Suggestions for UK handbooks for writers?
Julia Jones
a view to seeing who's publishing what - or in other words, whose
slushpile next gets The Trashy Porn Novel That Grew, and where to send
the current WIP when it's done. Since I'm trying to make a serious
effort at the UK markets, any suggestions on which UK-orientated market
guides might be worth purchasing while I'm here? The two obvious ones
which turn up on Amazon are The Writer's Handbook 2006 by Barry Turner
and the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook 2006. Preferences? Other
suggestions? "Don't touch with a bargepole"?
--
Julia Jones
"We are English of Borg. Your language will be assimilated."
Helen Hall
<julia...@gmail.com> writes
>Since I'm trying to make a serious
>effort at the UK markets, any suggestions on which UK-orientated market
>guides might be worth purchasing while I'm here? The two obvious ones
>which turn up on Amazon are The Writer's Handbook 2006 by Barry Turner
>and the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook 2006. Preferences? Other
>suggestions? "Don't touch with a bargepole"?
Both of those are good. I've always used the Writers' and Artists'
Yearbook in the past, but I believe the Writer's Handbook is supposed to
be better in some respects. But I can't remember what the strengths and
weaknesses of each were.
Sorry not to be more helpful. Both should be available in the reference
section of local libraries if you don't want to buy copies and lug them
around.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Nicola Browne
message news:L9x+KjAs...@baradel.demon.co.uk
> In article <JDivsJHQ...@ntlworld.com>, Julia Jones
> <julia...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >> Sorry not to be more helpful. Both should be available in the reference
> section of local libraries if you don't want to buy copies and lug them
> around.
>
I have only used the yearbook - which gives sensible advice and
regularly
updated addresses and contact details for publishers, agents and
magazines etc.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Julia Jones
Nicola Browne <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> writes
>"Helen Hall" <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote in
>message news:L9x+KjAs...@baradel.demon.co.uk
>
>> In article <JDivsJHQ...@ntlworld.com>, Julia Jones
>> <julia...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >> Sorry not to be more helpful. Both should be available in the reference
>> section of local libraries if you don't want to buy copies and lug them
>> around.
>>
>I have only used the yearbook - which gives sensible advice and
>regularly
>updated addresses and contact details for publishers, agents and
>magazines etc.
Thanks, both of you. My recollection was that both books had been
recommended in the past, with slight reservations as to which was
better, but with it being an annually updated thing it's useful to hear
from people who might have used them recently.
I did get to the local library yesterday afternoon, and found them in
the reference section. After browsing I'm very inclined to get at least
one of them, possibly both. Pity I didn't actually note whether it was
only one or both which had the listing of US agents, but we'll probably
go into town again tomorrow and I'll check then.
I think at this point my best option is to order them through amazon and
have them delivered to the person I'm staying with as my last stop
before going back to the UK. It's probably my best bet for being sure of
getting them before I leave without actually having to haul them around
the UK with me. I just hope amazon's supersaver option is reasonably
quick. :-)
R. L.
<mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
>In article <JDivsJHQ...@ntlworld.com>, Julia Jones
><julia...@gmail.com> writes
>
>>Since I'm trying to make a serious
>>effort at the UK markets, any suggestions on which UK-orientated market
>>guides might be worth purchasing while I'm here? The two obvious ones
>>which turn up on Amazon are The Writer's Handbook 2006 by Barry Turner
>>and the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook 2006. Preferences? Other
>>suggestions? "Don't touch with a bargepole"?
>
>Both of those are good. I've always used the Writers' and Artists'
>Yearbook in the past, but I believe the Writer's Handbook is supposed to
>be better in some respects.
Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
UK first without having the UK idioms perfect? Some of us find it hard to
write a magic world in the US universe, so to speak.....
R.L.
wondering if Blaylock and Chute* were exceptions -- but Jonathan the
Cheeser _sounded_ Brit or European, as did everyone in GREENWILLOW
*and of course 'Polly Callan' iirc
David Friedman
R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
> Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
> UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way around. I'm
not sure I see why it would be a different problem for U.S. writers.
--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
R. L.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <q1for11k0frn78jh2...@4ax.com>,
> R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
>> UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
>
>Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way around. I'm
>not sure I see why it would be a different problem for U.S. writers.
Many books successful in one country then come over to the other, both
ways. But marketing in the other country first?
--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert one 'the')
David Friedman
R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:26:33 -0600, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <q1for11k0frn78jh2...@4ax.com>,
> > R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
> >
> >> Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
> >> UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
> >
> >Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way around. I'm
> >not sure I see why it would be a different problem for U.S. writers.
>
> Many books successful in one country then come over to the other, both
> ways. But marketing in the other country first?
I missed that point.
But I still don't see that it depends on getting the idioms perfect.
There are American readers who like British writing qua se, and I gather
there are, or used to be, British readers who are admirers of American
writing (I'm thinking of an example Orwell complained about). So an
American writer could write something in American idioms--better yet, in
what British readers thought American idioms were, which might not be
the same--and target it at British readers.
Catja Pafort
> Pity I didn't actually note whether it was
> only one or both which had the listing of US agents, but we'll probably
> go into town again tomorrow and I'll check then.
The W&A yearbook has US publishers and agents, don't know about the
other one.
Catja
Jacey Bedford
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>In article <q1for11k0frn78jh2...@4ax.com>,
> R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
>> UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
>
>Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way around. I'm
>not sure I see why it would be a different problem for U.S. writers.
As a British writer my first three sales were to US anthologies. I was a
bit worried about the spelling differences, but in the end I delivered
the typescripts in British English and that's the way (mostly) they
appeared.
I've bought paperbacks in the USA and not been worried by the spelling.
(In fact, hardly noticed it.)
I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an authentic
British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't commit a Disney
and insert racoons into a British rural landscape (101 Dalmations, the
live action one with Glen Close)
Cheers
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
Dorothy J Heydt
Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dan Goodman
> In message <ddfr-182F85.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> >R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to
> > > market in the UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
> >
> > Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way
> > around. I'm not sure I see why it would be a different problem for
> > U.S. writers.
>
> As a British writer my first three sales were to US anthologies. I
> was a bit worried about the spelling differences, but in the end I
> delivered the typescripts in British English and that's the way
> (mostly) they appeared.
Heck, US publishers apparently had no problems with John Brunner's
"American" dialog -- which was noticeably below the Dr. Who standard of
accuracy.
> I've bought paperbacks in the USA and not been worried by the
> spelling. (In fact, hardly noticed it.)
>
> I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an
> authentic British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't
> commit a Disney and insert racoons into a British rural landscape
> (101 Dalmations, the live action one with Glen Close)
I wonder how well raccoons would do if they were introduced in Britain?
Mental picture: Someone who's just out of coldsleep watches a TV show
set in Britain, sees a raccoon, comments on the inaccuracy.
He's then told that Britain is now overrun with raccoons.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community
http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/
Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com
Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Dan Goodman
> Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In message <ddfr-182F85.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> > David
> >Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> >> R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
> > >
> >>> Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to
> market in the >>> UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
> > >
> > > Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way
> > > around. I'm not sure I see why it would be a different problem
> > > for U.S. writers.
