SETUP:
As if I didn't get enough rejection by "placing" as a quarterfinalist in WOTF (with the good company of hundreds of others), I decided to try to send it out again.

Out of laziness, I noticed that Interzone is taking email submissions this month, so I sent it there yesterday. I didn't mention anything about being a quarterfinalist in the email cover as an unpublished 'credit', I figure, it's better NOT mentioned.

QUESTION:
Today it hit me. Interzone is a British SF&F magazine. My story is set in North America, with Americanized spellings, punctuations, not to mention use of double quotes for dialog, instead of single quotes. Who knows what other sensibilities I'm stepping on?

Is that a big deal? Should I have revised it for a British market?
 

Puzzled by your mention of double quotes for dialogue - I've always used them, and always been taught to use them, and I'm a Brit.

However, were you the one who mentioned in another thread about not wanting your US speelings etc. to be "adjusted" for British publication? I'm sure I read that somewhere recently, and it struck me as a really odd thing to be concerned about. Why would you be concerned that you'd written "favor" and the book had the word "favour" in it? I just couldn't get my head round that. Now, translation is a different matter - I've often wondered how authors feel about translations, particularly "literary" authors whose works might be full of references and allusions that a translator might miss - but the adjusting of American to English spelling? Just seems way too minor to get bothered over.

But that's just my opinion. YMMV.
 

IF they accepted it (a very big IF), I'd have no problem with them adjusting it. Of course, I wouldn't have a clue where to begin adjusting it myself.

The reason I mentioned single quotes may be a misunderstanding. I also critted an entire novel with single quote dialog where the writer was British. So when I read Talon Of The Silver Hawk (I think it was that) and encountered single quotes in dialog, I took that to mean it was British.
 

It all seens wasted effort---some kind of sinister conspiracy on the part of British publishers to claim spelling superiority over the people of their former colony.

It hardly thrills me to have it work the other way, either, and more often than not, it isn't done. (I understand there's been a good deal of working over the "Harry Potter" books---pointlessly, in my view.)

Chances are, on eventual publication (after presumed acceptance), a story would come through with everything corrected according to British usage. Not that there's anything you can do about it...
 

quote:

---

Spellings corrected to British usage, in works written by Americans but published in the UK, irritate me.

---

Why in the world would that bother you? Words that are spelled incorrectly are jarring, and tend to pull the reader out of the story...regardless of whether the spelling is correct in another country. Even if you KNOW intellectually the spelling is correct elsewhere, your brain still stutters on those words. The publisher is merely making the reading experience smoother for their audience. As an author, I would be grateful to have a publisher spend their own time and expense to eliminate any potential to disrupt the flow of the story for the reader.

Too many times we see conspiracy in a corporation's actions, when there is really only one issue at hand... it's business. It makes them more money. If they choose to make a change, it's because they feel it will influence sales in a positive manner.
 

I certainly don't have this trouble with British works and British authors.
 

I just read a Partially Clips in which the term "Sanbai-Otaku" was coined. When it was written (over three years ago) I wouldn't have had the least idea what that meant other than that it was supposed to be Japanese. Reading it in 2006 I understood it instantly. That's the power of having a non-formalized language. The cost is that people "translating" that into a formalized language will always lose much of the point.
 

quote:

---

No, it's a matter of American pride and patriotism,

---

That's hilarious, or hysterical, can't figure out which.

This from a nation that still use IMPERIAL measurements. You would think it would be a matter of national pride to show the world they can get it together enough to make the switch. But they can't -- so it's moot.

TEACHERCHERNOBYL: Single quotes is standard in British text, double quotes indicate someone quoting someone else in dialogue for instance:

'I asked Tom and he said, "Get lost turkey." So I left him alone.'

But double quotes is considered okay.

CHRISOWENS: It will not be a problem.

I don't care if Americans change the spelling or not, what bugs me is when they dumb-down a reference and change its meaning. To use a simple example already cited, didn't the Americans change HP and the Philosopher's Stone to HP and the Sorcerers Stone? That changes the meaning and allusion and renders the references to Nicholas Flamel meaningless. Most 'british' readers just roll their eyes at stuff like that and think, 'too bad -- their loss."

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 11, 2006).]
 

Personally, if I wrote a story using my Canadian/British spellings and an American publisher took out the "u" when printing a story, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I'd just be happy to sell a story.

Changing titles though, is another matter. The US title of the first HP book is different from the British title (they changed "Philosophers Stone" to "Sorcers Stone").
 

quote:

---

SNAP! rcoporon

---

Eh? Didn't get that.
 

Anyone ever heard of a book entitled HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE?
 

(I just mentioned HP and the title switch with a little added invective.)

Edit: Snap! is a card game for kids where you 'snap' matching pairs.

Oh well, might bump up christine's "reading posts" thread.
.
.
.
.
.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 12, 2006).]
 

I guess continuing to point at HP won't make them acknowledge that American publishers change things, too.

<shrug>
 

( I like Kathleen. )
 

Same example, different points.

But your point is taken. We should have worded things differently and acknowledged that you mentioned the book first.
 

I like you, too, hoptoad.
 

However, my copy of Ender’s Game, published in Britain, retains the American spellings. So basically, there doesn’t seem to be a problem with one country doing something that the other is not, or vice versa.
Americans probably don't notice that British spellings have been changed because it's so natural to read what you're used to. Which is exactly how it should be.

quote:

---

won't make them acknowledge that American publishers change things

---

Acknowldge it? Of course I acknowledge it. American publishers change the words of American writers, so why should the Brits be exempt?
 

