Message Board Topic 11/9

[Comsie]

As the task of writing a story from beginning to end, or even a 'chapter' from beginning to end, can be quite a drain in itself...it's always a huge benefit to have an editor handy to find all of the mistakes that you might not be able to catch yourself. It can only work to make a story even better, and to have a good editor on your side is a blessing.

 

So the relationship between author and editor would have to be somewhat compatible, don't you think? Makes sense.

 

However, what happens if an author and an editor just so happen to come from two completely different sides of the planet? Where social, cultural, and language, norms might differ from place to place? Is it possible to find a comfortable middle ground in how a story is written and how it's edited. Is it 'ass' or 'arse'? 'Mom' or 'Mum'? 'Color' or 'colour'? 'Favorite' or 'favourite'? They seem like little things...but if your editor is used to writing and reading with (what might as well be an entirely different language), and with a different rhythm...how can an author bridge the gap to create that magic compatibility that will make it work? Or is it better to just avoid that situation altogether? What are you thoughts? Let us know!

[Nephylim]

Well.... I have never had an editor or a beta reader before until Rush got her hands on my stuff.... and oh didn't I enjoy THAT We have had one or two discussions about the meaning of words or phrases but we've always worked it out. To be honest I trust her so much now I don't even re check what she's done to my stuff and just post it. (she could have a lot of fun with that if she were a nasty devious queen of evil.... oh bugger )

[Graeme]

I'm Australian and my editor is American, so I think I fit into this category

 

The upshot is that I have the final say, but I respect the fact that most of my audience is American and hence I'll let a lot of Australianism get changed into Americanism to save confusion. On the flip side, my editors are also more aware of Australianism and let them go through unless they think they will be confusing for the readers.

 

If the story is set in Australia (or not specified), my preference for Australian spellings is used. If the story is set in the USA, though, USA spellings are used. That's my decision, as the author, and I trust my editor to remove all Aussieisms that inadvertantly slip in (I can't help it -- I'm not American and I don't know all the American slang).

 

If my editor is not sure if something is an Australianism, they ask. Most of the time it's actuallly a typo, though sometimes it's a legitimate Australian phase.

 

I do have the fallback position that in most cases American phrasing is legitimate in Australia because we get some much American TV. However, there are exceptions to that rule where the American version is just not used here. eg. the abbreviation of Mathematics in Australia is Maths, not Math.

 

Ultimately, the author's opinion rules, but an author should always be respectful of their editor's views.

[David McLeod]

I'm Australian and my editor is American, so I think I fit into this category

 

The upshot is that I have the final say, but I respect the fact that most of my audience is American and hence I'll let a lot of Australianism get changed into Americanism to save confusion. On the flip side, my editors are also more aware of Australianism and let them go through unless they think they will be confusing for the readers.

 

If the story is set in Australia (or not specified), my preference for Australian spellings is used. If the story is set in the USA, though, USA spellings are used. That's my decision, as the author, and I trust my editor to remove all Aussieisms that inadvertantly slip in (I can't help it -- I'm not American and I don't know all the American slang).

 

If my editor is not sure if something is an Australianism, they ask. Most of the time it's actuallly a typo, though sometimes it's a legitimate Australian phase.

 

I do have the fallback position that in most cases American phrasing is legitimate in Australia because we get some much American TV. However, there are exceptions to that rule where the American version is just not used here. eg. the abbreviation of Mathematics in Australia is Maths, not Math.

 

Ultimately, the author's opinion rules, but an author should always be respectful of their editor's views.

 

I'm American (USA) and am editing the magnum opus of an Australian now living elsewhere in the "Far East." We've been working together for some time, and have a relationship similar to what Graeme described. I've also edited extensively for two authors who are steeped in vernacular (contemporary, everyday) UK-English.

 

The mechanics of UK or UK-influenced English do not seem to be a problem: I've long accepted (although not understood) tyres vs. tires; defence vs. defense; and similar situations. I've learned that while I have napkins on my table, I'd best not ever put a nappie on the table. I did have a long go with one writer on "pinny" (pinafore, which turned out to be what I'd call an apron); however, we both chalked it up as a learning experience.

