Anyone got an old edition of Outcast?
Feb. 1st, 2022 06:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hedgebird posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
sutcliff_spaceI re-read Outcast recently and noticed some eccentric spellings I hadn't ever noticed before. It turned out that the 2012 Oxford University Press (UK) e-book I was reading and the 1995 Farrar Strauss & Giroux (US) paperback I had previously read differ slightly on these words. I also looked at a 1999 Oxford paperback edition, which predictably agreed with the Oxford e-book. I'm curious to know how far back these textual variations between UK and US editions date. So I'm hoping that some bored readers might a) have older editions of Outcast and b) be willing to check a few words in the text!
1. End of chapter 6: the scene between Beric and Glaucus mentions two Roman coins. Oxford 2012 and 1999 call them a gold "aurus" and a "sestercia". Farrar Strauss Giroux 1995 has "aurum" and "sesterce". (I believe it should be "aureus" and sesterce or sestertius.)
2. Start of chapter 7: the cook is identified as a "Campagnion" in the OUP and "Campanian" in the FSG. (Campanian is the usual spelling.)
3. Start of chapter 9: Beric grabs a rake used for the "hypercaust" in the OUP or the "hypocaust" in the FSG. (Hypocaust is correct.)
4. End of chapter 10: Beric is held in the "Mamatine" prison in the OUP or the "Mamertine" in the FSG. (Mamertine is the usual spelling.)
5. Start of chapter 11: The scene opens in Colonia "Agripensis" in the OUP or Colonia "Agrippina" in the FSG. (Wikipedia says Cologne was called Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium at the time of the story, in the 2nd century, and Colonia Agrippina in the 4th.)
There are a few oddities that appear in both editions, like "Silurium" for Silurum in chapter 1, "Lybian" for Libyan (or Lydian) and "debit" for "debt" in chapter 11. I would also like to know if "the Kailhan" descended from the stables of King "Soliman" in chapter 15 is meant to be Arabic "al-khayl" or "al-khail", meaning horses/the horse according to my Google results.
To me it looks as if the FSG text corrected (in some cases hypercorrected) spelling errors in the OUP text. Misspellings of loanwords and proper names are fairly plentiful in Sutcliff novels. (Spelling in general was not Rosemary Sutcliff's strong suit, according to a correspondent of hers.) But without looking at the oldest editions – OUP in the UK, H.Z. Walck in the US – it's hard to tell. It could be that the original OUP text was fine and these are misprints in later editions.
So, if anyone feels like helping with this, please tell me what edition you're looking at and which spelling it contains!
(I'm not sure if anyone here is interested in like... Tolkien fandom levels of nerdery when it comes to Sutcliff. So if you read this far, thanks for indulging me.)
1. End of chapter 6: the scene between Beric and Glaucus mentions two Roman coins. Oxford 2012 and 1999 call them a gold "aurus" and a "sestercia". Farrar Strauss Giroux 1995 has "aurum" and "sesterce". (I believe it should be "aureus" and sesterce or sestertius.)
2. Start of chapter 7: the cook is identified as a "Campagnion" in the OUP and "Campanian" in the FSG. (Campanian is the usual spelling.)
3. Start of chapter 9: Beric grabs a rake used for the "hypercaust" in the OUP or the "hypocaust" in the FSG. (Hypocaust is correct.)
4. End of chapter 10: Beric is held in the "Mamatine" prison in the OUP or the "Mamertine" in the FSG. (Mamertine is the usual spelling.)
5. Start of chapter 11: The scene opens in Colonia "Agripensis" in the OUP or Colonia "Agrippina" in the FSG. (Wikipedia says Cologne was called Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium at the time of the story, in the 2nd century, and Colonia Agrippina in the 4th.)
There are a few oddities that appear in both editions, like "Silurium" for Silurum in chapter 1, "Lybian" for Libyan (or Lydian) and "debit" for "debt" in chapter 11. I would also like to know if "the Kailhan" descended from the stables of King "Soliman" in chapter 15 is meant to be Arabic "al-khayl" or "al-khail", meaning horses/the horse according to my Google results.
To me it looks as if the FSG text corrected (in some cases hypercorrected) spelling errors in the OUP text. Misspellings of loanwords and proper names are fairly plentiful in Sutcliff novels. (Spelling in general was not Rosemary Sutcliff's strong suit, according to a correspondent of hers.) But without looking at the oldest editions – OUP in the UK, H.Z. Walck in the US – it's hard to tell. It could be that the original OUP text was fine and these are misprints in later editions.
