
> lasted up until the late 60s when they gave up on print because they
> lost several cases and they were obviously out of touch with reality.
> Also I suspect that there was a feeling that intellectuals (i.e. book
> readers) were unlikely to be corrupted too easily...
Rubbish.
The Lord Chancellor was responsible only for performances on stage.
The three important cases for obscene books with no pictorial content were
both brought under obscene publications legislation, all three were lost in
the second half of the last century.
The last case involved a book by the noted porn actress Linda Lovelace and
was admitted by the defence to have little or no literary merit, but was
still found not to be obscene.
There have been a number of cases for blasphemy in books brought by loopy
idiots with too much money. So far all have been thrown out...
Dune was never brought before a court and was never performed on stage
during the relevant period.
So, I'll ask again, what was the UK official book censorship organisation?
Daibhid Ceannaideach
<Non-existence of UK book censors>
>> Of course there hasn't. Lady Chatterly's Lover was the victim of bad
>> marketing...
>
>The book was written in 1928 and first published in the UK in 1932 in an
>expurgated edition with a very small print run. The expurgation was
>done by the publishers, not any official censor. There were
>prosecutions (for obscenity) of publishers of editions of the book in
>the USA in 1930 and 1944.
>
>The famous UK trial was of Penguin Books in 1960 when they published the
>unexpurgated text in a popular edition for the first time in the UK.
>This prosecution came about not through the instigation of any official
>"censor", but was brought by the legal authorities under the common-law
>offence of "obscenity".
You're quite right, and I should have known that. I think I had a definition of
censor which was too loose to apply to the thread. Or I hadn't checked my facts
properly. Or both.
bewtifulfreak
> I remember buying the UK Spider-Man reprints when his parents were
> brought back to life, and that drove me mad. I almost wrote to the
> editor saying "Peter wouldn't say "Mum"! "Mom" is actually
> pronnounced differently!! I'm not sure you *can* say "Mum" in a New
> York accent!!!"
>
> But I didn't. Because I'm not quite *that* sad.
That isn't sad, that's just accurate....if a story and character are set in
a specific place, no matter what the story is or where it's sold, it should
reflect the language and spelling of the setting. Translation is one thing,
and even then, the translation should still reflect the original culture.
What, do they think if they use the word 'Mom' in UK, or the spelling
'colour' in US, people won't be able to figure it out?? Completely
unnecessary, and a bit weirdly jingoistic and territorial, in my mind....
Ann
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Richard Eney
Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
<snip>
>censorship has also led to some changes; I think (ICBW) the name of one
>minor character in _Catch-22_ was changed in the UK edition for that
>reason.
Correction: the name change was in the recently published sequel to
Catch-22.
> I think one of Herbert's _Dune_ books had the preface removed
>because it referred to the Mu'ad D'ib famiy as the Trinity.
According to a note I found, it was Dune Messiah, and the family was
referred to as the Holy Family.
=Tamar
James Kemp
at 22:09:03 on Thu, 25 Sep 2003, allegedly:
>James Kemp <Ja...@the-kemps.org> wrote:
>
>> The Lord Chancellor was responsible for making sure that nothing
>> likely to contravene public decency was published or performed in the
>> UK.
>
>Shum mishtake shurely!
Yup. Got the Chamberlain and Chancellor mixed up.
James Kemp
>The three important cases for obscene books with no pictorial content were
>both brought under obscene publications legislation, all three were lost in
>the second half of the last century.
So who brought the three cases and why? Where they civil or criminal? If
the latter the organisation that initiated the prosecution it likely the
one that you are looking for. No official body would launch a
prosecution if it didn't have specific responsibility for doing so,
either from legislation or royal prerogative.
Richard Bos
> The famous UK trial was of Penguin Books in 1960 when they published the
> unexpurgated text in a popular edition for the first time in the UK.
> This prosecution came about not through the instigation of any official
> "censor", but was brought by the legal authorities under the common-law
> offence of "obscenity".
Bah. That may not be "official censorship", but it damn well is
censorship by the officials. The difference is of academic interest
only.
Richard
Keith Edgerley
"bewtifulfreak" <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message
de news: bl08mh$6vhtk$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
Don't you think having to "figure something out" adds another dimension
that the original author did not intend for his original target reader?
And where do you draw the line? Different people draw the line in different
places. Take "vest" and "braces".
Then what do you do about translation from or into another language?
--
Keith
Ist est nicht seltsam, dass Schafsdärme die Seele aus eines Menschen Leibe
ziehn können?
Mike Stevens
The Obscene Publications Act (Acts? were there more than one of them?)
were passed by Parliament and were, IIRC, part of the criminal law. So
the Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions had (still have,
although the law's not the same now as it was in 1960) the
responsibility of bringing cases to Court. They did and do not have the
power to make any order censoring a book, merely the power to take the
publisher to court. And I don't think the court had the power to order
any changes in a book, merely to fine or imprison the publisher if they
found the book in breach of the Act.
Mike Stevens
Remember where this thread started - we were talking about changes to
texts that may have been made by the "censors". There were no powers to
make such changes under the Obscene Publications Act. Yes it's
censorship, but of a different kind to the one we started talking about.
Brian Wakeling
Keith Edgerley <edger...@bluewin.ch> typed:
In 1986, the US signed the Berne Convention, which protects
copyrights across international boundaries. Unless a president
since then has renounced it, or signed a less binding one, then
there is no legal justification for having a US edition to
conform to the "manufacturing clause"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2002379.stm
http://www.cerebalaw.com/berne.htm
And as for the Chicago Style Sheet:
Q. How many books by American authors get published in the UK
with the correct English spelling?
A. None.
Why should PTerry's books be altered in the US, if Terry Brooks
(for example) doesn't need to have his books altered for UK
publication?
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
Nearly complete website:
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"Always try to be modest, and be proud of it."
William Black
"Richard Bos" <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
news:3f73fd47...@news.nl.net...
I see, so you don't remember who won then...
Which is rather the point of the slightly tatty Penguin edition sitting on
my bookshelf.
William Black
All three cases were criminal prosecutions by the police brought under
obscene publications legislation.
There was the famous 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' case, 'Last Exit to
Brooklyn' and the aforementioned book by Linda Lovelace who's title I can't
remember.
The legislation required the prosecution to prove that the publication
involved must tend to 'corrupt and deprave'.
All three cases failed.
Alec Cawley
<Ja...@the-kemps.org> writes
Prosecution *after* publication is a different thing from censorship
*before* publication. The police have the duty to prosecute obscene
publications when they encounter them being sold. But no-one has the
right to check over proposed publications in advance, which is what a
censor does.
--
Alec Cawley
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>Date: 26/09/03 12:48 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f7426e2$1...@news.bluewin.ch>
>
>
>
>
>"bewtifulfreak" <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message
>de news: bl08mh$6vhtk$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Daibhid Ceannaideach wrote:
>>
>> > I remember buying the UK Spider-Man reprints when his parents were
>> > brought back to life, and that drove me mad. I almost wrote to the
>> > editor saying "Peter wouldn't say "Mum"! "Mom" is actually
>> > pronnounced differently!! I'm not sure you *can* say "Mum" in a New
>> > York accent!!!"
>> >
>> > But I didn't. Because I'm not quite *that* sad.
>>
>> That isn't sad, that's just accurate....if a story and character are set
>in
>> a specific place, no matter what the story is or where it's sold, it
>should
>> reflect the language and spelling of the setting. Translation is one
>thing,
>> and even then, the translation should still reflect the original culture.
>> What, do they think if they use the word 'Mom' in UK, or the spelling
>> 'colour' in US, people won't be able to figure it out?? Completely
>> unnecessary, and a bit weirdly jingoistic and territorial, in my mind....