> >
> > As a British writer my first three sales were to US anthologies. I
> > was a bit worried about the spelling differences, but in the end I
> > delivered the typescripts in British English and that's the way
> > (mostly) they appeared.
> >
> > I've bought paperbacks in the USA and not been worried by the
> > spelling. (In fact, hardly noticed it.)
> >
> > I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an
> > authentic British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't
> > commit a Disney and insert racoons into a British rural landscape
> > (101 Dalmations, the live action one with Glen Close)
>
> Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
I understand there are now American beavers in Europe; don't know if
they're in the British Isles.
Neil Barnes
> I understand there are now American beavers in Europe; don't know if
> they're in the British Isles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4380276.stm
Though they seem to be Bavarian...
Neil :)
Helen Hall
<nailed_...@hotmail.com> writes
Yes, I thought our beavers were the European variety. But we do have
well established colonies of non-native creatures, e.g. the wallabies of
the Peak District (mentioned on here before) and there's a cockatoo
flock down in the SE (at Elstree? Somewhere were there used to be a
British film studio, anyway). Also the wild boar numbers just shot up,
as of yesterday, when the owner only managed to retrieve around 40 of
the 100 or so that were released from his farm.
But no racoons, as far as I know...
Helen Hall
s...@no-spams.coms> writes
>
>Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
>UK first without having the UK idioms perfect? Some of us find it hard to
>write a magic world in the US universe, so to speak.....
>
company liked it and thought it would sell, any Americanisms that they
felt would read awkwardly to a British ear would be removed at the
editing stage.
And wouldn't it also depend on where the story was set? Trying to write
something that is rooted very deeply in British history and folklore,
and getting the language wrong would be asking for rejection, but if the
story is entirely set in an imaginary world, then I don't see it would
be a problem. With regard to SF, it would be even less of a problem
because we sort of assume that the US will have a strong influence on
the future as it does on the present, so a slight American flavour to
the language might even give it an air of verisimilitude, rather than
being a negative point.
But that's only my guess, remember. Who knows what a real publishing
company would do in a real case?
Nicola Browne
>> Yes, I thought our beavers were the European variety. But we do have
> well established colonies of non-native creatures, e.g. the wallabies of
> the Peak District (mentioned on here before) and there's a cockatoo
> flock down in the SE (at Elstree? Somewhere were there used to be a
> British film studio, anyway). Also the wild boar numbers just shot up,
> as of yesterday, when the owner only managed to retrieve around 40 of
> the 100 or so that were released from his farm.
>
> But no racoons, as far as I know...
>
Well, in additon to the bloody grey squirrels there is a huge flock of
green parakeets living in Richmond Park. Some woman lost a pair from
an aviary in Ham and they are taking over the world.
Nicola Browne
> > But that's only my guess, remember. Who knows what a real publishing
> company would do in a real case?
>
By and large we are exposed to so much US stuff most readers wouldn't
notice ( though I would advise against 'gotten') As Helen says small
things can be ironed out in edit. I don' think being USian is a
disadvantage
and might even be an advantage - anything different makes you easier
to market.
I don't really know enough about the market to
generalise but maybe UK publishers are more inclined to like
the off beat?
Mary and China Mielville to think of two obvious candidtates
with a strong and unsentimental view of the world and UK publishers
will also publish some fantasy as mainstream -Jonathan Strange and
Mr Norrel for example, theough the same may be true in the US too
for all I know.
I can't imagine why you would want to go for the UK first though, it is
a very small market and I think they have chopped lists for SF and
Fantasy so it isn't easier to get published here. I would have thought
it
made more sense for UK writers to try to publish first in the US.
Nicky ( Rather jet lagged and incoherent)
David Friedman
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > I've bought paperbacks in the USA and not been worried by the
> > spelling. (In fact, hardly noticed it.)
> >
> > I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an
> > authentic British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't
> > commit a Disney and insert racoons into a British rural landscape
> > (101 Dalmations, the live action one with Glen Close)
>
> I wonder how well raccoons would do if they were introduced in Britain?
>
What I wondered was how large a fraction of British viewers noticed the
mistake--or knew whether or not there were raccoons somewhere in Britain.
Julia Jones
Nicola Browne <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> writes
>I can't imagine why you would want to go for the UK first though, it is
>a very small market and I think they have chopped lists for SF and
>Fantasy so it isn't easier to get published here. I would have thought
>it
>made more sense for UK writers to try to publish first in the US.
In my case, because I can. I do enough wandering around, and it's
sufficiently likely that I'll move back to the UK, that I'm not going to
restrict myself to querying US agents and publishers just because that's
where I'm currently living. :-)
I'm busy putting together a submission package for a UK agency right
now, in fact. I'm in the UK for the next couple of weeks, so I might as
well take advantage of the domestic postal rates.
Julian Flood
"Nicola Browne" wrote
> there is a huge flock of
> green parakeets living in Richmond Park.
Ringed (or rose-ringed) parakeet. They're in my latest birdie book.
They roost at Esher rugby club.
JF
Watch out for the eagle owls, now nesting in Yorkshire. The ernes in
Scotland. Little egrets spreading through East Anglia. And a chap who
lives next to the nursery swears he has seen the puma in his field. I
now work only during daylight hours.
JF
500 today since you ask.
Brian M. Scott
<nailed_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:pan.2006.01.05...@hotmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4380276.stm
Ve are *Beaverian*, sank you fery much!
Beaverian Embassy
Lower Mill Estate
Julian Flood
"Julia Jones" wrote
> I'm busy putting together a submission package for a UK agency right
> now, in fact. I'm in the UK for the next couple of weeks, so I might
as
> well take advantage of the domestic postal rates.
First Thursday -- Railway Tavern, Mellis. I'll be the drunk in the
corner who is moaning about the First Minister.
JF
Nicky
Julia Jones wrote:
> In message <ab8c21e48d4149cdb1...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
>> I'm busy putting together a submission package for a UK agency right
> now, in fact. I'm in the UK for the next couple of weeks, so I might as
> well take advantage of the domestic postal rates.
Well, good luck with it!
Nicky
R. L.
I just got a flash of story about a rich filmmaker deciding that rather
than re-do the movie, he'd establish a raccoon population in Britain. Via
time-travel I suppose.
From the POV of the raccoons, of course.
--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert one 'the')lf
Wilson Heydt
Grey squirrel are, apparently, all too common in Britain now. They
having characteristics assigned stereotypically to Americans.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Dorothy J Heydt
>In article <IsLvF...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <0hn$4hoBKL...@artifact.demon.co.uk>,
>>Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>I've bought paperbacks in the USA and not been worried by the spelling.
>>>(In fact, hardly noticed it.)
>>>
>>>I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an authentic
>>>British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't commit a Disney
>>
>>Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
>
>Grey squirrel are, apparently, all too common in Britain now. They
>having characteristics assigned stereotypically to Americans.
You mean ....
"overpaid, oversexed, and over here" ????
Wilson Heydt
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <Isn5K...@kithrup.com>, Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <IsLvF...@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>In article <0hn$4hoBKL...@artifact.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I've bought paperbacks in the USA and not been worried by the spelling.
