Anyone got an old edition of Outcast?

[hedgebird]

I 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.)

Comments

[duskpeterson]

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!

[hedgebird]

On my part, sorry for my rather slow replies! Things keep inconsiderately going on IRL. (Sidenote, how does one become a bibliographer and print historian, anyway?)

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.

[duskpeterson]

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!

[hedgebird]

Yes, I remember seeing that post about The Shining Company! I wonder what the difference could have been? It wasn't the most obvious possibility, the cover art.

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.

[duskpeterson]

"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. :)

[hedgebird]

Oh hahaha, apparently I looked at two copies of the same edition and mentally edited one? IDK. Now I'm actually seeing both: agreed, I prefer the FSG art. There probably is a scene in the book like the Bodley Head one... but I can't immediately remember it.

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.

[duskpeterson]

"(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:

• D. C. > DC
• N. H. > NH
• N. J. > NJ

And so forth. However, she didn't change abbreviations like this:

• Ala.
• Ariz.
• Ark.

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.)

[hedgebird]

Hahaha ahhh... who needs logic, when you've got a Rulebook?

And TIL about the evolution of state abbreviations.