>
>Don't you think having to "figure something out" adds another dimension
>that the original author did not intend for his original target reader?
You mean having to call a halt to my reading while I labouriously write out the
words "mom" and "mum", compare them, and finally come to the tentative
conclusion that they may be related?
I think having Peter Parker talking in a UK accent adds a much larger dimension
the original writer didn't intend.
>And where do you draw the line? Different people draw the line in different
>places. Take "vest" and "braces".
Well, where do *you* draw the line?
Maybe they should replace all ocurrences of "Uh, gee, guys" with "Eh-up, lads",
as well. Maybe when Spidey meets the Human Torch on the top of the Empire State
Building, should this be replaced by the Telecom Tower, so as not to confuse
British kids, who might not know about the ESB (about as likely as them not
knowing the word "mom")?
Or maybe the fact the comic was written about an American in America means they
should leave it alone.
(Interesting point: In the X-Men, Scottish mutant Shadowcat calls (called?) her
adopted mother "mummy". To the UK audience *not* having to figure that out
"adds a dimension the original author did not intend for his original
audience". So what should the reprint folk do?)
>Then what do you do about translation from or into another language?
Did you *read* the post you replied to? She specifically mentioned that!
Richard Eney
Brian Wakeling <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>And as for the Chicago Style Sheet:
>Q. How many books by American authors get published in the UK
>with the correct English spelling?
>A. None.
>Why should PTerry's books be altered in the US, if Terry Brooks
>(for example) doesn't need to have his books altered for UK
>publication?
It doesn't have to make sense. It's the publisher's policy.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Alec Cawley <al...@cawley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><Ja...@the-kemps.org> writes
>>Someone known as William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> scribed the
>>>both brought under obscene publications legislation, all three were lost
>>>in the second half of the last century.
>>
>>So who brought the three cases and why? Where they civil or criminal?
>>If the latter the organisation that initiated the prosecution it likely
>>the one that you are looking for. No official body would launch a
>>prosecution if it didn't have specific responsibility for doing so,
>>either from legislation or royal prerogative.
>
>Prosecution *after* publication is a different thing from censorship
>*before* publication. The police have the duty to prosecute obscene
>publications when they encounter them being sold. But no-one has the
>right to check over proposed publications in advance, which is what a
>censor does.
The effect is the same, if not worse. An author's book will be edited, or
not bought, because of the fear of prosecution based on the editor's
belief in what the law says, and unless the editor is well-educated in the
details of that particular law and its cases, the editor is likely to err
on the side of caution.
None of which has much to do with spelling changes, though it does explain
why a character named after Christine Keeler was renamed in a UK edition
of an American book. The editor was afraid of being sued by somebody for
mentioning an embarrassing incident.
=Tamar
Stacie Hanes
> bewtifulfreak <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> How close is the American edition of The Monstrous Regiment
> >>>>>> likely to be to the British edition?
> >
>
> He is, now that Harper are publishing the books concurrently. It used to
> be they just scanned in a copy of the UK edition, made the Chicago Style
> Sheet changes, and printed it. Now he gets to fight with the editor over
> some things. However, sometimes in order to get one thing right, he has
> to let something else slide, so, for instance, in The Truth, "biscuit" was
> kept but the meddling moron played with Otto Chriek's accent and some
> clumsy person dropped the piece of type that had one word of dialogue on
> it. ("Good." Spoken by Mr Tulip near the end.)
>
> =Tamar
Gnah. Many of you have probably heard about my thesis. I try not to mention
it too much, but I'm up to my eyeballs in it and also very excited. I get
the UK editions of the ones I'm doing(Death, Witches, Watch), and the thing
that occured to me instantly when I saw that an actual whole WORD was left
out of The Truth is "damn good thing I'm not doing the stand-alones."
Stacie
Keith Edgerley
> >
> > It would seem that the editing perpetrated on the US versions
> > was originally a result of the old US legal provision (the
> > "manufacturing clause") imposed by the printing industry,
> > whereby any book, to qualify for copyright in the States, had
> > to be reset in that country, and publishers took advantage of
> > this to apply their house styles. The alternative was to import
> > not more than 1,500 copies of a foreign printing, saving
> > expense but also leaving the work open to reprinting by all
> > comers, without any right to royalties. It was immaterial
> > whether the author claimed copyright or not; the "manufacturing
> > clause" of 1909 overrode all that.
> >
> > Importing such a small number could be a gamble, and there have
> > been cases of authors later becoming famous whose works were
> > "legally" pirated. A notorious instance was Tolkien, with LOTR.
> > In the end, he had to introduce changes in order to create a
> > "new" edition which could then be copyrighted.
>
> In 1986, the US signed the Berne Convention, which protects
> copyrights across international boundaries. Unless a president
> since then has renounced it, or signed a less binding one, then
> there is no legal justification for having a US edition to
> conform to the "manufacturing clause"
Yes, I was aware of that; you might note I said "originally". The problem
is, once a habit is created, it tends to stay.
(The BBC article itself says:
"But at the insistence of the American print unions the act demanded that,
to gain copyright protection, the first editions of a book had to be printed
in the US. This is why we have American editions of books now.")
BTW, it was an uphill struggle to get the US to adhere to the Berne
Convention (it took 103 years! - 1 March 1989) and many Americans still
don't like the effects on US copyright law, such as protection for life plus
70 years post mortem auctoris.
> And as for the Chicago Style Sheet:
> Q. How many books by American authors get published in the UK
> with the correct English spelling?
> A. None.
> Why should PTerry's books be altered in the US, if Terry Brooks
> (for example) doesn't need to have his books altered for UK
> publication?
>
Are you sure? Here in Switzerland I buy or borrow US and English editions of
popular novels indiscriminately (the American printings are generally
cheaper, strangely enough)and, while there is much less interference than
there used to be a generation ago, there is definitely still some adjustment
of spelling and idiom.
It depends on the publisher.
Keith
Graycat
<edger...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>Don't you think having to "figure something out" adds another dimension
>that the original author did not intend for his original target reader?
I have to figure things out all the time when I read books in English.
And there are lot's of cultural references that I don't understand -
and depening on whether it's american or british I have to understand
it differently. This is because I'm Swedish - and I want to read the
words the author put there.
So if I can read in an entirely foreign language, why can't americans
read what pretty much amounts to another dialect?
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
From adress valid, but rarely checked. Use Reply-To to contact me
William Black
> >Prosecution *after* publication is a different thing from censorship
> >*before* publication. The police have the duty to prosecute obscene
> >publications when they encounter them being sold. But no-one has the
> >right to check over proposed publications in advance, which is what a
> >censor does.
>
> The effect is the same, if not worse. An author's book will be edited, or
> not bought, because of the fear of prosecution based on the editor's
> belief in what the law says, and unless the editor is well-educated in the
> details of that particular law and its cases, the editor is likely to err
> on the side of caution.
You're kidding right?
'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was just about the biggest selling Penguin ever.
The Linda Lovelace book appeared in every bookshop in the UK.
Getting brought to court in the UK under the Obscene Publications Act (for
anything except dirty pictures) will put you into the best sellers list so
fast it'll make your head spin.
Now, can we get back to that official UK censor, who doesn't exist, and
the changes he insisted on in the UK edition of Dune?
Nils Richter
> (Interesting point: In the X-Men, Scottish mutant Shadowcat calls (called?) her
> adopted mother "mummy". To the UK audience *not* having to figure that out
> "adds a dimension the original author did not intend for his original
> audience". So what should the reprint folk do?)
Just nitpicking: Isn't Shadowcat (Kitty Pride) a jewish girl from Chicago?
Nils.
--
Do witches run spell checkers?