>>>>(In fact, hardly noticed it.)
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an authentic
>>>>British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't commit a Disney
>>>>and insert raccoons into a British rural landscape (101 Dalmations, the
>>>>live action one with Glen Close)
>>>
>>>Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
>>
>>Grey squirrel are, apparently, all too common in Britain now. They
>>having characteristics assigned stereotypically to Americans.
>
>You mean ....
>
>"overpaid, oversexed, and over here" ????
I certainly didn't mean "underpaid, undersexed and under Ike."
But those were specifc complaints. Iwas thinking along the lines of
large and aggresive (and, of course, over here).
Michael R N Dolbear
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > > commit a Disney and insert racoons into a British rural landscape
> > > (101 Dalmations, the live action one with Glen Close)
> >
> > I wonder how well raccoons would do if they were introduced in
Britain?
>
> What I wondered was how large a fraction of British viewers noticed
the
> mistake--or knew whether or not there were raccoons somewhere in
Britain.
They might well assume their (correct) knowledge was wrong, since there
are successful racoons elsewhere in Europe.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1846678,00.html
Nazi racoons invade the wineland 28 Oct 2005
Hunters are being hired to prevent a plague of raccoons with Nazi-era
ancestry from munching their way through the German wine harvest.
--
Mike D
Ric Locke
Bah. Either puma or cougar are good neighbors provided that you aren't
raising small livestock. One took a rabbit in the back field not long ago,
(before the fire). I applauded, and I'd swear it took a bow.
Lambs or kids, now, that's a problem. But even so, the likelihood of one
attacking a human in the human's own environment is fairly small.
Regards,
ric
Neil Barnes
Of raptors, we pulled into a petrol station on Skye on xmas eve and
discovered the passenger in the next car had a tawny owl on her knee;
apparently they'd rescued it after it had hit a car and in spite of the
vet's advice to have it put down. It seemed to be enoying itself.
(Um, are owls raptors?)
Also, I regularly fly with kestrels, buzzards, and red kites. Paragliders
and they have the same need for thermals and hill lift, and they don't
seem to get too upset with us.
Neil
--
'Onion oil! I couldn't imagine anyting worse than a daily bath in onion oil.'
(from Miss Snark, the literary agent)
Irina Rempt
> And a chap who
> lives next to the nursery swears he has seen the puma in his field. I
> now work only during daylight hours.
If it's *the* puma, i.e. the one that made a rather boring nature preserve
in the Netherlands interesting this summer, I can reassure you: that was
an overgrown black tomcat called Max.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 04-Jan-2005
Irina Rempt
> (Um, are owls raptors?)
Yes; they catch mice.
Jonathan L Cunningham
> In article <Isn66...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >In article <Isn5K...@kithrup.com>, Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com>
wrote:
> >>In article <IsLvF...@kithrup.com>,
> >>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>>In article <0hn$4hoBKL...@artifact.demon.co.uk>,
> >>>Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>I've bought paperbacks in the USA and not been worried by the spelling.
> >>>>(In fact, hardly noticed it.)
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an authentic
> >>>>British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't commit a Disney
> >>>>and insert raccoons into a British rural landscape (101 Dalmations, the
> >>>>live action one with Glen Close)
> >>>
> >>>Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
> >>
> >>Grey squirrel are, apparently, all too common in Britain now. They
> >>having characteristics assigned stereotypically to Americans.
> >
> >You mean ....
> >
> >"overpaid, oversexed, and over here" ????
>
> I certainly didn't mean "underpaid, undersexed and under Ike."
>
> But those were specifc complaints. Iwas thinking along the lines of
> large and aggresive (and, of course, over here).
Hmmm. Grey squirrels are successful because they eat things the red
squirrels won't touch ...
:-)
Rabbits and hares, now: IIRC, hares are native, but rabbits are the
fault of the Romans. I've never seen a hare. (Or a red squirrel.)
Jonathan
Dorothy J Heydt
Jonathan L Cunningham <sp...@sofluc.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>Hmmm. Grey squirrels are successful because they eat things the red
>squirrels won't touch ...
>
> :-)
>
>Rabbits and hares, now: IIRC, hares are native, but rabbits are the
>fault of the Romans. I've never seen a hare. (Or a red squirrel.)
I've seen hares in the US. We call them jackrabbits. Longer
ears, longer legs, leaner bodies than rabbits.
I've never seen a red squirrel nor a grey squirrel either; they
greys are eastern North American. Out here we have golden-brown
squirrels. The thing that surprised me about red squirrels when
I saw 'em in pictures is that they have long pointy ears: not
quite rabbit-length, but long. Our squirrels have little bitty
round ears like mice.
Irina Rempt
> Rabbits and hares, now: IIRC, hares are native, but rabbits are the
> fault of the Romans. I've never seen a hare. (Or a red squirrel.)
I've seen lots of hares. They tend to be visible from Dutch trains,
sitting in fields (the hares, not the trains). I even mistook a deer for
a hare once while cycling with my father; we both thought "that's a
whopping big hare!" until we came closer and it got up and bounded away.
Charlie Stross
as <see...@no-spams.coms> declared:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:26:33 -0600, David Friedman
><dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <q1for11k0frn78jh2...@4ax.com>,
>> R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
>>> UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
>>
>>Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way around. I'm
>>not sure I see why it would be a different problem for U.S. writers.
>
> Many books successful in one country then come over to the other, both
> ways. But marketing in the other country first?
That's what I do. My books are written with US spelling conventions and
copy-edited by an American copy editor, and they come out in the US
first. Far as I know, my UK publisher just buys and reflows the Quark
files, rather than correcting the spelling and grammar.
(This annoys me somewhat, but I compromise by using correct idiom,
grammar and spelling for British characters.)
It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
commonwealth idiom and spelling.
-- Charlie
Charlie Stross
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > I don't think it will be a problem unless your story needs an
>> > authentic British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't
>> > commit a Disney and insert racoons into a British rural landscape
>> > (101 Dalmations, the live action one with Glen Close)
>>
>> Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
>
> I understand there are now American beavers in Europe; don't know if
> they're in the British Isles.
No woodchucks in the UK. Grey squirrels, yes. And don't forget the
wallabies and parrots!
-- Charlie
Bill Swears
> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
>
>
I don't think it's the readers who make this decision. My habits in
writing include some alternate spellings, such as judgement for
judgment, and developement for development. At worst, they cause
editors to tell me to use a spell checker, at best though, I get a
warning that 'the common usage is...' told that unless I have strong
reasons to use the other, I should use the 'correct' spelling.
I don't think american readers care. But with publishers looking at a
hundred, or a thousand, books to publish one or two, it's a handy
discriminator. And then habit sets in.
Bill
David Friedman
Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
That seems odd, given how much of what Americans read--most obviously,
mysteries--is British. Does Agatha Christie get published in American
editions with American spelling, usage and idiom?
An alternative explanation is that, since America is a bigger market,
it's worth converting from English to American more often than the other
way around--and sometimes worth writing in American in the first place.
Nicola Browne
news:ddfr-0902D9.0...@news.isp.giganews.com
I don't think that is the explanation. Publishers seem to believe
translation is necessary for a US market hence the HP outcry.