 

I was sorry to learn that Graeme's knowledge of the USA culture was based in such large part on television. What could we possibly produce that would be worth shipping to Australia, even in the form of electrons bounced off a satellite? Sorry, that's probably off topic. Except that thanks to television, Microsoft, Hollywood, and other similar influences, the USA-American culture is perhaps the closest the world has to a common culture. Which makes editing to USA vernacular sensible.

 

Yes, the author has the final say...but the author should always understand the editor's reasons for offering a change. This implies a deeper relationship than simple "blue pencil" entries. I try to offer a reason for each (non-obvious) change I suggest.

[old bob]

As a frenchie, I'm not part in this discussion. But I would be interested to know how many different english's do you have in writing (I mean languages with a litterature, not dialects).

For instance, you have the academic French from France (Paris !), Swiss French (suisse-romand), with great authors like Ramuz or Chessex, and I suppose French languages with some cultural particularities and their own vocabulary as Quebec French and French from the "Isles" (Martinique, Guadeloupe, aso).

So how is it with english ?

[Tiger]

I can see this both as an author and as an editor as I've been known to do both. I would have no problem editing for someone who happened to write British English. There are plenty of resources out there. I already know most of the words that have different spelling, so I can adjust accordingly. As an author, I have to be aware of it as well and not take it the wrong way if I happened to have someone from the UK, Australia, etc. editing my work. Luckily for me, my editor is an American.

[Nephylim]

What an interesting question. Well... if you discount Welsh and Gaelic (Scottish and Irish) and all dialects... then I suppose we have two.

 

Queen's English... which is 'proper English' where where everything is strictly gramattical and expanded (it is and not it's) and 'posh' and spoken English, which is wha 90% of the population speak, although that might be considered to be dialect too so maybe there is only one.

 

If we look back though there are historical language issues... for example Chaucer's English is different to Shakespeare's English which is different to modern English but again this is a historical and not a current matter and I suppose would go for other languages too.

 

After all that my guess at the difinitive answer would be... one.

 

Anyone else have any ideas ?

[David McLeod]

Old Bob asked how many versions there were of English that had a literature, as opposed to merely spoken dialects, if I understood his question. Nephylim suggested that there is only one version of contemporary, written English, although mentioning that there are multiple versions of historical English literature (Chaucer to Shakespeare to modern, e.g.).

 

I would offer that differences in spelling (color-colour), nomenclature (torch-fllashlight), slang (TV-telly), dialect (am not-ain't) and idiom (sorry, I couldn't come up with an example) are probably insufficient to cause speciation (in a Darwinian sense) of a language. After all, we can and do read and understand each other's stories. On the other hand, I do suggest that English has speciated. For example, I can easily read Shakespeare even though some of the words' meanings have changed; I find it more difficult to read Chaucer; and, the early parts of the Croyland Chronicles are nearly indecipherable. If this premise is correct, then there are at least two versions of English with a literature (if one considers Croyland, literature). However, I'll stick with my assertion that there is presently only one version of written English, today.

 

Anyone interested in the evolution of the English language would, I think, find interesting Professor Elliot Engel's lecture, "A Light History of the English Language." The audio CD should be available through a public or university library, or through inter-library loan. Dr. Engel's works are also available through www.authorsink.com (This is not a commercial endorsement, and I am in no way associated with Dr. Engel except to admire his brilliance.)

[Mark Arbour]

Yet I wonder how easy it is to break it down to one "English"? I think of some works that are written with distinct dialectic flair (Annie Proulx comes to mind)...or perhaps ponder the musings of Texans....and wonder if those aren't dissimilar enough to deserve separation. I guess, in the end, you either have one (in written/literature form) and then you have a whole bunch (with dialects.)

 

I can completely relate to what David said regarding Older English writings. You have the edge on me with Shakespeare, although that's most likely because I simply am not a fan. I find Chaucer to be more interesting and manageable. Presumably Older French is the same?