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>Date: 27/09/03 15:06 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bl45lg$7baeh$1...@ID-148266.news.uni-berlin.de>
Yes she is. I meant Wolfsbane. Whoops.
Terry Pratchett
Henry Polard <h_po...@yahoo.com> writes
>How close is the American edition of The Monstrous Regiment likely to be
>editions of The Truth were detailed here, and similar differences might
>be present in editions of The Monstrous Regiment. I would like to know
>so that I can decide whether to buy the American edition or the far more
>expensive (for me) British edition.
>
To the best of my knowledge, there are no significant changes, although
sometimes it's hard even for editors to keep a manic copy editor in
check.
The general rule is to change only where lack of change might confuse,
and we apply that mostly in the children's books. Even then, the
fighting sometimes goes to the mat.
I would prefer US readers to buy US books (look, I'm hammering them on
the covers, okay? I rather liked the one for MR!) for the following
reason:
For the first dozen or more years of Discworld's existence, the books
in the US were published with such lack of thought, promotion and
interest that in any other industry than publishing you'd have thought
actual malignity was at work. The books were issued late and out of
sequence and with certain little clues that indicate lack of care
(unless spelling the author's name wrong on every other page is an old
US tradition.) Such popularity I had in the US was build around grey
imports from the UK or Canada; I'd have a big queue at US worldcons,
signing books imported from Britain. An interviewer recently asked me
how come I'd never been nominated for a Hugo or Nebula or WFS award and,
while it'd be to fun to say 'because I'm not good enough' or 'because
they all hate me and I'm going to go into the garden to eat worms', the
truth is that when your publisher appears to be working for the Dark
Side you're lucky even to get on the shelves.
Thing did improve gradually, but the big change came in 1999 when a
major take-over meant that I had an editor with clout, an enthusiastic
publicist and a publisher ready to support them and me.
Rocky Frisco and a few stalwarts will remember the godawful tour of
1996--exhuasting, erratic and, well, strange. This was for an author
who by then had, er...16 consecutive No.1s in the UK.
The tour in 2000...well, it's only a mild exaggeration to say that the
worst signing on that tour was better than the best one in 1996.
They are making an effort. The backlist has come back into print. The
sales have been going up vastly with every book, and the US books are
now published at the same time as the UK editions. Another big tour
starts on Tuesday. I'm still not where I'd like to be in the US, but
because of this team I'm sure as hell a lot further ahead than I was
four years ago. I'd like to encourage them:-)
--
Terry Pratchett
Stacie Hanes
"Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kzBMcgpskdd$EA...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> In message <h_polard-4ACDDA...@news04.west.earthlink.net>,
> Henry Polard <h_po...@yahoo.com> writes
> >How close is the American edition of The Monstrous Regiment likely to be
> >to the British edition? I ask this because significant differences in
> >editions of The Truth were detailed here, and similar differences might
> >be present in editions of The Monstrous Regiment. I would like to know
> >so that I can decide whether to buy the American edition or the far more
> >expensive (for me) British edition.
> >
> To the best of my knowledge, there are no significant changes, although
> sometimes it's hard even for editors to keep a manic copy editor in
> check.
<ohdearlordisnippedpratchett>
> They are making an effort. The backlist has come back into print. The
> sales have been going up vastly with every book, and the US books are
> now published at the same time as the UK editions. Another big tour
> starts on Tuesday. I'm still not where I'd like to be in the US, but
> because of this team I'm sure as hell a lot further ahead than I was
> four years ago. I'd like to encourage them:-)
>
>
> --
> Terry Pratchett
S'too late. I ordered the UK edition. But you've got a good point. Releasing
the US edition at the same time as the UK edition is *miles* in the right
direction, and I'd like the publishers to know it's appreciated. Tell you
what.... I'll get the US edition and give it to some poor Pratchett-deprived
friend or relative. Just one, though. I'm only just rid of the dozen copies
of T5E I bought in a completely reflexive act one night at Barnes & Noble.
Stacie
James Morrissey
nobody likes a kiss-ass. especially not people having their asses kissed.
and if they do like it, then they by default dont deserve it.
JQM
Stacie Hanes
"James Morrissey" <mellon_c...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bl7i6v$o6i$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
How, for t'love of god is, that "kiss-ass" in an environment where Mr.
Pratchett is referred to as The Man Himself, complete with caps? <sigh>
Maybe I should never try to be funny. I like the books, okay? Come off it.
SLH
The Gonzo Lager
Conversely, no one likes an asshole who has few manners and even fewer
brain cells.
Play nice, damnit.
The Gonz'
Stacie Hanes
"The Gonzo Lager" <gonzo...@insight.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:f0lenvo5bfjh2b86b...@4ax.com...
Hi, Gonz! Nice to see you again. The Disc group on Yahoo got so quiet I had
to come here...
Stacie
(Anne)
The Gonzo Lager
<house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi, Gonz! Nice to see you again. The Disc group on Yahoo got so quiet I had
>to come here...
Nice to be seen. ;)
Yah, I've noticed a lot of my Yahoo groups have been suffering from
low traffic-itis. Perhaps it's the cool weather.
The Gonz'
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:01:19 +0000 (UTC), "James Morrissey"
<mellon_c...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
And nobody likes a sad git with no sense of humour.
<shakes head in disbelief>
Cheers,
Graham.
James Morrissey
> >
> > nobody likes a kiss-ass. especially not people having their asses
kissed.
> > and if they do like it, then they by default dont deserve it.
> >
>
> Pratchett is referred to as The Man Himself, complete with caps? <sigh>
i havent heard him called that, but then i'm not a regular. they would get
muchly the same post though.
> Maybe I should never try to be funny. I like the books, okay? Come off it.
try to be funny, sure, but for everybody's dignity not in a giggly school
girl "oh my gosh he is like SO totally talking to me" way.
JQM
bewtifulfreak
> try to be funny, sure, but for everybody's dignity not in a giggly
> school girl "oh my gosh he is like SO totally talking to me" way.
Oh, *God*, not *another* one.... :\
<PLONK>
Ignore him, Stace....they make the rounds. You should try dealing with the
loser we have over on alt.music.genesis, a *right* self-righteous little
bugger! :p
Cheers,
Ann
(wondering why the hell James' dignity is so dependant on Stacie's behavior)
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Jean
> I would prefer US readers to buy US books (look, I'm hammering them on
> the covers, okay?...<snip>
I know you are probably rushing to get ready for the Merkan tour(1)
you mentioned, but I just have to ask: WHY can they not simply use the
Paul Kidby covers here in the States? I'm sure there must be a reason,
but it seems very odd to me. They are beautiful works of art and I
cannot imagine anyone capturing the mood/tone/humo(u)r/wossname of the
books any better, so why doesn't your American publisher simply cough
up the oof and make Mr. Kidby's day a little brighter, too?
Fly carefully,
Pighooey
1. I *DO* wish you'd included Boston on this tour. I would have bought
you any number of banananana daquiris....
Henry Polard
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <h_polard-4ACDDA...@news04.west.earthlink.net>,
> Henry Polard <h_po...@yahoo.com> writes
> >How close is the American edition of The Monstrous Regiment likely to be
> >to the British edition? I ask this because significant differences in
> >editions of The Truth were detailed here, and similar differences might
> >be present in editions of The Monstrous Regiment. I would like to know
> >so that I can decide whether to buy the American edition or the far more
> >expensive (for me) British edition.
> >
> To the best of my knowledge, there are no significant changes, although
> sometimes it's hard even for editors to keep a manic copy editor in
> check.
>
> The general rule is to change only where lack of change might confuse,
> and we apply that mostly in the children's books. Even then, the
> fighting sometimes goes to the mat.
>
> I would prefer US readers to buy US books (look, I'm hammering them on
> the covers, okay? I rather liked the one for MR!)