My books are not now translated into US idiom, but that is still
relatively
unusual ( I think.)
Nicky
Patricia C. Wrede
news:427fj1F...@individual.net...
> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
No, it's more that US *editors and copy-editors* find coping with
commonwealth idiom and spelling difficult. I've never known any *readers*
who had trouble with it. But since the editors are the gate-keepers, they
get to decide.
I'd be willing to be that the decision isn't based on readers, either, but
on ease of production. Finding a copy-editor who's American/British
bilingual to the degree of fluency required for accurate copy-editing is not
easy, and trying to juggle schedules so that the *one* particular
copy-editor who can handle it is the one who gets all the British
books...well, forget it. IME, you're often lucky to get a copy-editor who
can tell that "the speed of light is 186,00 mps" is a missing 0 error, not a
misplaced comma error.
Patricia C. Wrede
Jacey Bedford
<djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>>Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>>> R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking of marketing to the UK, can a USian really hope to market in the
>>>> UK first without having the UK idioms perfect?
>>>
>>>Surely lots of British writers have managed it the other way around. I'm
>>>not sure I see why it would be a different problem for U.S. writers.
>>
>>bit worried about the spelling differences, but in the end I delivered
>>the typescripts in British English and that's the way (mostly) they
>>appeared.
>>
>>(In fact, hardly noticed it.)
>>
>>British background. Mostly you'll be fine. Just don't commit a Disney
>>and insert racoons into a British rural landscape (101 Dalmations, the
>>live action one with Glen Close)
>
>Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
Not to my knowledge unless we call them something different or unless
they're so rare I've never even heard anyone mention them.
Grey squiggles, yes, in quantity!
And hedgehogs.
Jacey
>
>Dorothy J. Heydt
>Albany, California
>djh...@kithrup.com
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
Jacey Bedford
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
Believe me, we know we don't have racoons!
Jacey
Mark Atwood
>
> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
What is the evidence and experiments backing this up?
(Some editors' gut feeling doesn't count. Marketting
conceptualization at that remove is so fearful and so full of
superstition as to be worthy of it's own genre of horror novels...)
My own gut feeling is that USians who read for pleasure, have no
problems with commonwealthy spelling, and usually little problem with
commonweath idioms, so long as they aren't intentionally obscure.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Neil Barnes
> In message <IsLvF...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
>>Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
> Woodchucks?
>
> Not to my knowledge unless we call them something different or unless
> they're so rare I've never even heard anyone mention them.
>
> Grey squiggles, yes, in quantity!
>
> And hedgehogs.
No woodchucks in the UK.
Moles. Moles, we got lots of.
Voles, too.
Neil Barnes
> Neil Barnes wrote:
>
>> (Um, are owls raptors?)
>
> Yes; they catch mice.
>
so... cats are raptors?
Neil :)
Irina Rempt
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:37:45 +0100, Irina Rempt wrote:
>
>> Neil Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> (Um, are owls raptors?)
>>
>> Yes; they catch mice.
>>
> so... cats are raptors?
If cats are birds, yes.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 06-Jan-2005
Patricia C. Wrede
news:7e51425bad1d984712...@mygate.mailgate.org...
There have been rather a lot of British children's books that haven't been
"translated" into U.S. idiom over the years; I think HP was more the
exception than the rule, though I'm afraid I don't have any insider
information as to why. Publisher idiocy pops up at the *oddest* times, for
the most bizarre reasons. An editor asked us to take "basilisks" out of the
latest Kate & Cecy book, on the grounds that kids wouldn't know what they
were and it was too hard a word. (When HP#2 is all over basilisks -- you'd
think an editor would figure that as one of the few odd words every kid in
America *would* know.) We responded by adding in more basilisk comments; we
have yet to see the editor's reaction, as the copy-edited ms. has still not
arrived.
Patricia C. Wrede
Nicola Browne
news:11rtpvs...@corp.supernews.com
>> >
> > I don't think that is the explanation. Publishers seem to believe
> > translation is necessary for a US market hence the HP outcry.
> > My books are not now translated into US idiom, but that is still
> > relatively unusual ( I think.)
>
> There have been rather a lot of British children's books that haven't been
> "translated" into U.S. idiom over the years; I think HP was more the
> exception than the rule, though I'm afraid I don't have any insider
> information as to why. Publisher idiocy pops up at the *oddest* times, for
> the most bizarre reasons. An editor asked us to take "basilisks" out of the
> latest Kate & Cecy book, on the grounds that kids wouldn't know what they
> were and it was too hard a word. (When HP#2 is all over basilisks -- you'd
> think an editor would figure that as one of the few odd words every kid in
> America *would* know.) We responded by adding in more basilisk comments; we
> have yet to see the editor's reaction, as the copy-edited ms. has still not
> arrived.
>
Well, I have no real basis for my opinion other than chatting with
friends who sell in the US. As I'm jointly edited by a US and a UK
editor all the market differences tend to be addressed in edit and
it's only the idiom that's unchanged - other writers have had other
experiences.
On the subject of basilisks kids seem to think JK invented them.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked if I nicked
the idea and name 'basilisk' from JK. : (
David Harmon
"Nicola Browne" <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote,
>On the subject of basilisks kids seem to think JK invented them.
>I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked if I nicked
>the idea and name 'basilisk' from JK. : (
In many cases Rowling capitalizes words she invented and not
otherwise. But, I think she is inconsistent about "basilisk".
Michael R N Dolbear
> >Grey squirrel are, apparently, all too common in Britain now. They
> >having characteristics assigned stereotypically to Americans.
>
> You mean ....
>
> "overpaid, oversexed, and over here" ????
But in favour of g*n c*ntr*l ?
--
Mike D
David Harmon
"Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote,
>No, it's more that US *editors and copy-editors* find coping with
>commonwealth idiom and spelling difficult. I've never known any *readers*
>who had trouble with it.
As a reader, I tend to think that there are too many editors who
ought to quit mucking up the works of writers with more talent than
they have. Still at the head of my editors to go up against the
wall after the revolution list is Arthur Levine, the guy at
Scholastic who changed "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorcerer's Stone".
R. L.
wrote:
>"Charlie Stross" <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in message
>news:427fj1F...@individual.net...
>
>> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
>> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
>> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
>
>No, it's more that US *editors and copy-editors* find coping with
>commonwealth idiom and spelling difficult. I've never known any *readers*
>who had trouble with it. But since the editors are the gate-keepers, they
>get to decide.
>
>I'd be willing to be that the decision isn't based on readers, either, but
>on ease of production. Finding a copy-editor who's American/British
>bilingual to the degree of fluency required for accurate copy-editing is not
>easy, and trying to juggle schedules so that the *one* particular
>copy-editor who can handle it is the one who gets all the British
>books...well, forget it.
Hm. Is this in-house copy-editors or free-lance by mail copy-editors? If
the latter, how much does it pay? :-)
--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert one 'the')
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Stross) wrote:
> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
Americans haven't had to adapt much, so they're not in the habit.
But there are some funny things, too. eg, a friend of mine who reads
romance novels is always amused by "outhouses" in the British ones.