So, if anyone feels like helping with this, please tell me what edition you're looking at and which spelling it contains!
(I'm not sure if anyone here is interested in like... Tolkien fandom levels of nerdery when it comes to Sutcliff. So if you read this far, thanks for indulging me.)
no subject
Date: 2022-02-01 05:20 pm (UTC)I sure am, and I breathlessly await the eventual answers!
no subject
Date: 2022-02-02 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-01 06:52 pm (UTC)Chap 6 has 'aurus' and 'sestercia'.
I'm happy to check the rest for you, but it will have to wait to the weekend as I'm up to my ears.
no subject
Date: 2022-02-02 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-03 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-04 02:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-03 09:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-04 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-03 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-04 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-04 05:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-02-04 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-03-15 06:17 am (UTC)The edition is OUP, London, 1955 edition, 1965 reprint.
1. Aurus and sestercia
2. Campagnion
3. Hypercaust
4. Mamatine
5. Colonia Agripensis
It looks as though I got the same results as another commenter, after that long wait!
no subject
Date: 2022-03-15 09:13 pm (UTC)So, the consistency of the OUP text going all the way back to the 1955 edition is basically confirmed. That's very interesting. I suppose the copyeditors were like "we'll verify the English words and the character names, and trust the author with the one-off exotic terms"... which they should apparently not have done, haha.
no subject
Date: 2022-03-16 11:50 am (UTC)Hypo vs hyper is always tricky, and I can only remember it by "hypodermic needle". The others tbf are not quite so simple!
no subject
Date: 2022-03-17 09:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-09-26 06:15 am (UTC)Both editions are identical on these points:
1. Aurus and sestercia.
2. Campagnion.
3. Hypercaust.
4. Mamatine.
5. Agripensis.
In other words, it looks as though it was an editor at Farrar Strauss & Giroux who made the changes.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-26 06:25 am (UTC)Walcz was using the UK plates. The only differences are on the title page and copyright pages, to add in the US publisher info. The credit to the UK printer (Richard Clay and Company, Ltd.) is identical, as is the book's entire layout.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-26 02:55 pm (UTC)You're right, going by WorldCat.org there was only one other US edition (Dell) between Walcz and FSG, so most likely the FSG edition introduced the changes. And I imagine the OUP/Walcz text will remain the 'definitive' version. Thank you for checking this out!
no subject
Date: 2022-09-26 04:27 pm (UTC)"I wonder if it's safe to assume the same holds true for all Walcz editions of Sutcliff."
It's likely true for Warrior Scarlet, Dawn Wind, and The Lantern Bearers, anyway; I just checked, and the UK printer is credited in the Walcz editions of all three books. Knight's Fee does not have the name of the UK printer on its copyright page of the Walcz edition; I don't know whether that signifies anything. Rider on a White Horse and Sword at Sunset, which were published in the US by Coward-McCann, both say on their copyright pages that they were manufactured in the US, so those are books that might have been altered when they were first published in the US.
I remember that the Mary Renault fan community went into a tizzy when they discovered that there were incredibly major differences between the UK and US editions of The Charioteer. The entire novel had been cut drastically. And Ursula K. Le Guin said in an essay that, at a certain point in the UK editing of the original Earthsea trilogy, she shrunk a long speech upon the advice of her UK editor. Children's novels are especially inclined to this treatment, since US editors assume that American children are incapable of looking up unfamiliar words in a dictionary. I remember reading an article in the Horn Book about how British children's novels are "translated" for American kids, and then groaning over the ludicrous changes that were introduced to the US editions of the Harry Potter books.
At least British children's novels are published in the US. Do you know, scarcely a single British children's TV program has ever been shown in the US?
no subject
Date: 2022-09-27 11:44 am (UTC)I did not know that about Renault, Le Guin, or the TV shows! What an eye-opener. And how annoying for fans, to not have the difference in texts "officially" noted anywhere. I envy some of the big literary fandoms like Tolkien, where the editors explain this stuff because they know people care.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-27 12:20 pm (UTC)Oh, that's very considerate of the Tolkien editors.
Has Sutcliff's godson spoken on the topic of edition changes, by any chance? I suppose the easy way to figure out about the Sutcliff novels would be to use a "compare" program in a word processor that shows the differences between texts. I have access (via a library for the print-impaired that I belong to) to some Sutcliff e-books that are formatted in such a manner that I could easily check them that way. But alas, the library only supplies US editions.
