British English editing for Yanks

I personally wouldn't say barkeep (sounds medieval to me) but I don't know about the rest of the UK.
 
The only time I've heard 'barkeep' is in one of the UK episodes of The Inbetweeners when one of the under-age lads orders lager from a bar after an exam (I think - perhaps I imagined it). It was purposely done to make him sound out of his depth and a bit twee I think ;)

Never heard it used in anger in an real British pub. Believe me I've been to quite a few (hundred).
 
Last edited:
Mouse said:
What is annoying, (and is poss some of what Phyrebrat was saying) is that an American writer, published by a US press, wouldn't be asked to change anything to make it more understandable, because it would be presumed that it would be understood - or they wouldn't be aware of what we wouldn't understand (just as I'm not always aware of things people in other countries don't understand, because they're natural to me).
Click to expand...

I think that's a silly, and frankly absurd assumption. The editor won't look at where the author was raised then decide the ms. doesn't need editing for clarity based on that. They'll actually read the ms. either way. If the editor doesn't understand something, or thinks the target audience wouldn't, then it's discussed and likely changed. It frankly doesn't matter where the author is from. You're going with an American publisher with an American target audience, if something's not easily understood by that (American) audience, it should be discussed and/or changed. If, as an American writer I went with a British publisher, my work would be changed, and rightly so. Not simply because I'm an American, but because my writing contains Americanisms and I'm being published by a British publishing house for a British audience. I assume Brits are also edited when published by British publishing houses (for example a phrase that is an obscure regionalism that's not widely understood), so why would you assume that an American wouldn't be edited by an American house?
 
I think you've misunderstood what I've said. I'm on my way to work, so don't have time to explain.
 
I think it's pretty clear that Mouse means that an American author would be using American English and it's that, their language and use of it, that wouldn't be questioned by a US imprint. It has nothing to do with the nationality or birthplace of that writer.
 
Couldn't it also be British understatement?
 
Possibly, but it can convey the wrong impression depending on the listener. I'm careful about using "quite" and "rather" now in conversation in the UK and I've lived here for 25 years now. Have had some misunderstandings in the past with friends and colleagues :oops:
 
Clifford Beal said:
Dialogue is also a problem if you're writing British or American characters. And it's a minefield of subtlety. For instance, when an American says "quite good" a Brit would think it really wasn't that good at all when actually the Yank is saying it's rather good indeed.
Click to expand...
How odd. I'd have said it was completely the other way around. In fact, I wouldn't associate "quite" with standard Americanese** at all.


** Trying to envisage either Cagney or Lacey using it. Nope. Not working. (This insight comes to you from the DialogueTestEngine using the AmericanCopShow algorithm [pat. pending])
 
Ursa major said:
I think it's pretty clear that Mouse means that an American author would be using American English and it's that, their language and use of it, that wouldn't be questioned by a US imprint. It has nothing to do with the nationality or birthplace of that writer.
Click to expand...

But language is inherently linked to nationality, birthplace, and region. You cannot separate these things without considerable work. There are clear regional differences within BE just as there are within AE. And to a degree that was kinda the whole point of the thread, to suss out those differences, to have people talk about them, and hopefully be able to more easily avoid those that would trip people up.

The bit that's tripping me up is the presumption in 'their language and use of it, that wouldn't be questioned' that implies a 'free pass' for native AE writers with an AE publisher. Mostly because that's simply not true. American English, like British English isn't a single, monolithic thing. And it's kind of the editor's job to consider every word in the ms. and check for readability and how well the target audience would understand the text. No one gets a pass on anything. It's as simple as this: If the editor understands the words but thinks the target audience wouldn't, then it's questioned. If the editor doesn't understand the words, then it's questioned. It might seem especially harsh for a BE writer to go with an AE publisher because there's just more to catch that's different that a general AE audience wouldn't understand, but that process is not unique to the BE to AE transition (or vice versa).