<snip>
OK - I've ordered TWO copies on the Yankski edition - ont through Amazon
and a cheaper one as a loaner through the Science Fiction Book Club.
In general, I don't like the Merkin covers, but if they help sell the
books, as you and the owner of the late lamented Future Fantasy
bookstore said, I'll live with them.
Henry Polard || Waiting with bated eyes ....
James Morrissey
> > school girl "oh my gosh he is like SO totally talking to me" way.
>
> Oh, *God*, not *another* one.... :\
>
> <PLONK>
>
> Ignore him, Stace....they make the rounds.
wow. those coherent and well-backed up arguments sure blew me away. i'll be
quiet now.
JQM
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:10:48 +0000 (UTC), "James Morrissey"
<mellon_c...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>i'll be quiet now.
Oh, please, let it be so...
Cheers,
Graham.
James Morrissey
>
> Oh, please, let it be so...
i don't know why you're all ganging up on me. is it wrong to despise
sycophancy? the man writes good books, he's not a god. we're all of us
equal.
JQM
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Yes. We're ganging up on you for your supercillious attitude in assuming, on
the basis of a couple of light-hearted comments, that we don't know this.
Alec Cawley
<mellon_c...@btopenworld.com> writes
The point is that It Was A Joke. You are taking seriously a flippant
comment. Stacie could have just put a <snip> to show she was snipping
content. She chose to put in a little self-mocking remark which
everybody else saw as one of those tiny flippancies which are too small
to mention but give a tiny sub-grin to those who read.
And then you come stomping in portentiously criticizing her for
something she wasn't doing. While we are at it, may I warn you that
there is actually no Ministry of Silly Walks, that the Infinite
Improbability Drive does not work, and that a world on the back of a
turtle is gravitationally unstable. I wouldn't want you the be shocked
when you find this out for yourself.
--
Alec Cawley
Stacie Hanes
<snipped nice comments>
>wow. those coherent and well-backed up arguments sure blew me away. i'll be
>quiet now.
JQM
You are right about one thing. You are not a regular. That, in itself, is
not an offense--I haven't been here for very long, myself. However, you have
misjudged the collective attitude of the group you are visiting.
You mentioned wanting coherent arguments. Here's one: it is ludicrous to
seize upon a one-off joke and reprimand a stranger for an offense against
not only *your* dignity, but everyone else's as well. What I write has
nothing to do with you, and cannot possibly make you look good, bad, or
otherwise. An argument so empty and frivolous is not improved by atrocious
spelling, nonexistent capitalization, and a notable absence of logic. Such
arguments do not deserve refutation.
You have, in effect, walked into a room full of people who regard Mr.
Pratchett with friendly respect and begun to harass someone for a quip,
failing to notice that the group does not seem to feel that its dignity has
been assaulted. In doing so, you have shown your judgment to be
questionable, your observation skills negligible, and your manners
execrable.
Also, I don't giggle.
Stacie Hanes
ps- Sorry, friends. This exchange hasn't enriched the group, and I'm sorry I
let myself be provoked.
James Morrissey
> >sycophancy? the man writes good books, he's not a god. we're all of us
> >equal.
>
> Yes. We're ganging up on you for your supercillious attitude in assuming,
on
> the basis of a couple of light-hearted comments, that we don't know this.
so you're saying you're all playing some game where you know the man isnt
superior to you but you all act like he is? no. all i have a problem with is
hero worship.
JQM
Daibhid Ceannaideach
What I'm saying is that we occasionally make light-hearted comments based on
the jocular assumption that others might *expect* us to treat him with greater
respect than we, in fact, do (as well as The Man Himself, another nickname we
often use for him is The Old Fart In A Hat). The clue in that being what I'm
saying lies in that, in fact, being very near my exact words. There may be a
better way of explaining it however, since you're the first person on the group
to whom it hasn't been blindingly obvious, I've never had occasion to work one
out.
Anyway, I'm away for a week. Hopefully, by the time I get back, Mr Morrissey
will have borrowed a sense of humour. (He must have some sort of access to one,
or why else would he be here?)
Clotilde
anyway because I'm now subsidizing the reading encouragement of a newly teened
girl. So, the UK version for me because I like the covers better. Then as
soon as I see it in stores, the US version to give to her.
-
-
… is akin to dropping rose petals into the Grand Canyon and waiting to hear the boom.
-Neil Gaiman
Clotilde
Clotilde
And the Unseen University is, well, most of the time, completely visible.
Evil Bastard
news:Xv1eb.35362$pP6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Starting arguments in newsgroups is like competing in the Special Olympics.
In the end you're still mentally handicapped.
Richard Eney
Stacie Hanes <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I ordered the UK edition. But you've got a good point. Releasing
>the US edition at the same time as the UK edition is *miles* in the right
>direction, and I'd like the publishers to know it's appreciated. Tell you
>what.... I'll get the US edition and give it to some poor Pratchett-deprived
>friend or relative. Just one, though. I'm only just rid of the dozen copies
>of T5E I bought in a completely reflexive act one night at Barnes & Noble.
You found homes for a dozen copies? Good work!
I buy the US edition for immediate gratification, and also to encourage
them. Then I wait for the next convention (usually) and race to the
dealer's room (to support them) to get the UK edition because I'm
compulsive and want to see the "original" form.
A year later I get the US paperback for lending to people, carrying
around for a while, etc.
If I find the hardcover at a remainder price (which hasn't happened for
a while), or get lucky at a book sale, I used to get them for gifts, but
right now I seem to have run out of prospective candidates - either it
didn't take or they buy their own now.
Then there's the guilt factor - if I buy the cheap one, then I've
prevented someone else from taking a chance on a new-to-them author
because it's cheap... but if it doesn't sell at the book sale, what will
happen to that copy? Not <shudder>... thrown away? Fear of guilt versus
desire to rescue... luckily I rarely find Pratchett books at book sales.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
>ps- Sorry, friends. This exchange hasn't enriched the group, and I'm sorry
>I let myself be provoked.
Still, I am pleased to have read such a beautifully articulate and
technically accurate flame.
ObOnTopic: My choice of which edition to get, expressed elsewhere, is
based on the fact that I can afford both and am also impatient. I used
to wait for the American paperback edition, now I mainline^Wpurchase the
British hardcover editions.
=Tamar
Stacie Hanes
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:blalck$nmf$1...@news1.radix.net...
> In article <qkqdb.19511$pP6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Stacie Hanes <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I ordered the UK edition. But you've got a good point. Releasing
> >the US edition at the same time as the UK edition is *miles* in the right
> >direction, and I'd like the publishers to know it's appreciated. Tell you
> >what.... I'll get the US edition and give it to some poor
Pratchett-deprived
> >friend or relative. Just one, though. I'm only just rid of the dozen
copies
> >of T5E I bought in a completely reflexive act one night at Barnes &
Noble.
>
> You found homes for a dozen copies? Good work!
>
>
> If I find the hardcover at a remainder price (which hasn't happened for
> a while), or get lucky at a book sale, I used to get them for gifts, but
> right now I seem to have run out of prospective candidates - either it
> didn't take or they buy their own now.
>
> desire to rescue... luckily I rarely find Pratchett books at book sales.
>
I have never, not once, seen a Pratchett novel in a secondhand book store.
The dozen copies were remaindered--I was in the bookstore, just looking
around, and suddenly saw this big stack of pink books which could *only* be
T5E. Immediately, I thought "Ooh, Mine! *All* Mine! Preciousssssss...."
With some difficulty, I picked up the lot and scuttled like a bibliophilic
crab toward the front of the store. I half expected to be mobbed by other
shoppers who'd contest my claim. I didn't have second thoughts until I was
at home; for quite a while, I was certain that *everyone* I knew needed a
copy of T5E. To date, that act remains a leading candidate for "most bizarre
thing I've ever done."