(*Checks the library listings.*) Okay, there seems to be more than one US edition for some of the books. I could at least compare different US editions, if you'd like.
And hey, I found this along the way:
https://www.sfgateway.com/contributor/rosemary-sutcliff/
Has anyone posted about this?
no subject
Date: 2022-09-27 01:29 pm (UTC)Go for it if you feel like it, but no farther than you feel like it! It's only idle curiosity on my part, after all.
Oh hey, new editions, that's cool! I think it'll be the first official e-book release for a couple of those.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-27 03:31 pm (UTC)(Bibliographer's offspring looks down their nose.) Differences between editions are always important.
Seriously, I'm glad you brought up this topic, because it does make a difference to reader experience, even if the differences are minor.
Okay, to start with, the dirty little secret of recent reprints of older books is that the new publisher usually does what the rest of us would do in that situation: they scan, OCR, and - hopefully! - proof the text.
The Mark of the Horse Lord
Front Street (Boyds Mill Press imprint), 2005
vs
Chicago Review Press, 2015
As far as I can tell from the capitalization of the first few words (the same words) of each chapter, both of these editions were scanned from the same previous edition, which was not the Walcz edition, because the Walcz edition didn't capitalize the first few words of each chapter. (I forgot to mention I own the Walcz edition of that novel; I'm in the midst of rereading it!) There's no significant difference between the Front Street and Chicago Review Press editions.
So . . . which of the earlier editions of The Mark of the Horse Lord capitalize the first line of each chapter? Can anyone check their copies?
no subject
Date: 2022-09-29 01:37 am (UTC)I checked the Oxford first edition of Mark: just the first word of each chapter is capitalized, so clearly not that one! And then I looked at the other Front Street editions of the same vintage; Frontier Wolf does the same "capitalize the first line" thing as Mark, but The Shield Ring and Knight's Fee don't. Nor does the Chicago Review Press edition of Sword at Sunset. If neither press imposed uniform formatting, I guess that supports the theory that they just copied each book from a different previous edition.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-29 02:45 am (UTC)Knight's Fee, Walck edition: The first word of each chapter is capitalized, but only the first letter is a full cap; the rest are small caps. I've no idea how OCR programs would deal with that.
Sword at Sunset, Coward-McCann edition: This one's a ringer. Each chapter starts with a drop cap; the rest of the first word is capitalized.
We really need to see some FSG editions, don't we?
no subject
Date: 2022-09-29 03:05 am (UTC)Got an FSG edition from the library for print-impaired readers! It's scanned (that's allowed by US copyright, for print-impaired readers), so I can't tell about drop caps and small caps, but I can confirm that FSG was not using the UK plates.
Warrior Scarlet, Walck edition: UK printer credited. First word capitalized, with a drop cap. Treatment of chapter headings:
II
Talore the Hunter
Warrior Scarlet, FSG edition: "Printed in the United States of America." First word capitalized. Treatment of chapter headings:
Chapter 2
Talore the Hunter
Man, I'm beginning to understand why my father became a bibliographer and printing historian. This is great fun.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-29 03:43 am (UTC)So I just skimmed through the rest of the offerings at Bookshare (the library for print-impaired readers). In addition to a number of FSG editions, they have the Thomas Y. Crowell edition of Song for a Dark Queen. Also, the Dutton edition of Sun Horse, Moon Horse, which I scanned for them from a public library book.
As far as my personal library is concerned, I mentioned before the Walck editions I own. I also own the 1961 OUP hardback reprint of The Eagle of the Ninth (UK; that's printed by Richard Clay), the 1980 Knight Books paperback edition of Song for a Dark Queen (UK), and the 1980 Puffin paperback edition of The Silver Branch (UK). And yes, 1980 was the year when I started buying Rosemary Sutcliff books. :)
Is any of that helpful?
Here's a comparison I can do tonight:
Song for the Dark Queen, 1979 Thomas Y. Crowell edition: No caps at beginnings of chapters. Treatment of chapter headings (assuming this isn't a massive series of OCR errors):
A Colt for the Breaking
Song for the Dark Queen, 1980 Knight Books paperback edition: This is missing the author's historical introduction and glossary. (I never knew the book had these!) No caps at beginnings of chapters. Treatment of chapter headings:
2
A Colt for the Breaking
no subject
Date: 2022-09-29 03:58 am (UTC)Correction: The second half of the author's note (but none of the glossary) is at the back of the Knight Books edition of Song for a Dark Queen.