Consider the varieties of regionalisms and slang in the UK. You have London, Southern England, Northern England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland... and that other Ireland (which I realize isn't part of the UK, but they're close geographically). Each of those has unique slang and regionalisms to watch out for, some of which are mutually unintelligible. Even a writer from Northern England would have to be questioned on usage, regionalisms, and slang and edited for a general British English audience (if that were indeed the target audience). Another example, the low-hanging fruit, would be Cockney rhyming slang. This is similar to the question of accents for announcers and actors. There's something like seventeen distinct British accents and, at least on Auntie Beeb, RP is the default for the news. But region-based shows can slip in more accents and vocabulary for colour, whilst also maintaining a wider general understandability.

Then consider the size of the UK compared to the US. There are regionalisms here also and, to a similar degree as British regionalism, they are, at times, completely incomprehensible from one region to the next. To say nothing of the odd mixtures of regionalisms the occur on the periphery of those regions. In the US you have the North, Northeast, New England, Northern New England, Mid-Atlantic, New York City, Midland, South, West, Pacific Northwest, Louisiana Creole, Cuban Florida, Northern California, and Southern California. Each with their own regionalisms, vocabulary, and slang... each of which needs to be edited for general AE readability.

I'm in no way saying it doesn't suck. It does. It sucks to be edited generally, and the transition from BE to AE must be especially harsh, but AE writers with AE publishers only have it easier by comparison, not easy.
 
Fishbowl Helmet said:
The bit that's tripping me up is the presumption in 'their language and use of it, that wouldn't be questioned'
Click to expand...
Again, I think you're reading something into what Mouse said that isn't there. She isn't saying that someone who uses AE would have their use of English given a pass whatever its standard; I think she's saying that if the AE is correct, an editor/reader who speaks AE will accept it, even though it my not be "correct" if the novel is not set in North America (or some of the characters don't come from there).

Mouse's book is not set in the US (it's set in the UK, I believe), but the editor is picking up things that are perfectly good BE, just not perfectly good AE. If the book had been written by someone who writes in AE (perfectly good AE, that is), Mouse is suggesting it would be given a pass, even thought the AE may not be what UK characters/narrators would say/write.


This is not to say the editor is wrong if the principal market is North America and it makes it easier for their readers to read the book. It's just ironic that the book is -- in a way -- being made 'less correct', albeit in a very minor way, by the editor. Note that if the novel was set in, say, Germany or France and populated only by native speakers, no-one would bat an eyelid if the whole book was in AE (for a North American publisher) or BE (for a UK publisher).

And let us not forget that writers are often encouraged not to spend too much time using an unusual vernacular, but to sprinkle it lightly to let the reader know the context without confusing them. (At least one Chrons member from Scotland gets rather upset when a fake combination of various Scottish idioms is served up as if it's what a specific, though fictional, Scot would say when it isn't.) This must be a potential minefield with quite a few AE dialects, not just BE ones.
 
Ursa has nailed it, I think. I write a space opera, not of this planet, in no particular accent. I don't care what gets done to it, language wise. I've went to a lot of trouble to try to make sure my idioms aren't in it and anyone, no matter where they are, can read it without being pulled up.

I also write stuff bqsed in Ulster. I've went to a lot of trouble to keep it accurate (although I have removed the worst offenders that don't travel.) it is a book about Ulster. It is supposed to sound like it was written by someone with an Ulster accent. If all my eejits get turned into idiots, it makes the book and me look like an eejit, frankly. To strip away the Ulsterisms makes it a book anyone could have written.

I'm reading a fav book of mine. It's set in Chicago. The narrators have american voices. They talk about the El and I don't know what that is (but I worked it out). They talk about places casually and expect me to keep up. Like meeting someone foreign and interesting in a bar, I do, happily.

Some of us like books with a sense of place. Some of us don't want to read the sanitized version. And there are successful books out there that give all that - Trainspotting, Hiassen (sp?). There's room for both but if you've written a book with a sense of place (as Mouse's has) translating it into an idiom far removed from that sense of place must be doubly challenging, no?