I actually prefer to read books in whatever the author's original version
was, in their preferred spelling, etc.
wg
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com (David Friedman) wrote:
> That seems odd, given how much of what Americans read--most obviously,
> mysteries--is British. Does Agatha Christie get published in American
> editions with American spelling, usage and idiom?
Christie did, yes. Her American publishers altered quite a bit, as I found
out when I eventually reread some of her books in British editions. (They
also may have changed things over time -- eg, there's a mention of a "hip
band" in one of the English paperbacks I have. That was never in the US
edition I had, although I don't know when that change was made. Who knows
what a hip band is now?
Christie's American publishers in particular removed some of her more
racist comments, which wouldn't have played well here. She talks about
this in her autobiography.
wg
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Patricia C. Wrede) wrote:
> I'd be willing to be that the decision isn't based on readers, either,
> but on ease of production. Finding a copy-editor who's
> American/British bilingual to the degree of fluency required for
> accurate copy-editing is not easy, and trying to juggle schedules so
> that the *one* particular copy-editor who can handle it is the one who
> gets all the British books...well, forget it. IME, you're often lucky
> to get a copy-editor who can tell that "the speed of light is 186,00
> mps" is a missing 0 error, not a misplaced comma error.
I am fluent in both diascribes, and would be more than happy to serve.
wg
R. L.
Me too. Ideally with footnotes, tho it's seldom I notice needing any.
Brian M. Scott
<pwred...@aol.com> wrote in
<news:11rtpvs...@corp.supernews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Publisher idiocy pops up at the *oddest* times, for the
> most bizarre reasons. An editor asked us to take
> "basilisks" out of the latest Kate & Cecy book, on the
> grounds that kids wouldn't know what they were and it
> was too hard a word.
Bloody hell: the basilisk Tkaa is a fairly important
character in Tamora Pierce's _Wolf Speaker_ (The Immortals
Nr. 2), which was published in 1994.
[...]
Brian
R. L.
/snip/
> Publisher idiocy pops up at the *oddest* times, for
>the most bizarre reasons. An editor asked us to take "basilisks" out of the
>latest Kate & Cecy book, on the grounds that kids wouldn't know what they
>were and it was too hard a word. (When HP#2 is all over basilisks -- you'd
>think an editor would figure that as one of the few odd words every kid in
>America *would* know.)
And in RPGs, and in Xanth....
>We responded by adding in more basilisk comments; we
>have yet to see the editor's reaction, as the copy-edited ms. has still not
>arrived.
Good for you. But why in the world would an editor say "take them out"
instead of "explain them when first mentioned" and/or "make them more
clear when mentioned later" and/or "invent a word that's easier to spell"?
Other than idiocy.
Neil Barnes
> Neil Barnes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:37:45 +0100, Irina Rempt wrote:
>>
>>> Neil Barnes wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Um, are owls raptors?)
>>>
>>> Yes; they catch mice.
>>>
>> so... cats are raptors?
>
> If cats are birds, yes.
Must be then. Birds sit in trees. Cats sit in trees. Therefore cats are
birds. Birds that eat mice are raptors; cats eat mice.
Cats are Raptors. QED.
I'm glad I got that sorted out! I feel much better now...
Neil (withdraws to take medicine :)
Neil Barnes
'Basilisk', Avram Davidson, 1967 or so?
'On Basilisk Station', David Weber, 1994?
Neil
Brian M. Scott
<nailed_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:pan.2006.01.07....@hotmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:28:15 +0100, Irina Rempt wrote:
>> Neil Barnes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:37:45 +0100, Irina Rempt wrote:
>>>> Neil Barnes wrote:
>>>>> (Um, are owls raptors?)
>>>> Yes; they catch mice.
>>> so... cats are raptors?
>> If cats are birds, yes.
> Must be then. Birds sit in trees. Cats sit in trees.
> Therefore cats are birds. Birds that eat mice are
> raptors; cats eat mice.
> Cats are Raptors. QED.
O joy, O raptor unforeseen!
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 00:01:48 -0500, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0600, "Patricia C. Wrede"
>> <pwred...@aol.com> wrote in
>> <news:11rtpvs...@corp.supernews.com> in
>> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>> [...]
>>> Publisher idiocy pops up at the *oddest* times, for the
>>> most bizarre reasons. An editor asked us to take
>>> "basilisks" out of the latest Kate & Cecy book, on the
>>> grounds that kids wouldn't know what they were and it
>>> was too hard a word.
>> Bloody hell: the basilisk Tkaa is a fairly important
>> character in Tamora Pierce's _Wolf Speaker_ (The Immortals
>> Nr. 2), which was published in 1994.
> 'Basilisk', Avram Davidson, 1967 or so?
> 'On Basilisk Station', David Weber, 1994?
That last doesn't really count: <Basilisk> is just a name,
and while it's nice if the reader recognizes that <Gryphon>,
<Manticore>, and <Basilisk> are more or less a matched set,
a reader who thinks that <Basilisk> is a made up name
doesn't really lose all that much.
But the reason I mentioned the Pierce is that it's very
clearly YA, and insofar as it's meaningful to talk about a
target audience, it probably has a slightly younger one than
the Kate and Cecy books.
Brian
Daniel R. Reitman
>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:28:15 +0100, Irina Rempt wrote:
>> Neil Barnes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:37:45 +0100, Irina Rempt wrote:
>>>> Neil Barnes wrote:
>>>>> (Um, are owls raptors?)
>>>> Yes; they catch mice.
>>> so... cats are raptors?
>> If cats are birds, yes.
>Must be then. Birds sit in trees. Cats sit in trees. Therefore cats are
>birds. Birds that eat mice are raptors; cats eat mice.
>Cats are Raptors. QED.
>. . . .
This reminds me of one of the great legal parodies, the fictional
opinion of Regina v. Ojibway, originally published at 8 Crim. L.Q. 137
(1965-66).
The purported facts were that the defendant was riding a pony in a
Toronto park, but, not having a saddle, had substituted a down pillow.
When the horse broke a leg, he shot it. Unfortunately, he was then
charged with violation of Ontario's Small Birds Act. The relevant
definition: "bird" was defined as "a two-legged animal covered with
feathers."
For some reason, the author of the mock opinion failed to note that
"two-legged" might not apply.
Another great mock opinion is Poisson v. d'Avril, originally published
at 22 Ark. L. Rev. 724 (1969). which dealt with a purported 1945
statute that included the following provision: "All laws and parts of
laws, and particularly Act 311 of the Acts of 1941, are hereby
repealed."
Dan, ad nauseam
Dan, ad nauseam
Helen Hall
<m...@mark.atwood.name> writes
>Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes:
>>
>> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
>> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
>> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
>
>What is the evidence and experiments backing this up?
>
and beyond compared to the trickle that goes the other way.
>My own gut feeling is that USians who read for pleasure, have no
>problems with commonwealthy spelling, and usually little problem with
>commonweath idioms, so long as they aren't intentionally obscure.
>
You're probably right, but the perception amongst editors must be that
it would irritate or confuse readers and thus the changes are made.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Helen Hall
Cunningham <sp...@sofluc.co.uk.invalid> writes
>
>Hmmm. Grey squirrels are successful because they eat things the red
>squirrels won't touch ...