Sorry for such a rapid series of comments!
no subject
Date: 2022-09-30 03:47 pm (UTC)My Random House UK e-book of Song for a Dark Queen, which I think followed their Red Fox paperback, also lacks the glossary and the historical summary part of the author's note. Can't be sure without seeing the UK first edition from Pelham, but I'd bet that the extra material was added for the US Crowell edition.
I need to sum up what we've established in order to get my head around it...
The textual variants I know of so far are (in publication order):
1. Change of title between Hodder & Stoughton (UK 1st) and Coward-McCann (US 1st) editions of Rider of the/on a White Horse
2. Abridged UK editions of Rider and Sword at Sunset
3. Extra supplementary material in Crowell (US 1st) edition of Song for a Dark Queen (probably)
4. Corrections to Latin terms in FSG (US '90s) editions of Outcast
Setting aside the abridgements, UK vs. US editions are a main source of "unmarked" variations so far. Not surprising.
I tried to check out which publishers did at least the US first editions:
1. H.Z. Walck = the OUP novels from Eagle of the Ninth to Witch's Brat, plus Rudyard Kipling (Bodley Head). Walck editions identical to OUP in at least some cases.
2. Coward-McCann = at least the first four Hodder & Stoughton adult novels, not sure about Blood & Sand. At least one known change to Rider.
3. Dutton = Bodley Head books from Beowulf to Bonnie Dundee, but also a couple of late OUPs, Blood Feud and Frontier Wolf. No changes noted yet.
4. Thomas Y. Crowell = Pelham, i.e. just Song for a Dark Queen. Known likely changes.
5. FSG = Flame Coloured Taffeta (OUP), Shining Company, and Sword Song (Bodley Head), plus reprints from both those UK publishers. Not identical to OUP/Walck editions, with known edits to Outcast.
And that's not even getting into later editions, except for FSG. As you said, FSG editions are probably the first place to look for changes.
And some textual "lineages" tentatively reconstructed:
Outcast: OUP -> Walck -> divergence in FSG reprints
Mark of the Horse Lord: OUP -> Walck –> ??? new formatting –> Front Street & Chicago Review Press
Sword at Sunset: Coward-McCann –> Chicago Review Press
Song for a Dark Queen: Pelham -> Knight & Red Fox/Random House, Crowell diverges from Pelham or Knight
archive.org has most of Sutcliff's novels, often in multiple editions for the most-reprinted ones, though they lean more toward US editions. I don't know anything about text comparison software, but the archive allows controlled downloads, so it might be possible to use their files? Who knows; I don't think I'm going to embark on it rn, haha.
no subject
Date: 2022-10-01 12:54 am (UTC)Wow, what a lot of work you've done! I'm very impressed.
"On my part, sorry for my rather slow replies!"
On the contrary, I've thought you've been amazingly quick, given the dense information I've been posting.
"how does one become a bibliographer and print historian, anyway?"
You know, I really don't know? My father started off as a literary historian, so I assume that the bibliography interest grew out of that. But I'm not sure where the printing interest came from. I was in my pre-teens when he first started talking about it with me. He did edit a newspaper in college, and he owned a little printer's set for kids when he was a boy. So I'm guessing that interest developed slowly.
[Edited to add: I asked my father, and he says he thinks his interest in printing grew out of his research on William Morris's Kelmscott Press. That matches my memory.]
At any rate, it permeated my childhood. He introduced me to the Library of Congress card catalogue when I was about ten. By the time I was a teen, he was taking me around to see books being printed. When I was an adult, he created the design for my first magazine (he's a book designer too), and then, when I took the magazine onto the web, he designed my first website. Which is a large part of the reason I'm an indie author today. :)
"I'd bet that the extra material was added for the US Crowell edition."
Ooo! It would be really interesting if that was the case. Darn it, I should have been picking up used editions of Sutcliff's novels, back in the eighties.
By the way, I assume you've seen this helpful list of recent editions?
https://rosemarysutcliff.com/latest-summary-bibliography-list-of-books-by-rosemary-sutcliff/
Here's a letter from Sutcliff saying she prefers the American edition of The Shining Company - but she doesn't say why, alas.
https://rosemarysutcliff.com/the-shining-company-rosemary-sutcliff/
"archive.org has most of Sutcliff's novels"
Yes, and that could be very helpful for doing spot checks, since one can do searches on them.
"I don't know anything about text comparison software"
All you need is Word or a similar word processing program; I use LibreOffice. Comparing files is really easy: you just open one file, then run the comparison program with the second file. It works a bit like Track Changes, if you've ever used that.