Now I have the same problem giving Discworld books as gifts...either it
didn't take, or they get their own. I know I did make at least one firm
convert in the English Dept. at my university.
On a more annoying note, TAMAHER was almost used in the English Festival (a
thing where high school students mob the uni and talk about books) but it
got voted down. The faculty member who suggested it was rather put out, and
so was I.
Stacie
C.Bauer
Stacie Hanes wrote:
>
> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:blalck$nmf$1...@news1.radix.net...
> > In article <qkqdb.19511$pP6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > Stacie Hanes <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I ordered the UK edition. But you've got a good point. Releasing
> > >the US edition at the same time as the UK edition is *miles* in the right
> > >direction, and I'd like the publishers to know it's appreciated. Tell you
> > >what.... I'll get the US edition and give it to some poor
> Pratchett-deprived
> > >friend or relative. Just one, though. I'm only just rid of the dozen
> copies
> > >of T5E I bought in a completely reflexive act one night at Barnes &
> Noble.
> >
> > You found homes for a dozen copies? Good work!
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > If I find the hardcover at a remainder price (which hasn't happened for
> > a while), or get lucky at a book sale, I used to get them for gifts, but
> > right now I seem to have run out of prospective candidates - either it
> > didn't take or they buy their own now.
> >
> <snip>
> > desire to rescue... luckily I rarely find Pratchett books at book sales.
> >
>
> I have never, not once, seen a Pratchett novel in a secondhand book store.
These days I buy them first hand in hard-cover as soon as they come out
(if I didn't, my husband would).
However for many years as a poor student I only bought them as second
hand paperbacks (or got them as presents). It often meant buying them
out of order and/or waiting quite a while (thank goodness for libraries)
but I got most of mine this way.
Christina
James Morrissey
> > kissed.
> > > > and if they do like it, then they by default dont deserve it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How, for t'love of god is, that "kiss-ass" in an environment where Mr.
> > > Pratchett is referred to as The Man Himself, complete with caps?
<sigh>
> >
> > i havent heard him called that, but then i'm not a regular. they would
get
> > muchly the same post though.
> >
> > > Maybe I should never try to be funny. I like the books, okay? Come off
> it.
> >
> > try to be funny, sure, but for everybody's dignity not in a giggly
school
> > girl "oh my gosh he is like SO totally talking to me" way.
> >
> > JQM
> >
>
> <snipped nice comments>
>
> >wow. those coherent and well-backed up arguments sure blew me away. i'll
be
> >quiet now.
>
> JQM
>
> You are right about one thing. You are not a regular. That, in itself, is
> not an offense--I haven't been here for very long, myself. However, you
have
> misjudged the collective attitude of the group you are visiting.
i said i wasn't a regular, because i dont post regularly. i have in fact
been reading the group for years.
> You mentioned wanting coherent arguments. Here's one: it is ludicrous to
> seize upon a one-off joke and reprimand a stranger for an offense against
> not only *your* dignity, but everyone else's as well. What I write has
> nothing to do with you, and cannot possibly make you look good, bad, or
> otherwise. An argument so empty and frivolous is not improved by atrocious
> spelling, nonexistent capitalization, and a notable absence of logic. Such
> arguments do not deserve refutation.
i don't believe i've made any spelling errors, actually, and my lack of
capitalization is confined only to usenet. it helps to draw a line
sometimes. nobody has argued with the logic of my argument yet, except to
say that they don't mean it, it was just a joke. people who tell racist
jokes probably mostly don't "mean" them either but this doesnt stop them
from causing offense. and since all i've gotten so far is personal abuse
when i've yet to resort to the petty calling of names myself (such as
supericilious, pretentious and troll) and nobody has provided a reasonable
retort how about we just leave it at that? i think you guys kiss too much
ass sometimes and you think i'm a jerk for pointing it out.
JQM
James Morrissey
> > seize upon a one-off joke and reprimand a stranger for an offense
against
> > not only *your* dignity, but everyone else's as well. What I write has
> > nothing to do with you, and cannot possibly make you look good, bad, or
> > otherwise. An argument so empty and frivolous is not improved by
atrocious
> > spelling, nonexistent capitalization, and a notable absence of logic.
Such
> > arguments do not deserve refutation.
>
> i don't believe i've made any spelling errors, actually, and my lack of
> capitalization is confined only to usenet. it helps to draw a line
> sometimes. nobody has argued with the logic of my argument yet, except to
> say that they don't mean it, it was just a joke. people who tell racist
> jokes probably mostly don't "mean" them either but this doesnt stop them
> from causing offense. and since all i've gotten so far is personal abuse
> when i've yet to resort to the petty calling of names myself (such as
> retort how about we just leave it at that? i think you guys kiss too much
> ass sometimes and you think i'm a jerk for pointing it out.
little post script; whenever pratchett posts here, some fool always gives
him a variation of "oh my god i can't believe pratchett is here, i can't
believe i'm talking to him you are like so great heeeeeeeeeeeee", so it is
not a one-off and nor is it, to my mind, a joke. and of course it is an
affrontery to the dignity of the group if whenever pratchett bothers to post
he gets people slavering over him.
JQM
Stacie Hanes
> > > You mentioned wanting coherent arguments. Here's one: it is ludicrous
to
> > > seize upon a one-off joke and reprimand a stranger for an offense
> against
> > > not only *your* dignity, but everyone else's as well. What I write has
> > > nothing to do with you, and cannot possibly make you look good, bad,
or
> > > otherwise. An argument so empty and frivolous is not improved by
> atrocious
> > > spelling, nonexistent capitalization, and a notable absence of logic.
> Such
> > > arguments do not deserve refutation.
> >
> > i don't believe i've made any spelling errors, actually, and my lack of
> > retort how about we just leave it at that? i think you guys kiss too
much
> > ass sometimes and you think i'm a jerk for pointing it out.
>
> little post script; whenever pratchett posts here, some fool always gives
> him a variation of "oh my god i can't believe pratchett is here, i can't
> believe i'm talking to him you are like so great heeeeeeeeeeeee", so it is
> not a one-off and nor is it, to my mind, a joke. and of course it is an
> affrontery to the dignity of the group if whenever pratchett bothers to
post
> he gets people slavering over him.
>
> JQM
>
For the last time, it was self-referential mockery. And (in a moment of
petty pedantry), failure to use an apostrophe in a contraction is a spelling
error. Beyond that, I'll say what I like. If it offends your dignity, it's
still okay with me. Keep pointing out that the sky is green, if it makes you
happy.
Stacie
Lesley Weston
Hanes at house_d...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/09/2003 6:30 PM:
>
> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:blalck$nmf$1...@news1.radix.net...
> <snip>
>> desire to rescue... luckily I rarely find Pratchett books at book sales.
>>
>
> I have never, not once, seen a Pratchett novel in a secondhand book store.
<snip>
I sometimes find paperbacks of the oeuvre being sold off cheap at the public
library. They're always in such a battered condition that the library feels
it can't go on putting them on its shelves, but I buy them anyway.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Chris McCubbin
news:kzBMcgpskdd$EA...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> I would prefer US readers to buy US books (look, I'm hammering them on
> the covers, okay? I rather liked the one for MR!) for the following
> reason:
I would love to respect your preferences, but I just can't bear to deprive
myself of the Kidby covers. It's not that I find the American covers
particularly gawdawful, it's just that I'm a huge fan of Kidby and consider
his illustrations a pretty-much essential addenda to any DW project that
they happen to be attached to.