>
> :-)
>
>Rabbits and hares, now: IIRC, hares are native, but rabbits are the
>fault of the Romans. I've never seen a hare. (Or a red squirrel.)
>
Hares are quite common here up on the mountain land and there are
supposed to be a few red squirrels lurking in the woods. I've regularly
seen hares and I once convinced myself that the squirrel I was looking
at was red rather than grey, but it was a bit doubtful if I was being
honest.
David Langford
<drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>This reminds me of one of the great legal parodies, the fictional
>opinion of Regina v. Ojibway, originally published at 8 Crim. L.Q. 137
>(1965-66).
>
>The purported facts were that the defendant was riding a pony in a
>Toronto park, but, not having a saddle, had substituted a down pillow.
>When the horse broke a leg, he shot it. Unfortunately, he was then
>charged with violation of Ontario's Small Birds Act. The relevant
>definition: "bird" was defined as "a two-legged animal covered with
>feathers."
>
>For some reason, the author of the mock opinion failed to note that
>"two-legged" might not apply.
Perhaps it broke two legs and could be considered as having only two left?
Dave
[resisting the urge to quote A.P. Herbert at vast length ...]
--
David Langford | http://ansible.co.uk/
Latest nonfiction: =The SEX Column and other misprints= (Cosmos, 2005)
Latest fiction: =Different Kinds of Darkness= (Cosmos, 2004)
Patricia C. Wrede
news:levtr1d7gtdh9b874...@4ax.com...
I believe that most publishers now send their copy-editing out; the in-house
copyediting departments were casualties of budget cuts, by and large. I
have no idea how much it pays, not having done it myself, but it isn't an
easy job to get.
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
<wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5YmdnV6Ln9K...@pipex.net...
There is a lot more to copy-editing than what I described above. A good
copy-editor is a joy and a treasure who keeps one from looking stupid in
public. Theresa Nielsen Hayden has a wonderful essay on the subject in
"Making Book;" I suggest that anyone who is interested in the job read the
essay.
Do realize that authors rarely have any say in who their copy-editor is. I
managed *once* to choose a copy-editor, and the reasons I did were that the
volume was the second edition of the second book (so it had been through
copy-edit once before) *and* that the publisher had totally screwed up the
first book in a thoroughly embarassing way, so I had leverage.
Patricia C. Wrede
Joann Zimmerman
says...
> An editor asked us to take "basilisks" out of the
> latest Kate & Cecy book, on the grounds that kids wouldn't know what they
> were and it was too hard a word. (When HP#2 is all over basilisks -- you'd
> think an editor would figure that as one of the few odd words every kid in
> America *would* know.) We responded by adding in more basilisk comments; we
> have yet to see the editor's reaction, as the copy-edited ms. has still not
> arrived.
I probably would also have responded by noting that there's one hell of
a lot of adults out buying that book, too. (Or they will be when it
comes out.)
--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
David Friedman
Helen Hall <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
> In article <m2y81tw...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>, Mark Atwood
> <m...@mark.atwood.name> writes
> >Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes:
> >>
> >> It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
> >> US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
> >> commonwealth idiom and spelling.
> >
> >What is the evidence and experiments backing this up?
> >
> The *huge* amount of US material that flows eastwards to the UK, Europe
> and beyond compared to the trickle that goes the other way.
An alternative explanation might be that the U.S., whether because of
larger size or other differences, is currently producing much more
material of interest abroad than the U.K. is producing of interest in
the U.S. My impression is that quite a lot of U.K. writing is popular in
the U.S., ranging from Kipling to Dick Francis. I'm pretty sure the
Kipling hasn't been rewritten for the U.S. market, and I don't think the
Dick Francis has been.
Patricia C. Wrede
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:z03kndtdrlmk.1c...@40tude.net...
We got a new editor who doesn't read SF or F, in children's *or* adult
categories. Fortunately, she is extremely willing to learn, but it still
means a bit of a learning curve on the first few titles. .
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
"Joann Zimmerman" <jz...@bellereti.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e29ae8a7...@news.individual.net...
> In article <11rtpvs...@corp.supernews.com>, pwred...@aol.com
> says...
>
>> An editor asked us to take "basilisks" out of the
>> latest Kate & Cecy book, on the grounds that kids wouldn't know what they
>> were and it was too hard a word. (When HP#2 is all over basilisks --
>> you'd
>> think an editor would figure that as one of the few odd words every kid
>> in
>> America *would* know.) We responded by adding in more basilisk comments;
>> we
>> have yet to see the editor's reaction, as the copy-edited ms. has still
>> not
>> arrived.
>
> I probably would also have responded by noting that there's one hell of
> a lot of adults out buying that book, too. (Or they will be when it
> comes out.)
That's part of why this was merely an annoyance, rather than something that
required serious argument -- the books are doing well enough that we only
have to argue about major changes we disagree with; the minor suggestions we
can just ignore. Which, I should add in fairness, wasn't necessary for most
of them -- by and large, she strikes me as a very good editor. It's just
that her lack of background trips her up occasionally (she didn't read SF/F
*or* Regency romance/historicals before landing this job...so naturally
practically the first book she has to deal with is a fantasy/Regency
crossover). Fortunately, she adores Kate and Cecy now that she's read them,
which counts for a lot.
Patricia C. Wrede
Bill Swears
> Fortunately, she adores Kate and Cecy now that she's read them,
> which counts for a lot.
>
*Anybody*, who likes my characters, is a potentially great editor.
--
Bill Swears
Ever Inappropriate, always contrite, and now... Ironic! How cool is that?
Pat Bowne
"Daniel R. Reitman" <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:o53vr11uf8kj8tijt...@4ax.com...
In Florida last year, I was told of a man who challenged the restrictions on
gill-netting mullet with the argument that mullet had crops, therefore were
actually chickens. The person who told me the story had no comment on the
legality of gill-netting chickens.
Pat
Pat Bowne
"David Langford" <ans...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0sfvr1tcgtjkuhvih...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:49:08 -0800, Daniel R. Reitman
> <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>>This reminds me of one of the great legal parodies, the fictional
>>opinion of Regina v. Ojibway, originally published at 8 Crim. L.Q. 137
>>(1965-66).
>>
>>The purported facts were that the defendant was riding a pony in a
>>Toronto park, but, not having a saddle, had substituted a down pillow.
>>When the horse broke a leg, he shot it. Unfortunately, he was then
>>charged with violation of Ontario's Small Birds Act. The relevant
>>definition: "bird" was defined as "a two-legged animal covered with
>>feathers."
>>
>>For some reason, the author of the mock opinion failed to note that
>>"two-legged" might not apply.
>
> Perhaps it broke two legs and could be considered as having only two left?
Even without breaking any, it would only have two left legs.
Pat
Marilee J. Layman
>There have been rather a lot of British children's books that haven't been
>"translated" into U.S. idiom over the years; I think HP was more the
>exception than the rule, though I'm afraid I don't have any insider
>information as to why.