"but the archive allows controlled downloads, so it might be possible to use their files?"
Only if one broke the DRM, alas; with the DRM intact, you can only open the files in Adobe-DRM-linked software, and I don't know of any Adobe-DRM-linked software that would compare files or allow a full copy-and-paste (for obvious reasons).
I'm only able to make the comparisons with the Bookshare files because they use social DRM; this is a much more flexible form of DRM that bypasses the Adobe system. Conveniently, Bookshare also provides the option of downloading in Word format. So all I have to do is open the Word files in LibreOffice and run the comparison.
There are definite advantages to being visually impaired!
no subject
Date: 2022-10-02 11:11 am (UTC)Heh, most of the work I did was a few years ago, when I cobbled together patchy publication histories for most of Sutcliff's books for the wiki. Those could do with improvement and updating – that list of posthumous editions will be a useful cross-check! Actually I ought to add notes to the wiki about several things that have come up in our discussion, edition variations not least. And at some point I think I will do some spot comparisons, as you suggest, between weird OUP spellings and FSG editions; pretty sure I have a few spelling errors noted somewhere...
Did you know, while searching library and used book sites yesterday, I couldn't find any evidence that there ever were US print editions of a few of her novels, like Simon or Blood and Sand? And besides that, apparently Henry Z. Walck was the chief of OUP New York before buying out their children's department in 1958 – so did the first US printings of Eagle of the Ninth, Outcast, Shield Ring, and Silver Branch actually say Walck or OUP?
Anyway! That's a pretty interesting career path, for both you and your dad: it seems you're a family of many talents. And it's definitely great to talk to someone with like...actual knowledge of publishing in a conversation like this.
no subject
Date: 2022-10-03 05:49 pm (UTC)"I wonder what the difference could have been? It wasn't the most obvious possibility, the cover art."
(Checks UK vs US.) Well, they're both nice, but honestly, I prefer the FSG cover. Maybe Sutcliff thought it conveyed the mood of the story better?
"Heh, most of the work I did was a few years ago, when I cobbled together patchy publication histories for most of Sutcliff's books for the wiki."
Oh my gosh, you did that fabulous wiki? I've been so impressed with it!
"I couldn't find any evidence that there ever were US print editions of a few of her novels, like Simon or Blood and Sand?"
Wow. No wonder it took me so long to hear about those novels.
"And besides that, apparently Henry Z. Walck was the chief of OUP New York before buying out their children's department in 1958"
Interesting!
"so did the first US printings of Eagle of the Ninth, Outcast, Shield Ring, and Silver Branch actually say Walck or OUP?"
Every Walck edition I own, including Outcast, says Walck.
"And it's definitely great to talk to someone with like...actual knowledge of publishing in a conversation like this."
Ditto. :)
no subject
Date: 2022-10-04 11:57 pm (UTC)Aw, I'm glad you like the wiki. It's like my grasp of publishing – patchy! But it's taught me a bit, in poking away at it.
I almost forgot to say! I did compare a few words between FSG editions and UK originals – mostly just a few place names that I knew were misspelled in Eagle of the Ninth and Silver Branch, since "corrections" to the Latin was what we found in FSG Outcast. The only difference I turned up was that FSG Silver Branch had "Luguvallium" where OUP had "Luguvalium", and the OUP is apparently correct. (Both editions of Eagle of the Ninth have "Luguvallium", though, so maybe FSG meant to make it consistent and chose the wrong spelling.) I also tried a few random names in Lantern Bearers and Tristan and Iseult and found no differences.
no subject
Date: 2022-10-05 03:28 pm (UTC)"(Both editions of Eagle of the Ninth have 'Luguvallium', though, so maybe FSG meant to make it consistent and chose the wrong spelling.)"
Awesome reasoning!
Here's a relevant anecdote: Back in the late 1980s, my father used, in a manuscript of his, the 1943-era state abbreviations, which were still being used at that time by those of us who were old-fashioned.
The OUP copy editor took a look at the press's style manual, which said that two-letter capitalized abbreviations are printed without punctuation. Whereupon she did this:
And so forth. However, she didn't change abbreviations like this:
In vain did my father point out that she was mixing up 1943-era abbreviations (which used periods) with 1963-era abbreviations (which didn't). The copy editor insisted that this was what the style manual said, so she was going by the style manual.
My point being that copy editors can be dumb like that. (I say this as a former copy editor.)
no subject
Date: 2022-10-06 11:46 am (UTC)And TIL about the evolution of state abbreviations.