3 ms·

It's pretty standard to simplify things for the US market isn't it? Hence the Philosophers stone becoming the Sourcers stone etc...

crtasm 5y ago
I don't see anything in the piece about simplification, just the the trouble of tracking changes across two editions while still finishing the edit for each.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Well Mitchell claims it was the other way around: the copy editor made it more complex for the UK but the US version was unedited. I haven't reviewed the (pages and pages apparently) of differences, but the example they give is this: >In the UK text, for example, Mitchell writes at one point that: “Historians still unborn will appreciate your cooperation in the future, Sonmi ~451. We archivists thank you in the present. […] Once we’re finished, the orison will be archived at the Ministry of Testaments. […] Your version of the truth is what matters.” >In the US edition, the lines are: “On behalf of my ministry, thank you for agreeing to this final interview. Please remember, this isn’t an interrogation, or a trial. Your version of the truth is the only one that matters.”
  - crtasm 5y ago
    It sat unedited for some time, then they got a new editor (next paragraph).
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Doesn't actually say they did any editing though, does it? I ask because I thought the point was it was a simultaneous release and that they ran out of time in the US? Sorry if I've read too much into that...
      - etrevino 5y ago
        I think you did. The article makes it sounds like there were more or as many changes to the US version: "Mitchell was presented with a substantial list of changes for the US edition". And the article makes clear that the author was uninterested in tracking the changes: "'It’s a lot of faff – you have to keep track of your changes and send them along to whichever side is currently behind – and as I have a low faff-tolerance threshold, I’m still not very conscientious about it, which is why my US and UK editors now have their assistants liaise closely.... I really never dreamed back then that anyone would ever notice or care enough to email me about it, or that the book would still be in print 13 years later, let alone sell a couple of million copies and be studied or thought about by academics.'"
dTal 5y ago
The article is pretty explicit that it was the result of poor version-control. And it's standard to "translate" i.e. minorly adapt, but not to abridge or "simplify" as you suggest.
jjeaff 5y ago
Is "sorcerer" any more simplified than "philosopher"? They just seem to be two different things with perhaps slightly different meaning (or perhaps just stylistically different) between US and UK.
- gumby 5y ago
  Yes because the philosopher’s stone is a particular (mythical) object whereas a sorcerer’s stone is merely a stone owned by a sorcerer (perhaps with some special powers or perhaps not). I presume the editors assumed that most uk kids would have heard of the philosopher’s stone while (so I have been told) the analysis was that American kids would see “philosopher” and say “yuck”. Out of curiosity which country are you from? Sounds like you haven’t heard of the philosopher’s stone — would be amused at the editors’ judgement if you turn out to be from the UK.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I am from the US, and I did have to lookup what a philosopher's stone is. Though I don't know if I would agree that knowledge of such a fictional or mythological object is any more or less sophisticated, so much as a cultural difference in what types of fiction or mythology are more culturally common. I also don't know anything about what my "sign" is in astrology and I don't think that makes me less sophisticated than those who do. I just have different kinds of useless knowledge.
captn3m0 5y ago
Related: I'd done a diff[1] on Rowling's new book (The Ickabog) - UK v/s US editions (using the text published on the website which I was compiling[0]). The differences were fairly minor and mostly down to standard US/GB differences. Most of it was just quoting and punctuation. [1]: https://gist.github.com/captn3m0/7d5dae42769e575676708560399048d5 https://gist.github.com/captn3m0/7d5dae42769e575676708560399... [0]: https://github.com/captn3m0/ickabog-ebook/ https://github.com/captn3m0/ickabog-ebook/

crtasm 5y ago

I don't see anything in the piece about simplification, just the the trouble of tracking changes across two editions while still finishing the edit for each.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Well Mitchell claims it was the other way around: the copy editor made it more complex for the UK but the US version was unedited. I haven't reviewed the (pages and pages apparently) of differences, but the example they give is this: >In the UK text, for example, Mitchell writes at one point that: “Historians still unborn will appreciate your cooperation in the future, Sonmi ~451. We archivists thank you in the present. […] Once we’re finished, the orison will be archived at the Ministry of Testaments. […] Your version of the truth is what matters.” >In the US edition, the lines are: “On behalf of my ministry, thank you for agreeing to this final interview. Please remember, this isn’t an interrogation, or a trial. Your version of the truth is the only one that matters.”
- crtasm 5y ago
  It sat unedited for some time, then they got a new editor (next paragraph).
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Doesn't actually say they did any editing though, does it? I ask because I thought the point was it was a simultaneous release and that they ran out of time in the US? Sorry if I've read too much into that...
    - etrevino 5y ago
      I think you did. The article makes it sounds like there were more or as many changes to the US version: "Mitchell was presented with a substantial list of changes for the US edition". And the article makes clear that the author was uninterested in tracking the changes: "'It’s a lot of faff – you have to keep track of your changes and send them along to whichever side is currently behind – and as I have a low faff-tolerance threshold, I’m still not very conscientious about it, which is why my US and UK editors now have their assistants liaise closely.... I really never dreamed back then that anyone would ever notice or care enough to email me about it, or that the book would still be in print 13 years later, let alone sell a couple of million copies and be studied or thought about by academics.'"

dTal 5y ago

The article is pretty explicit that it was the result of poor version-control. And it's standard to "translate" i.e. minorly adapt, but not to abridge or "simplify" as you suggest.

jjeaff 5y ago

Is "sorcerer" any more simplified than "philosopher"? They just seem to be two different things with perhaps slightly different meaning (or perhaps just stylistically different) between US and UK.

gumby 5y ago
Yes because the philosopher’s stone is a particular (mythical) object whereas a sorcerer’s stone is merely a stone owned by a sorcerer (perhaps with some special powers or perhaps not). I presume the editors assumed that most uk kids would have heard of the philosopher’s stone while (so I have been told) the analysis was that American kids would see “philosopher” and say “yuck”. Out of curiosity which country are you from? Sounds like you haven’t heard of the philosopher’s stone — would be amused at the editors’ judgement if you turn out to be from the UK.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I am from the US, and I did have to lookup what a philosopher's stone is. Though I don't know if I would agree that knowledge of such a fictional or mythological object is any more or less sophisticated, so much as a cultural difference in what types of fiction or mythology are more culturally common. I also don't know anything about what my "sign" is in astrology and I don't think that makes me less sophisticated than those who do. I just have different kinds of useless knowledge.

captn3m0 5y ago

Related: I'd done a diff[1] on Rowling's new book (The Ickabog) - UK v/s US editions (using the text published on the website which I was compiling[0]). The differences were fairly minor and mostly down to standard US/GB differences. Most of it was just quoting and punctuation. [1]: https://gist.github.com/captn3m0/7d5dae42769e575676708560399048d5 https://gist.github.com/captn3m0/7d5dae42769e575676708560399... [0]: https://github.com/captn3m0/ickabog-ebook/ https://github.com/captn3m0/ickabog-ebook/