They're published here by Scholastic, which isn't entirely related to
regular FSF publishers.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjlayman
Marilee J. Layman
<pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
>Theresa Nielsen Hayden has a wonderful essay on the subject in
>"Making Book;" I suggest that anyone who is interested in the job read the
>essay.
Speaking of TNH, the drug that makes her alert (vs. narcolepsy) has
been banned in the US. Those wonderful essays and her insightful
writing may go by the way if she doesn't have a method of taking
Cylert.
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007140.html#007140
Michael R N Dolbear
> information as to why. Publisher idiocy pops up at the *oddest*
times, for
> the most bizarre reasons. An editor asked us to take "basilisks" out
of the
> latest Kate & Cecy book, on the grounds that kids wouldn't know what
they
> were and it was too hard a word. (When HP#2 is all over basilisks --
you'd
> think an editor would figure that as one of the few odd words every
kid in
> America *would* know.) We responded by adding in more basilisk
comments;
> we have yet to see the editor's reaction, as the copy-edited ms. has
still not
> arrived.
"There is no criticising unresisting imbecility"
If you ever need facts on such a matter the wonders of Amazon provide a
route:
A simple (not advanced) Books search finds books with basilisk in the
title, including Nicky's then offers
"click here to see additional results" and shows books which contain
"basilisk" in the text.(short excerpt for first such passage).
There are rather a lot including Neil Gaiman, George R.R. Martin and
Philip Pullman (who is aYA author) .
I easily found the Tamora Pierce mentioned downthread (and two others)
by changing the search to [basilisk tamora] which works because the
author's name is on the running header and so the search finds the two
words on the same page.
You can also go to http://a9.com and check only the "books" box (may
give different results).
I had this method handy after developing it for finding citations for
the use of SF terms for the OED and later to reassure a budding writer
that "candlemark" was in use by a wide range of fantasy authors.
--
Mike D
Patricia C. Wrede
"Marilee J. Layman" <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote in message
news:ete0s1dlr1q2shnfe...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0600, "Patricia C. Wrede"
> <pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>There have been rather a lot of British children's books that haven't been
>>"translated" into U.S. idiom over the years; I think HP was more the
>>exception than the rule, though I'm afraid I don't have any insider
>>information as to why.
>
> They're published here by Scholastic, which isn't entirely related to
> regular FSF publishers.
Most children's SF/F isn't published by regular SF/F publishers. And I
don't think Greenwillow or Morrow have ever "translated" any of Diana Wynne
Jones's many books (for example). And my American editions of "Linnets and
Valeriens" and Alan Garner's books and E. Nesbit and a host of others aren't
"translated." Even some that Scholastic has done. I don't know what they
were thinking when it came to Harry Potter.
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
"Pat Bowne" <pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:11s0cph...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes; obviously the man would only have been in violation if he'd shot
*himself* (assuming that the down pillow burst all over him when the horse
stumbled and broke its leg).
Patricia C. Wrede
Nicholas Waller
>
> > It seems to be the case that non-US English speakers are able to accept
> > US usage and idiom much more easily than US readers can cope with
> > commonwealth idiom and spelling.
>
> mysteries--is British. Does Agatha Christie get published in American
> editions with American spelling, usage and idiom?
>
> An alternative explanation is that, since America is a bigger market,
> it's worth converting from English to American more often than the other
> way around--and sometimes worth writing in American in the first place.
I should think Agatha Christie, JKRowling and CSLewis et al are all
published in American spelling in the US.
When I worked for the UK/International arm of US college publisher
Prentice Hall we published books in the UK by British authors but
always used US spellings, as in _Fiber Optics_, for the entire world
market (such books did not have a big enough UK market to justify
messing about).
Often in normal usage we combine both, using "programme" for TV
programmes but "program" for computer programs, and in proper names
such as "the harbour of Pearl Harbor". I don't know if US newspapers
refer to our governing party as the Labour Party rather than the Labor
Party; maybe they do but perhaps they don't bother.
--
Nick
Brian M. Scott
<test...@aol.com> wrote in
<news:1136641407.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> I should think Agatha Christie, JKRowling and CSLewis et
> al are all published in American spelling in the US.
Not the Macmillan edition of the Narnia stories: I just did
a little quick browsing and spotted <armour>, <valour>,
<honour>, and <travelled>. (Changing to U.S. spelling would
have been pretty pointless anyway, considering how very
British the books are!)
[...]
Brian
Catja Pafort
> That seems odd, given how much of what Americans read--most obviously,
> mysteries--is British. Does Agatha Christie get published in American
> editions with American spelling, usage and idiom?
Terry Pratchett used to be adjusted, although I gather that recent
volumes receive a much lighter dusting of adjustment, if at all. (Some
of that is because impatient Merkins were ordering them from the UK <g>)
Catja
Jonathan L Cunningham
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:05:48 +0000, Jacey Bedford wrote:
>
> > In message <IsLvF...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
>
>
> >>Woodchucks, however, or grey squirrels ....
> > Woodchucks?
> >
> > Not to my knowledge unless we call them something different or unless
> > they're so rare I've never even heard anyone mention them.
> >
> > Grey squiggles, yes, in quantity!
> >
> > And hedgehogs.
>
> No woodchucks in the UK.
>
> Moles. Moles, we got lots of.
>
> Voles, too.
And holes, and poles, and shoals of coals, and souls and bowls.
Jonathan
(Insinuating a pronunciation digression. There's a pheasant sits on
my brother's back porch, and sometimes a vole.)
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Patricia C. Wrede) wrote:
>
> There is a lot more to copy-editing than what I described above. A
> good copy-editor is a joy and a treasure who keeps one from looking
> stupid in public. Theresa Nielsen Hayden has a wonderful essay on the
> subject in "Making Book;" I suggest that anyone who is interested in
> the job read the essay.
I actually have done this sort of job on non-fiction, anyway.
>
> Do realize that authors rarely have any say in who their copy-editor
> is. I managed *once* to choose a copy-editor, and the reasons I did
> were that the volume was the second edition of the second book (so it
> had been through copy-edit once before) *and* that the publisher had
> totally screwed up the first book in a thoroughly embarassing way, so I
> had leverage.
I am aware of this, also. I was never asked on any of my five published
books.
wg
Helen Hall
<pwred...@aol.com> writes
>
>Most children's SF/F isn't published by regular SF/F publishers. And I
>don't think Greenwillow or Morrow have ever "translated" any of Diana Wynne
>Jones's many books (for example). And my American editions of "Linnets and
>Valeriens" and Alan Garner's books and E. Nesbit and a host of others aren't
>"translated." Even some that Scholastic has done. I don't know what they
>were thinking when it came to Harry Potter.
>
readers and they didn't want them confused by "funny" spellings? All the
other books you mention would be read by the keen readers who could cope
just fine with alternate spellings.
Certainly in the UK, the most noticeable thing was that HP genuinely was
being read by kids who normally wouldn't read anything that they didn't
have to read for school.
Patricia C. Wrede
<wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S8idndCE5aD...@pipex.net...
Sorry; I haven't seen you around long enough to know that you already knew
all this. Oh, well; maybe somebody else needed the info.