If Kirby (mayherestinpeace) were still drawing, I could probably make the
switch. Kirby was a brilliant illustrator, of course, but his work just
never excited the level of fannish enthusiasm in my soul that Kidby does.
--
_____________________________________________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick
Chris W. McCubbin, Writer, Editor
Incan Monkey God Studios
http://www.incanmonkey.com
Chris McCubbin
marketing folks at the American publishers based on the (fairly insane, IMO)
idea that highly illustrative fantasy art would cause the book to be
perceived by buyers as kiddie fare.
I could be misremembering, of course.
--
_____________________________________________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick
Chris W. McCubbin, Writer, Editor
Incan Monkey God Studios
http://www.incanmonkey.com
"Jean" <pigh...@ici.net> wrote in message
news:45039ac.03092...@posting.google.com...
Chris McCubbin
news:3f754e4...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:48:00 +0200, "Keith Edgerley"
> <edger...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> >Don't you think having to "figure something out" adds another dimension
> >that the original author did not intend for his original target reader?
>
> I have to figure things out all the time when I read books in English.
> And there are lot's of cultural references that I don't understand -
> and depening on whether it's american or british I have to understand
> it differently. This is because I'm Swedish - and I want to read the
> words the author put there.
>
> So if I can read in an entirely foreign language, why can't americans
> read what pretty much amounts to another dialect?
This issue is rather notorious among Harry Potter fans, where the earlier
books in the series were rather heavily edited to make sure that Merkin
kiddies wouldn't be all befuddled by British vernacular.
Most (I'd say 75 to 80%) of these edits were just silly, along the lines of
Mom/Mum. A couple of them made sense, though. For example, in the first book
one of Harry's dorm mates puts up a poster of his favorite football team.
The American edition changed this to soccer. That was a good call, I think,
because the average American kid, unless he's very sophisticated and thinks
about the origin of the book very seriously, is going to read "football
poster" and think of a bunch of guys in helmets & pads. Soccer, on the other
hand, would actually call up the image that the author intended.
As Rowling's marketing clout has grown, her ability to squelch editorial
interferance has also grown. These days localization seems mostly confined
to basic spelling (colour -> color, etc.). In general, this is a good thing,
but it can also lead to problems the other way. For example, in the most
recent book Mrs. Weasley gives her brood & Harry hand-knitted "jumpers" for
Christmas, in accordance with her annual tradition. In earlier books Mrs.
Weasley had knitted "sweaters." I think "sweaters" was actually better for
the American edition, since this produces the correct image of a knitted
long-sleeved shirt for cold weather, whereas in America "jumper" refers
exclusively to a type of sleeveless dress, which might leave a fashionably
astute American kid with some serious questions about the Weasleys (7 of 9
of whom are male).
Of course, talking about the Potter books you have to take into account that
they are intended for children. Adults (presumably including the average
Pratchett reader) can be assumed to be a good bit more cross-culturally
sophisticated.
Still, if in the sequel to Wee Free Men, Pterry has occassion to have
Tiffany's father pull on his jumper before braving the storm to tend to his
flock, he might want to consider requesting a bit of specific localization
for the American reader.
Alec Cawley
<mellon_c...@btopenworld.com> writes
>i don't believe i've made any spelling errors, actually, and my lack of
>capitalization is confined only to usenet.
It has been proved over and over again that proper capitalisation
improves legibility. You type your post once, hundreds of people read
it. In my opinion, deliberate non-capitalisation is intentional
rudeness, implying that your time and/or style are more important than
many other people.
>it helps to draw a line
>sometimes. nobody has argued with the logic of my argument yet, except to
>say that they don't mean it, it was just a joke.
Nobody has argued with your logic because there is nothing to argue
about. You are stating that Stacie's alleged sycophancy is
objectionable. We are saying that that there is no sycophancy, so it is
meaningless to say whether or not it is objectionable.
I don't think any regular poster would have been taken seriously in that
context. But particularly not Stacie - if you had been following the
group recently you would have realised that she was a particularly
highly qualified Non-Taker of Things Seriously.
The remark was essentially ironic - and that does not mean related to
iron.
>people who tell racist
>jokes probably mostly don't "mean" them either but this doesnt stop them
>from causing offense.
In case you hadn't noticed, Stacie was making the joke against herself.
It is not normally regarded as racist for a black person to call
themselves a nigger, though it would be racist for a white person to do
so. In fact, your position is rather similar to a white person who,
hearing a couple of black people call each other nigger, feels free to
do so himself.No offence intended, but much given.
>and since all i've gotten so far is personal abuse
>when i've yet to resort to the petty calling of names myself (such as
>supericilious, pretentious and troll) and nobody has provided a reasonable
>retort how about we just leave it at that? i think you guys kiss too much
>ass sometimes and you think i'm a jerk for pointing it out.
Whereas we cannot see the kissing at all - could you provide some
examples?
--
Alec Cawley
bewtifulfreak
> "Graycat" <gra...@passagen.se> wrote in message
> news:3f754e4...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> So if I can read in an entirely foreign language, why can't americans
>> read what pretty much amounts to another dialect?
Amen. :)
> Most (I'd say 75 to 80%) of these edits were just silly, along the
> lines of Mom/Mum.
These are the ones that irritate me, along with the Philosopher's Stone
becoming the Sorcerer's Stone; I don't think UK children would be
particularly more familiar with the concept, but as it was explained in the
story, why change it? That really bugged me.
A couple of them made sense, though. For example,
> in the first book one of Harry's dorm mates puts up a poster of his
> favorite football team. The American edition changed this to soccer.
> That was a good call, I think, because the average American kid,
> unless he's very sophisticated and thinks about the origin of the
> book very seriously, is going to read "football poster" and think of
> a bunch of guys in helmets & pads. Soccer, on the other hand, would
> actually call up the image that the author intended.
Fair enough, though I would almost have my children (if I had any) reading
the book 100% as originally written, with a little glossery in the back
explaining the localized terms like that. It would be an opportunity for
them to learn more about cultural differences such as these.
> As Rowling's marketing clout has grown, her ability to squelch
> editorial interferance has also grown. These days localization seems
> mostly confined to basic spelling (colour -> color, etc.).
Why, why, *why*???? What is the big deal, even for children, with an extra
'u'?? Again, if you're terribly worried about confusing them during their
spelling lessons, just have introductory notes or something. But it's not
even that, because they do that in adult books, too - *stupid*!!!
I think "sweaters" was actually better for the American
> edition, since this produces the correct image of a knitted
> long-sleeved shirt for cold weather, whereas in America "jumper"
> refers exclusively to a type of sleeveless dress, which might leave a
> fashionably astute American kid with some serious questions about the
> Weasleys (7 of 9 of whom are male).
Again, a little English to American glossary at the beginning would have
sufficed here. The Potter books are so quintessentially English, it seems a
shame to deprive children of the magical experience of another culture which
could only enrich that feeling of things taking place in a whole other
world.
> Of course, talking about the Potter books you have to take into
> account that they are intended for children. Adults (presumably
> including the average Pratchett reader) can be assumed to be a good
> bit more cross-culturally sophisticated.
And yet it seems their books are no less stupidly edited.
> Still, if in the sequel to Wee Free Men, Pterry has occassion to have
> Tiffany's father pull on his jumper before braving the storm to tend
> to his flock, he might want to consider requesting a bit of specific
> localization for the American reader.
Again, in a children's book, I think a glossary would be better, actually
providing a bit of education with their enjoyment, but that's just me and my
silly ideas.
Ann
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Stacie Hanes
>>>>> nobody likes a kiss-ass. especially not people having their asses
>>>>> kissed. and if they do like it, then they by default dont deserve
>>>>> it.
<snip>
> i don't believe i've made any spelling errors, actually,
<snip>
[clipped from another post]
> of course it is an affrontery to the dignity of the group if whenever
pratchett bothers to post he gets people slavering over him.
