The end of "THE END"?

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Depends on how consistent how frequent and when it was. However generally I'd leave it original.

Rule 1: Consistent. Same global rules, except per speaker. A particular character might have a dialect. That should be internally consistent.

Gosh, yeah, if there's one thing that tends to drive me batty it's inconsistencies.

Rule 2: The black bird. The Maltese Falcon comes to mind. Some separate words that exist as compound are not the same thing, so no "Replace All" click in editor. You know about that, but some are subtle. Like into is still sometimes in to and sometimes can be validly some times.

Yep, I avoid "replace all." Sometimes and some times are definitely words I'm aware of.

Rule 3: if it's frequent old usage in the entire book leave it as it is, like Shakespeare or some other things it's what it is.

And that's why, if I do any Jerry Todds or Poppy Otts, the to-days and to-morrows will probably stand. Because anyone else who loved the series would expect to see them there because of the usage frequency.

Rule 4: If things like to-day are infrequent and it seems like poor proof reading you can silently "fix it", but maybe not if a pre-1914 print run.

Frequency is definitely one of the things I consider before a fix. One use of to-day hardly seems worth preserving.

Rule 6: Minor Inconsistent punctuation and spelling, if you are really sure, can be silently fixed, but see 5.

I did one in Dapple Gray. The word trys showed up ONCE, but elsewhere in the book, tries was always used. I didn't think to list it in notes, and won't bother now, but that seemed an area of spelling inconsistency that could be fixed without noting it.

Archaic spelling is one of those things that I have questions about though. I've actually found examples where, if you hit dictionary lookup, you get an entirely different definition than what was meant! Those, I am inclined to correct and make note of, at least if I have to hunt through pages of Google search to find said archaic spelling listed anywhere!

In a children's book, I don't think you can or should expect that kind of effort by a child wanting to look up a word. Mind you, I'm talking about the truly obscure spellings. If an archaic spelling is easy to find, let the child look it up! It's vocabulary building.

Rule 7: Don't Transatlantic edit. Establish if it's using British, US, Canadian, South African, Australian or NZ rules. Note that UK and Ireland today and in the past does use either double or single quotes for dialogue. Irish publishing more so, but for an aside the un-spaced pair of em dashes is largely USA and UK & Ireland uses (and always did) a pair of en dashes surrounded by spaces.

You want to be a bit careful about "always did". I can think of FOUR vintage UK books on my shelves, all by different authors, that use un-spaced em-dashes and there may be more. One title, a 1937 first edition of Silver Snaffles by Primrose Cumming, got a modern softcover reprinting in 2007 by Fidra Books and the modern reprint uses em-dashes WITH spaces!

Anyway, a different one of those four titles should be MobileRead eligible in 2024 as the author died in 1953.

But what do you think about American authors using British spelling? That is very, very common with vintage books! I've also seen where later editions may change the spelling to the American style. So is that more of a publisher discretionary thing or should such spelling be preserved as is? I'm thinking the latter as the safest bet.

At any rate, I think your rules are quite sensible!

[Quoth]

Thanks, and really more like guidelines than rules.
I do have the odd book were I have an old version and newer print. I also find far more proof errors in new books from big publishers. Of course eBook releases of older books are from scans and OCRs and even with the the big publishers you see typical OCR errors such as r n (without space) being m and lower case l for a !. Especially where the OCR error is still a real word!

But what do you think about American authors using British spelling? That is very, very common with vintage books!

In reprints or ebooks or originally? I can't say I've noticed it. I've often seen USA editions of European books deliberately changed to USA spelling and usage. I'm convinced US readers don't need that. Kids in Ireland can read Mark Twain or current USA YA well enough. Have you any example titles?

I do find USA University or other retelling of European myth, legend, folktale or fairytale, where there are well known British or Irish versions with USA spelling a bit odd (See Mr & Mrs Lang and associates. The 17th French ones, Grimm, Anderson etc are all in British English translation).

Also modern USA written mediaeval or similar style Fantasy using contemporary US adjectives almost never encountered ever outside USA. But we can't be changing those. Just blink and move on.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by graycyn

Archaic spelling is one of those things that I have questions about though. I've actually found examples where, if you hit dictionary lookup, you get an entirely different definition than what was meant! Those, I am inclined to correct and make note of, at least if I have to hunt through pages of Google search to find said archaic spelling listed anywhere!

In a children's book, I don't think you can or should expect that kind of effort by a child wanting to look up a word. Mind you, I'm talking about the truly obscure spellings. If an archaic spelling is easy to find, let the child look it up! It's vocabulary building.

It's interesting to use the Kobo dictionary. It's better than it used to be and mostly (from context) seems to have the correct definition. Naturally fails to give any on a lot Joan Aiken and Georgette Heyer sort of Regency or even up to 1970s. Only one I remember recently where the OED definition was obviously a completely different meaning. I forget what word and book, but I suspect the author has used the wrong word. That can't be fixed. I see that more often with newer books.