Patricia C. Wrede
David Friedman
Helen Hall <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
> Certainly in the UK, the most noticeable thing was that HP genuinely was
> being read by kids who normally wouldn't read anything that they didn't
> have to read for school.
>
Any guess as to why? Was it just the "it's in fashion" element, or do
the books really have some characteristic other books don't that makes
them pull in non-readers?
Dan Goodman
> Helen Hall <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
>
> > Certainly in the UK, the most noticeable thing was that HP
> > genuinely was being read by kids who normally wouldn't read
> > anything that they didn't have to read for school.
>
> Any guess as to why? Was it just the "it's in fashion" element, or do
> the books really have some characteristic other books don't that
> makes them pull in non-readers?
I've only seen part of the first one, but from that sample: Use of
literary devices which have mostly gone out of use because relatively
sophisticated users (that is, anyone who reads at least one novel every
two years which isn't required reading) don't need them. Maid and
butler dialog establishes the backstory about Harry's birth and such.
The way Harry is treated by the mean-spirited relatives who raise him
is over the top. Etc.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community
http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/
Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com
Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Elaine Thompson
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <21sxYgAi...@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
> Helen Hall <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
>
>> Certainly in the UK, the most noticeable thing was that HP genuinely was
>> being read by kids who normally wouldn't read anything that they didn't
>> have to read for school.
>>
>
>Any guess as to why? Was it just the "it's in fashion" element, or do
>the books really have some characteristic other books don't that makes
>them pull in non-readers?
/unlurk
They took off both in the UK and the US without any special attention
originally, AIUI. No special marketing efforts or anything.
I certainly picked up the first one (a UK import) just because it was
there, and as I paid, the store owner commented that it was flying out
of the store. I think it may have looked - oh - fun or cool, or
something of the sort. And Rowling does have the gift of writing page
turners. Also, I remember several years ago an article discussing
them and remarking on how boyish they were. The specific example was
Ron and Harry talking about dueling Malfoy , a conversation that ends
with Ron recommending that Harry give Malfoy a punch in the nose. The
article's writer was delighted because that is so true to typical
boyish behavior which isn't seen much in books these days. The
boyish feel could have helped draw in boys who reportedly are much
more difficult to engage in books than girls. Patrick Nielsen
Hayden (sp?) also remarked some years ago that Rowling is great at
incluing without stopping the action. That very very few writers
manage as well as she does. That would add to the readability, too
--
Elaine Thompson <Ela...@KEThompson.org>
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Patricia C. Wrede) wrote:
>
> Sorry; I haven't seen you around long enough to know that you already
> knew all this. Oh, well; maybe somebody else needed the info.
I don't post much; I'm just being ornery.
Julian Flood
<wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
> I don't post much; I'm just being ornery.
>
> wg
> www.pelicancrossing.net
Too much folk music? Or, judging from your website, just too busy.
Lucy, she plays a b*nj*!
JF
Julian Flood
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > Helen Hall <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
> >
> > > Certainly in the UK, the most noticeable thing was that HP
> > > genuinely was being read by kids who normally wouldn't read
> > > anything that they didn't have to read for school.
> >
> > Any guess as to why? Was it just the "it's in fashion" element, or
do
> > the books really have some characteristic other books don't that
> > makes them pull in non-readers?
Engagement.
JF
That'll be £186*. Thank you. Kerching!
*For those who have not been paying attention: this was what I paid
for a course on writing by David Gemmell. The whole was good fun and I
learnt a lot, and this one word sums up what I brought away with me.
The best value word I ever bought.
Helen Hall
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>In article <21sxYgAi...@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
> Helen Hall <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
>
>> Certainly in the UK, the most noticeable thing was that HP genuinely was
>> being read by kids who normally wouldn't read anything that they didn't
>> have to read for school.
>>
>
>Any guess as to why? Was it just the "it's in fashion" element, or do
>the books really have some characteristic other books don't that makes
>them pull in non-readers?
>
secondary school, thus teaches kids of age 11 upwards.
There was a huge boost from the "everyone's doing it and it's cool to
read these books". However, what I think what Rowling pulled off
successfully was writing a (fairly) complex story in simple language.
Kids are very skilled at understanding character and following complex
story lines from film and TV (especially soap opera) but might not be
used to more literary language. Rowling has strong, likeable characters
with whom it's easy to identify, yet she uses everyday language. Also
the books are funny as well as being scary. Whether by accident or
design, she hit on just the right mix.
Catja Pafort
> I believe that most publishers now send their copy-editing out; the in-house
> copyediting departments were casualties of budget cuts, by and large. I
> have no idea how much it pays, not having done it myself, but it isn't an
> easy job to get.
Recently suggested by an experienced copyeditor:
>Proofreading...$3 US per page
>Copyediting...$5 US per page
>Substantive editing...$9 US per page
Rates can, however, be as low as $0.01 per Word, what you can ask
depends on ability and how badly they want you.
There's a [very busy!] public mailing list for copyeditors that I'm
happy to point people at, if so desired.
Why, yes, I've been looking at options. Following the discussions is...
useful. It's educational. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not
really picky enough to be a full-time copyeditor. If you're interested
in a career, can there be a better gauge than watching what people
obsess about, and ask yourself whether it matters to you?
Catja
R. L.
Pafort) wrote:
>Patricia wrote:
>
>> I believe that most publishers now send their copy-editing out; the in-house
>> copyediting departments were casualties of budget cuts, by and large. I
>> have no idea how much it pays, not having done it myself, but it isn't an
>> easy job to get.
>
>Recently suggested by an experienced copyeditor:
>
>>Proofreading...$3 US per page
>>Copyediting...$5 US per page
>>Substantive editing...$9 US per page
That would sure be easier than keeping up with how many hours spent.
>Rates can, however, be as low as $0.01 per Word, what you can ask
>depends on ability and how badly they want you.
>
>There's a [very busy!] public mailing list for copyeditors that I'm
>happy to point people at, if so desired.
Please, thank you -- if it includes US. I did a little of that
professionally for a while, for a Roman Catholic press, and it was fun.
Once I told them my grammar checker said to tell Saint Mark he had a run-on
sentence.
>Why, yes, I've been looking at options. Following the discussions is...
>useful. It's educational. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not
>really picky enough to be a full-time copyeditor. If you're interested
>in a career, can there be a better gauge than watching what people
>obsess about, and ask yourself whether it matters to you?
Good thinking.
--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert one 'the')
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:
> *From:* use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort)
> *Date:* Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:34:00 +0000
>
> Patricia wrote:
>
> > I believe that most publishers now send their copy-editing out; the
> > in-house
> > copyediting departments were casualties of budget cuts, by and large.
> > I
> > have no idea how much it pays, not having done it myself, but it
> > isn't an
> > easy job to get.
>
> Recently suggested by an experienced copyeditor:
>
> >Proofreading...$3 US per page
> >Copyediting...$5 US per page
> >Substantive editing...$9 US per page
>
> Rates can, however, be as low as $0.01 per Word, what you can ask
> depends on ability and how badly they want you.
>
> There's a [very busy!] public mailing list for copyeditors that I'm
> happy to point people at, if so desired.
Also worth looking at www.testycopyeditors.com.
wg