In that case, please tell me what an "affrontery" is. My dictionary seems to
be defective. I've got entries for "effrontery" and "affront," but not
"affrontery."
> and my lack of capitalization is confined only to usenet. it helps to draw
a line
> sometimes. nobody has argued with the logic of my argument yet,
<snip>
[clipped from another post]
>so you're saying you're all playing some game where you know the man isnt
>superior to you but you all act like he is? no. all i have a problem with
is
>hero worship.
So you're claiming you understand how to write real sentences, with *actual
capitalization AND punctuation* but you're acting as though you don't, for
effect? Yet you can't understand how we could possibly exaggerate our real
respect for Mr. Pratchett?
<snip>
> far is personal abuse when i've yet to resort to the petty calling of
> names myself (such as supericilious, pretentious and troll) and>
Well, see, those are actually adjectives. And, now that you mention it, you
did lead off by calling me a "kiss-ass."
On a final note, I don't take to hero worship, either--but if I decided to
build an eight-sided shrine and sacrifice eight live sheep to Pratchett on
the 8th day of every month, it wouldn't be your business. The SPCA, maybe,
and probably the police, but not you.
Stacie
James Morrissey
> build an eight-sided shrine and sacrifice eight live sheep to Pratchett on
> the 8th day of every month, it wouldn't be your business. The SPCA, maybe,
> and probably the police, but not you.
i've already said i'm sick of this now. i made my point, you've all come
down on me like a ton of bricks, and neither of us are convinced. if you
don't think you suck up too much i'm certainly not going to spend my time
persuading you that you do. so if anyone has anything else intelligent or,
at least, fair to say then please do because otherwise i'm no longer
responding.
JQM
bewtifulfreak
<rest of very eloquent post snipped>
> On a final note, I don't take to hero worship, either--but if I
> decided to build an eight-sided shrine and sacrifice eight live sheep
> to Pratchett on the 8th day of every month, it wouldn't be your
> business. The SPCA, maybe, and probably the police, but not you.
Extremely well-stated! Stacie, you're my *hero*.... ;)
Ann
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Brian Wakeling
James Morrissey <mellon_c...@btopenworld.com> typed:
>> i don't believe i've made any spelling errors, actually, and
>> my lack of capitalization is confined only to usenet. it helps
>> to draw a line sometimes. nobody has argued with the logic of
>> my argument yet, except to say that they don't mean it, it was
>> just a joke. people who tell racist jokes probably mostly
>> don't "mean" them either but this doesnt stop them from
>> causing offense. and since all i've gotten so far is personal
>> abuse when i've yet to resort to the petty calling of names
>> myself (such as supercilious, pretentious and troll) and
>> nobody has provided a reasonable retort how about we just
>> leave it at that? i think you guys kiss too much ass sometimes
>> and you think i'm a jerk for pointing it out.
>
> little post script; whenever pratchett posts here, some fool
> always gives him a variation of "oh my god i can't believe
> pratchett is here, i can't believe i'm talking to him you are
> like so great heeeeeeeeeeeee", so it is not a one-off and nor
> is it, to my mind, a joke. and of course it is an affrontery to
> the dignity of the group if whenever pratchett bothers to post
> he gets people slavering over him.
As you should know, if you have indeed been lurking here for
years, statements like that are often greeted with the words:
"Cite, please."
Give me one example of a followup to Pterry that includes
anything along the lines of
> "oh my god i can't believe
> pratchett is here, i can't believe i'm talking to him you are
> like so great heeeeeeeeeeeee",
If you complete this task successfully, you may just avoid my
killfile.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
Nearly complete website:
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name."
Jean
> "Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kzBMcgpskdd$EA...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>
> > I would prefer US readers to buy US books (look, I'm hammering them on
> > the covers, okay? I rather liked the one for MR!) for the following
> > reason:
>
> I would love to respect your preferences, but I just can't bear to deprive
> myself of the Kidby covers. It's not that I find the American covers
> particularly gawdawful, it's just that I'm a huge fan of Kidby and consider
> his illustrations a pretty-much essential addenda to any DW project that
> they happen to be attached to.
Hear, hear! I, too, could not bring myself to live without the Kidby
covers, but, like a previous poster to this thread, I promise to buy
the Merkin editions as gifts. The MR cover was certainly a huge
improvement over past efforts, but it still wasn't a Kidby.
Yours ever,
Pighooey
Richard Eney
bewtifulfreak <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Chris McCubbin wrote:
<snip>
re: Rowling's books:
> I think "sweaters" was actually better for the American
>> edition, since this produces the correct image of a knitted
>> long-sleeved shirt for cold weather, whereas in America "jumper"
>> refers exclusively to a type of sleeveless dress, which might leave a
>> fashionably astute American kid with some serious questions about the
>> Weasleys (7 of 9 of whom are male).
6 of 7, not 7 of 9.
But in the first book, in the UK edition, she used _both terms_, which
should have served to introduce the alternative term.
The decision on all of those edits was made by the particular editor at
Scholastic Books. The American kids didn't get the chance to become
confused or educated, because he made a decision based on his perception
of the adults who buy books from his company to give to children.
>> Still, if in the sequel to Wee Free Men, Pterry has occassion to have
>> Tiffany's father pull on his jumper before braving the storm to tend
>> to his flock, he might want to consider requesting a bit of specific
>> localization for the American reader.
>
>Again, in a children's book, I think a glossary would be better, actually
>providing a bit of education with their enjoyment, but that's just me and
>my silly ideas.
Pterry's children's books have been edited for the US before; in the
UK edition of OYCSM Johnny wears trainers, in the US edition he wears
sneakers. Why fret about it? Considering the speed at which slang
changes, it'll be a different term in ten years anyway.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Stacie Hanes <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote
>> desire to rescue... luckily I rarely find Pratchett books at book sales.
>
>I have never, not once, seen a Pratchett novel in a secondhand book store.
Here in the US, when I see one, it's usually TCoM, book club edition.
Occasionally there's a different one. GO shows up fairly often, in its
various forms. But when I went to the World SF Convention when it was
held in Glasgow (about ten years ago), I filled in the gaps in my
hardcover Pterry collection by going to every used book store in Glasgow
and several in Edinburgh.
=Tamar
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
> Pterry's children's books have been edited for the US before; in the
> UK edition of OYCSM Johnny wears trainers, in the US edition he wears
> sneakers. Why fret about it? Considering the speed at which slang
> changes, it'll be a different term in ten years anyway.
>
> =Tamar
I don't even understand bothering to change it, mostly. In the US, athletic
shoes are called tennis shoes (even if the wearer has never been on a court)
sneakers and other names. Cross-trainers are a type of athletic shoe
designed for multiple sports, so "trainers" for athletic shoes just doesn't
seem to be a big leap, especially if it's in context.
There was the time, however, that I thought UK residents used toast racks to
hold the toast until it was cold because they preferred cold toast. I didn't
know *why* they preferred cold toast, so eventually I asked and was set
straight.
Stacie
bewtifulfreak
> Pterry's children's books have been edited for the US before; in the
> UK edition of OYCSM Johnny wears trainers, in the US edition he wears
> sneakers. Why fret about it? Considering the speed at which slang
> changes, it'll be a different term in ten years anyway.
So why bother changing it then? I suppose it really isn't that big a deal,
I guess I'm just a purist....
Ann
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Mike Stevens
No man is an island. So is Man.
"James Morrissey" <mellon_c...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bla53t$en5$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > >i'll be quiet now.
> >
> > Oh, please, let it be so...
>
> i don't know why you're all ganging up on me. is it wrong to despise
> sycophancy? the man writes good books, he's not a god. we're all of us
> equal.