We used to give people Kindles (mostly PW3) but now of the last 6 gifts; 2 were S/H Kobos, one S/H Kindle Oasis (to someone that uses Audible more than reading) and two new Kobo ereaders.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It's interesting to use the Kobo dictionary. It's better than it used to be and mostly (from context) seems to have the correct definition. Naturally fails to give any on a lot Joan Aiken and Georgette Heyer sort of Regency or even up to 1970s. Only one I remember recently where the OED definition was obviously a completely different meaning. I forget what word and book, but I suspect the author has used the wrong word. That can't be fixed. I see that more often with newer books.

It's better than it was, certainly, but doesn't get everything, especially older spelling variants. Hinkle was fond of broncho as opposed to bronco, and Kobo doesn't give the definition. However, I think the meaning is clear enough that there's no need to change to the modern spelling.

I can't remember the title where the definition was something completely off the wall, but it was really off! I think it was a book from the 1930s, but I have a fair few of those.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by Quoth

In reprints or ebooks or originally? I can't say I've noticed it. I've often seen USA editions of European books deliberately changed to USA spelling and usage. I'm convinced US readers don't need that. Kids in Ireland can read Mark Twain or current USA YA well enough. Have you any example titles?

Off the top of my head, I can remember my childhood Dell paperback trilogy of My Friend Flicka, Thunderhead, and Green Grass of Wyoming. In Flicka, center was spelled centre. It stood out like a sore thumb to me. It did change in the latter two books to the US spelling. But it's hardly the only time I've seen something like that.

These paperbacks were from late 1960s/early 70s (still on my shelves). I don't know if the same thing was true for the early hardcovers.

[GrannyGrump]

I've seen quite a number of vintage books from US publishers which have the "centre" oddity, and a few other words as well. I think many of those books were from a British author (and originally published in UK), and I wonder if the publisher wanted to keep the British flavor??? "Trans-Atlantic", so to speak. Likewise, American author's books from UK publishers seem to have sometimes replaced at least part of the American spelling.

When I have done up any of those kind, I tend to use the AUTHOR'S native spelling, rather than following the book scan if I can't find a UK edition. Again, the purists are probably fuming and spitting green pea soup, but I still sleep well at night...

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

Likewise, American author's books from UK publishers seem to have sometimes replaced at least part of the American spelling.

Never seen that.

The non-US English originals often adapted for US Market and I suppose they may miss some words.
I've never seen USA fiction adapted for British market. However perhaps my proof reading superpowers are more recent and I didn't notice.

Of course some words have alternate spelling in British English that match USA. The OED and British English (Or Hibernian) is not prescriptive but documents usage. Since Webster the aim of US Dictionaries is to be prescriptive and before Webster the -re and -our and internal -ll- all acceptable but he deliberately insisted on -er, -or, single internal l.
British usage accepts -ize as alternate to -ise
US is prescriptive about using gray for the shades between black and white. Others are not, though grey is common for the shade outside North America (not sure about Canada, it's tricky!)
The name is usually Grey (Earl Grey Tea, Mr. Grey in books and real life, Grey's Anatomy TV series) and in US some products. Some animals are grey as part of the name, such as greyhound, which is not referring to the coat shade but is a different root, but for some creatures it does refer to the shade. The more American gray has increased in British/Irish writing since the Nineteenth Century.

[GrannyGrump]

I might be inventing a memory, but I seem to recall instances of American stories published in UK using spellings such as tyre, saviour, colour --- perhaps I dreamed it!

But I do remember some books from Harper Brothers (US) by American authors, and the publisher definitely used "centre." I think "centre" was in semi-frequent use in the US for a while.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

I've seen quite a number of vintage books from US publishers which have the "centre" oddity, and a few other words as well. I think many of those books were from a British author (and originally published in UK), and I wonder if the publisher wanted to keep the British flavor??? "Trans-Atlantic", so to speak. Likewise, American author's books from UK publishers seem to have sometimes replaced at least part of the American spelling.

When I have done up any of those kind, I tend to use the AUTHOR'S native spelling, rather than following the book scan if I can't find a UK edition. Again, the purists are probably fuming and spitting green pea soup, but I still sleep well at night...

I often see stuff like "travelled", "traveller", and I know there's other words where I see a UK spelling, but from a decidedly American author writing a book set in America. I just can't think of other words right now.

Sigil spellcheck is forever pointing these little quirks out, LOL! Otherwise, being that I read a fair few British authors and am used to BOTH sorts of spellings, I'd probably never notice them! I always run Sigil spellcheck as it sometimes picks up something somewhere I didn't catch, whether it's an OCR error or an actual print typo.

You can't really say these spellings are wrong, if the author preferred them, but they can sometimes stand out oddly.

There's a part of me that says make a book consistently American spelling and a part of me that says leave it be. I have NO IDEA which part of me I should listen to, but generally opt for the leaving well enough be.