What I geninely believe, though, and it comes back to the original premise of this thread is it cannot be faked if you're close to the place and people. I could not write the sort of story I write about Ulster and set it in Dublin. And I know Dublin pretty well and the accent well. Heck, I'd struggle to set it in Derry. But I know Belfast and North Antrim the way only a native can. So I can write it as a native. To do that about somewhere you don't know intimately is close to impossible. You can put in all the tricks you like and turns of phrase but it will never be a book of the place even if it is a book set in the place. Because being of the place can't be replicated, or taught, it just is. And it, perhaps, also can't be edited for, but only a rocky middle ground found that may not satisfy either the wider reader or the close reader who'll be pulled out by the single eejit become an idiot, or the ferry boat in the place of the Stenaline... (Which is one of the companies that regularly sails from Belfast) or the sea-inlet instead of the lough....
 
Last edited:
A UK waistcoat is a US vest.

A UK vest is a US undershirt, most often the notorious wife beater.
 
I love this thread! I was raised by a Scottish father, and an American mother in both the US and UK. So I use expressions that are from both countries, and I finished high school in Bedford, England and took A-levels there. So I had to learn quickly how to spell as well as speak like an Englishwoman. All my life, though, I have used British expressions and vocabulary that I learned from my father, and at school in the US at 12 years old I said something was "waersch" (not sure of the spelling) but the words means "sour"-it's a Scots word, I think. Everyone was looking at me with an expression like "What did you just say?" Some of the obvious changes have already been mentioned here-different spellings and punctuation. I had to learn a Southern English accent to fit in at school, but all my life I had spoken Scots in Scotland with my grandparents in summers. Every region of Britain speaks differently, so you must also get to understand the different accents. Moreover, Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales are all distinctly different countries that have so many differences in language...

Anyway, make sure you pronounce I have "been" as it is spelled, like 'bean' rather than "bin". There are so many things to remember...
 
I'm so confused! As always. My mother was an English teacher, from England, and my father Native American, I grew up in the states and my mother would always correct my school papers to what she called 'proper english.' Which I now refer to it as Queen's English.

And yes, I received the worst grades, although they were correct. I never knew there was a difference until I was older. And now, I use both and I still confuse myself.
 
I think i get what some are trying to say and if I do then there is a portion of the notion that gives me great sadness.

When I read a book about the Scots written by a Scot I expect something at the very least bordering on incomprehensible at times. The same is true of a story of Ireland by and Irish person. If it all sounded like AE I would suspect that this were a story about Scots or Irish by an AE author. If you have an editor trying to remove the the ethnic flavor from your tale in this instance that sounds egregiously incorrect and I'd put my foot down.

On the other hand if your are and AE author trying to do Scots or Irish or conversely either of those trying to do a piece set in America-well I'll pray for you.

Honestly speaking, an author should write in his/her own language and try to stay clear of idioms and colloquialisms except where absolutely necessary. If you happen to be fluently multilingual.(And can read and write those languages) Well then, good for you.

Now if I had an AE novel mostly set in America with a short visit to another country I might try to stay with the AE for consistency and what I know. This might pass-probably not with everyone.

So that gets us to someone doing a BE piece with a short visit to America. It should be the same as above though I suspect there might be a push to make it more AE.

That's where I might expect to see some screwy favoritism in the editing process.

If you are BE writing BE settings I wouldn't expect that to be globally altered for the simple matter that it could change meaning within context; although I'd once again caution about colloquialisms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Sargeant_Fox British Library Tales of the Weird Horror 2
Albert N. Wilmarth Ideas for a historical novel featuring the British Legion in the Colombian War of Independence History 14
M. Robert Gibson British PCs of the 1980s Technology 13
Toby Frost Setting Word 2007 to recognise British English Writing Discussion 10
Brian G Turner Self-publishing: American English & British English editions Publishing 41

Similar threads


Back
Top