But some are more equal than others?
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
>
bigegg
> In article <blcgkm$ane18$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> bewtifulfreak <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Chris McCubbin wrote:
> <snip>
> re: Rowling's books:
>> I think "sweaters" was actually better for the American
>>> edition, since this produces the correct image of a knitted
>>> long-sleeved shirt for cold weather, whereas in America "jumper"
>>> refers exclusively to a type of sleeveless dress, which might leave
>>> a fashionably astute American kid with some serious questions about
>>> the Weasleys (7 of 9 of whom are male).
>
> 6 of 7, not 7 of 9.
I make it 6 of 8
Ginny and Mrs Weasley
Ron, Fred, George, Percy, Charlie, Mr Weasley
Is there another brother?
--
Big Egg
Hack to size. Hammer to fit. Weld to join. Grind to shape. Paint to
cover. My name is not "news". If you reply to that address, I won't get
it
My ebay shop: http://www.stores.ebay.co.uk/honyaservices
Richard Eney
Stacie Hanes <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I don't even understand bothering to change it, mostly. In the US, athletic
>shoes are called tennis shoes (even if the wearer has never been on a court)
>sneakers and other names. Cross-trainers are a type of athletic shoe
>designed for multiple sports, so "trainers" for athletic shoes just doesn't
>seem to be a big leap, especially if it's in context.
It isn't, _if_ you're used to the term "cross-trainers". But I never
heard that term until sometime in the 1980s, and "sneakers" has been
standard since the 1950s and possibly earlier, though not much before then
I think they were gumshoes. "Tennis shoes" came into my awareness in the
late seventies as something preppies said, and the only thing preppier
than "tennies" is "boat shoes". So I think most of the translations were,
just as in the HP situation, not really for the children but in fact for
the middle-aged adults running the publishing business and, not least,
the ones who are actually buying the books ("for the children").
>There was the time, however, that I thought UK residents used toast racks
>to hold the toast until it was cold because they preferred cold toast. I
>didn't know *why* they preferred cold toast, so eventually I asked and
>was set straight.
In the small B&B I stayed in near Edinburgh back in 1979, the toast rack
was there so they could pretend that the toast that wasn't eaten had not
been touched by anyone since it was put into the rack, and they reheated
any leftovers and served it to anyone who had asked for more toast.
Is there another reason?
=Tamar
Richard Eney
bigegg <ne...@hardboiled.plus.com> wrote:
>Richard Eney wrote:
>> bewtifulfreak <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Chris McCubbin wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> 6 of 7, not 7 of 9.
>
>I make it 6 of 8
>
>Ginny and Mrs Weasley
>Ron, Fred, George, Percy, Charlie, Mr Weasley
>Is there another brother?
Bill.
And you're right otherwise, including the parents makes it 7 males out
of 9 Weasleys that we've met. (Not counting the mysterious cousin.)
=Tamar
Peter Ellis
>
>In the small B&B I stayed in near Edinburgh back in 1979, the toast rack
>was there so they could pretend that the toast that wasn't eaten had not
>been touched by anyone since it was put into the rack, and they reheated
>any leftovers and served it to anyone who had asked for more toast.
>
>Is there another reason?
Yes.
Peter
Stevie D
> There was the time, however, that I thought UK residents used toast
> racks to hold the toast until it was cold because they preferred cold
> toast. I didn't know *why* they preferred cold toast, so eventually I
> asked and was set straight.
Care to tell us? I've lived in Yuckia all my life, and I hate toast
racks. Butter doesn't melt into cold toast.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Stacie Hanes
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>
>> There was the time, however, that I thought UK residents used toast
>> racks to hold the toast until it was cold because they preferred cold
>> toast. I didn't know *why* they preferred cold toast, so eventually I
>> asked and was set straight.
>
> Care to tell us? I've lived in Yuckia all my life, and I hate toast
> racks. Butter doesn't melt into cold toast.
Sorry, I was unclear. I was set straight by being told that no, English
people do *not* prefer cold toast. It just happens that the taost cools as a
side-effect of being put in a toast rack, which is actually being used for
some other reason. Tidiness, I expect.
Stacie
Peter Ellis
>
>Sorry, I was unclear. I was set straight by being told that no, English
>people do *not* prefer cold toast. It just happens that the taost cools as a
>side-effect of being put in a toast rack, which is actually being used for
>some other reason. Tidiness, I expect.
A toast-rack is used so that the moisture gets a chance to evaporate from
your hot toast, leaving it crisp instead of flabby. To see what I mean,
lay a fresh slice of toast flat on a plate, leave it for half a minute or
so, then pick it up again. It's a surprising amount of water. If you eat
your toast the *second* it comes out the toaster, it won't make any
difference, but if you end up waiting for any time at all, a toast rack
will ensure your toast crunches rather than bends.
Peter
Craig A. Finseth
Stacie Hanes <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> Pterry's children's books have been edited for the US before; in the
>> UK edition of OYCSM Johnny wears trainers, in the US edition he wears
>> sneakers. Why fret about it? Considering the speed at which slang
>I don't even understand bothering to change it, mostly. In the US, athletic
>shoes are called tennis shoes (even if the wearer has never been on a court)
>sneakers and other names. Cross-trainers are a type of athletic shoe
>designed for multiple sports, so "trainers" for athletic shoes just doesn't
Except that "trainers" for "a type of athletic shoe" is recent in the
US (at least, in my experience). And, of course, the close-minded
person at the publisher grew up 30 years ago (+/-15), so the term
would be new to them.
All of which goes to emphasize the point: someone is editing the book
thinking "this term wouldn't be understood here" when, in fact, the
target audience would understand the term quite well.
If you really want an obscure term for a type of athletic shoe, try
"plimsoll." I had to look that one up.
Craig
Guitar Huw
ne...@finseth.com says...
>
> If you really want an obscure term for a type of athletic shoe, try
> "plimsoll." I had to look that one up.
>
That's even more obscure.
--
Huw
no .sig today
bewtifulfreak
Indeed it is, but may I just make the point that context does well to carry
a lot of otherwise unknown words across; not that there aren't times where a
bit of editing is appropriate, I suppose, but it's done far too heavily, in
my opinion.
Ann
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Alec Cawley
Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
Particularly if you have several slices of toast. If you stack the
number of slices held on a normal toast rack (6 or 8), the middle slices
could be quite soggy.
I think toast racks (a) precede electric toasters, and (b) are mostly
associated with upper-middle class homes and B&Bs where the kitchen was
separate from the breakfast room, Therefore toast was prepared in the
kitchen and, in the absence of a toast rack, stacked on a plate for
transport, ending up soggy. Even if you didn't have a separate kitchen,
having a toast rack was an upper-middle class thing to do and hence a
nice aspirational (but not too expensive) thing to give as a wedding
present.
--
Alec Cawley
Steve James
Here we go. Labelling people and their preferences. I am English and I like
cold crisp toast. I don't like butter or margarine. I make sandwiches without
the assistance of this greasy stuff.
If I have hot toast it will be doorstep thick with melted cheese and
Worcestershire sauce.
I have no opinion what so ever about toast racks. Why the toast is being tortured
and why on a rack? Being draw and then quartered is probably their final fate.
Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
Stacie Hanes
Oh, I'm sorry! Did I say "toast," as in "bread which has been heated until
crunchy?" I meant "taoist." See up there, fourth quoted paragraph from the
bottom? I almost got it right, but I just *always* misspell that word, gosh
darn it. Toast, taost, taoist. I never understood why there were special
racks for them. Why couldn't you just use the same ones for everybody?
Stacie
Mike Stevens
Not to some of us. They were the two names I knew them as when I was at
school, back in Julius Caesar's time.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk