Maybe people can just deal with books having regional differences in the same way authors do. Is it so scary for F. Scott Fitzgerald to write about the color of the light, but Rowling to talk about the colours of the school houses?
This. Stop dumbing things down (like my browser's dictionary that apparently doesn't know the word "dumbing"). Let the readers find and delight in the differences of diction and usage.
I think the sort of people who read books can probably cope. It sounds like the publishers are making allowances for the sort of people who don’t do much reading anyway.
- can’t hear the differences in spelling between American and British English
- are listening to someone read. That person probably is able to read either American or British English.
That said, some words really are different and could cause confusion/disconnect so probably are potential candidates for being changed even in audio books.
- the one he gave “apartment” vs “flat” is a good example. I think British people would all be fine with “apartment” whereas I think “flat” might confuse some Americans who hadn’t heard that usage.
- “pavement” means the road surface in the US vs it means the pedestrian path on the side of the road in the UK (that in the US you would call a “sidewalk”). “Sidewalk” wouldn’t confuse a British person but it’s not a word a British person would use. “Pavement” meaning the road surface does confuse British people.
I'm not having that though - it's all one way in favour of keeping Americanisms because we're familiar enough with them to understand them. No thanks.
On the flipside, I was delighted to hear stories of US kids confusing their parents with British English because they'd watched so much Peppa Pig during lockdown. Very good.
I basically agree and wouldn't want things to be changed in general. That being said, the choice of words in a novel should generally be governed by the artistic intent of the author rather than the desire to teach people stuff.
But here's an example that's worth thinking through. This movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110428/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 was called "The Madness of King George". It's based on a play called "The Madness of George III". They changed the name when producing the movie because of the difference between Britain and the US.
In Britain pretty much everyone would know that George III refers to King George III. However when they first started discussing this project in the US, a common reaction was "I haven't seen "The Madness of George 1 and 2". Now the differences between the titles wasn't that important and clearly this was just an impediment to understanding with no benefit.
Now you could say "Well the people could go on wikipedia and find out that there was a King George and a King George II and then this guy, George III" and that's true but the problem is negative self-selection. People who don't know that don't realise that's what's at play here and so won't do that search so nobody learns anything.
It's not particularly reassuring that "George III" (spoken aloud as "George the Third" ), and "George 3" (spoken aloud as "George Three" ) are apparently thought to be interchangeable in the US.
This! One of the things that used to happen is you'd pick up a book, and encounter a word or phrase you don't know or understand, and you'd go look it up. This is easier than ever with the internet.
Don't know why someone would "rent a flat?" You go look the phrase up and discover that it's British usage. Confusion over... because you learned. Reading Moby Dick and don't know what "scraggy scoria" is? You look the words up and learn they're the perfect fit for the landscape Melville is painting.
My favourite anecdote is when an english bloke goes to the U.S. and asks if he can "bum a fag" from someone, meaning "ask for a free cigarette" in British.
That example isn't scary, of course. The -or/-our spelling difference is only the simplest example of what's different between American and British English. I think it's pretty clear to someone who's never even encountered the other spelling to infer what the word means.
But there are difficult examples, even in Rowling. She uses "revision" in a way that American readers don't know ("studying") and might have a hard time piecing together from context. It's not like the reader will be prompted to open a dictionary, since "revision" is a common word in AE. It just makes for a poor reader experience.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've come across in a while. It absolutely doesn't make for a poor reader experience, and that's some US Defaultism if I've ever heard it. And I'm neither British nor American! US writing is basically never localised to Australian English, why in the world must the converse be true?
> Righto, mate, gimme a shout as Ishmael. Few donkey's years ago—don't get your knickers in a twist 'bout when exactly—findin' me wallet as dry as a dead dingo's donger, and not a bloody thing worth a squiz on the land, reckon I'd chuck a U-ey on life, put a bit of water under me bridge. Wanted a stickybeak at the wet half of this great wide world, didn't I?
Do you imagine people without any dialect of English as a native language read books and articles on the internet with a dictionary at hand or do you think they somehow cope with the unknown and manage with context alone?
As someone who reads fantasy fiction a lot, honestly I'd prefer if I read everything in American English. The biggest thing that gets me is e.g. "defence" instead of "defense" and other places where British English uses a 'c' instead of an 's'. It seriously diminishes the immersion for me, even if I've read probably 50+ books with the version I'm not used to by now.
It's never stopped me from reading a book before, but it does diminish my enjoyment quite a bit. For nonfiction, I don't care, I'm reading actively regardless. But when reading passively for enjoyment, it's noticeable and irritating.
For fantaſy, eſpecially, I diſagree. When I'm in charge, the long-ſ will be mandatory in any ſtory involving magick, to better ſhew the hiſtorical baſis of the mythology (unleſs, of courſe, a ſkinwalker were to be involved, in which caſe American ſpellings are indeed preferred)
Incredible. I sent that to Google translate and it translated fairly well.
(For those who can't read it - the text is English transliterated into Hebrew script, not actually Hebrew. I'm impressed that Google managed to make sense of it)
- с in тектс is missed, it should be текстс or better теѯтс;
- ѵ is basically Greek upsilon which appeared in English mostly as u [auto] or y [system], therefore шѵд would be better written as шоѵд where /oѵ/ in old Cyrillic pronounsed as /u/ as in Greek, or just шꙋд;
No, never was a thing. Early Cyrillic had a bunch of unique letters that are long gone, but it never had "þ" in there.
> The "ѵ" is interesting too
It's from Greek "Y" (upsilon) and it - depending on the place - could've meant either /i/ or /v/ sound (and /u/ when in "оѵ" digraph, so parent comment has it wrong): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhitsa
I have to say that the long-s looks quite horrible in Verdana, and probably most other sans-serif font. That makes sense, since most Sans Serif typefaces significantly postdate the abandonment of the long-s.
Roman typefaces with a long-s are a very 17th-18th century thing. A blackletter (gothic) typeface gets you closer, but all of that is still not very much medieval. What you really want is a meticulously manuscript in Carolingian Miniscule[1] or Uncial script[2], complete with killer rabbits[3] and knights fighting snails[4].
Upvoting because this is seriously interesting. I can see old or Tolkien English being a hurdle, so I relate to what you’re saying. But small changes in diction tend to draw me into the world, by othering it from the familiar.
I think it might be partially because I've done & currently do some copyediting work. So I'm pretty trained to see any grammar or spelling mistake. To be clear, it's not the difference in language that bothers me, just words that are spelled differently from American English. I literally can't not see them.
I've found this jarring only in one case: the dub of Mary and the Witch's Flower, where the setting was an emphatically English-style public school, the lead character's VA had (or was using) a strong Home Counties accent, but the lines were full of US-only terms like "Somophore". It just felt horribly fake (even in a fantasy story!) because you'd never see those things together in real life.