As for "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone"...I don't understand why Rowling put up with changes of that order, or even a pointless change of title. (I wonder if "lack of commercial clout" played into it---can anybody enlighten us as to changes or lack of changes of this kind in the last volume?)

As for metricism---the United States expended its effort by seeing that it had a hundred pennies to the dollar long before the British switched off pounds-shillings-pence. Also the US government has bent to the wishes of its people rather than force on them a measurement based on a perceentage of the meridian that runs between London and Paris.
 

We're just incurably multicultural, that's all. Some of us even know what a li is.
 

quote:

---

As for metricism---the United States expended its effort by seeing that it had a hundred pennies to the dollar long before the British switched off pounds-shillings-pence.

---

Such a shame the united states didn't expend enough effort to finish the job, isn't it?

Metricism is a cool new word, may I use it? It happifies me.
.
.
Lack of thoroughness and consistency aside, did you know that I like americans? I like to stand near them --they make me look skinny. That reminds me, the yard used to be the length of a man's belt, but in the 12th century, King Henry I of England fixed the yard as the distance from his nose to the thumb of his out-stretched arm — 36 inches. Use it as much as you like, pay homage to good king Henry with every foot race your kids run, with every dress your women make, and every football game your men play.
.
.
.
Survivor, is that true? Just because I know what a gallon is, does not mean I know what a gill is. Do americans use gills? Are most americans really incurably multicultural? I understand a society being multicultural, but how can a person be multicultural? Multiracial--yes, polyglot--yes, but a multicultural individual?

Surely it is more likely that someone from a multi-cultural home would develop a synthesised personal culture manifesting aspects of itself in varying intensities depending on circumstances, whether they were operating within the cultural context of one parent or the other and differently within the home, and diffferently again in other, unrelated cultural contexts. Even if this is true, surely it is not true of most americans?

REAL QUESTION: Why do they call it "U.S. Customary System"? Does that mean it is not the "Official" system?

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 12, 2006).]
 

'Gotten'? What is 'gotten'?
Is that an Americanism?

And they nit us about 'alright'.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 12, 2006).]
 

Is it wrong for me to enjoy being naughty?
 

While it isn't necessarily true that a person who really knows how long a mile is will also know how long a kilometer is, it is true of all Americans who know, in practice, how long a mile is. That is, in fact, all those Americans who really know what a mile is also know what a kilometer is. Also, most Americans can keep the metric system (which they were taught in school) straight, so most of them do know their meters/liters/grams at least as well as they know their pounds/yards/gallons. So it is basically true either way you look at it.

As for multi-cultural homes...non-multi-cultural homes are a definite minority here in the U.S., it's one of the things that makes our society fundamentally different from others, to an extent that people from other nations do not understand and frankly cannot even imagine. I'll leave that alone, because to most Americans these days it seems totally natural that such should be the case, while most non-americans it simply doesn't make any sense to even say it. But that is the way it is. More importantly, "American" culture is fundamentally multi-cultural, and has been for a long time.

As for your final question, yes, that is correct. It is defined, in law, as not being the "official" or even "preferred" system. It is composed of units, recognized as "customary", which are in common use and are defined by law so as to prevent fraud.
 

quote:

---

Do americans use gills?

---

Fish use gills. As an american, I wouldn't have a clue what else the term might mean.

quote:

---

Are most americans really incurably multicultural? I understand a society being multicultural, but how can a person be multicultural? Multiracial--yes, polyglot--yes, but a multicultural individual?

---

One of the things that happens between different English-speaking nations is that different words have differing levels of intensity and nuance of meaning. I hadn't ever thought of this particular one before, but I thought I might make a stab at explaining the American thought process about the word "multi-cultural."

I spent about a year and a half working in the Violence Prevention Program for the health department of a government (county) agency. There are federal laws in America that require equal treatment regardless of race. In order to provide measurements of compliance, non-compliance, government and non-profit social service agencies are very attentive to gathering statistics about race.

The Health Department I worked for was, like all other government programs of its kind, highly attuned to the fact that different RACES come from different cultural backgrounds. All county personnel were given mandatory "Cultural Competency" training, so that we became aware of cultural differences.

In the Health Department we had many visiting home nurses and community workers who went into people's homes to provide social services. If you didn't have multi-cultural training, you might accidently do something highly rude without meaning to, and cut off any possibility of building trust and rapport with that client.

For instance, it is perfectly normal, as a white person, to refuse any offer of food or drink if you are on a business call and only going to be at the house for a short while. We white folk are taught from the time we are small children to not impose on our host/hostess. It is an act of respect and politeness to refuse food. But in a HISPANIC household, if you refuse an offer of food and drink, you are sending a different message. It is considered very offensive, like you are too "high and mighty" to lower yourself to partake, or like their food isn't good enough. That would be a bad message to send to a new client, wouldn't it? Without the training, you would have no way of knowing you had stepped into a minefield of cultural inappropriateness.

If you are having a heart to heart talk with a Native American, you should make sure the person has a glass of water to drink. Water is sacred, and it is an act of respect for the other person to provide the water for them. If you are meeting with a black person (especially someone older than you) and you don't know them well, you had better use their last name: Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Jackson. It's a sign of respect. If you show disrespect, even unknowingly, you may never gain their trust.

There are hundreds of little nuances in behavior dependant on culture. America is truly a melting-pot, and we have to work hard at it to understand each other's cultures. We are proud to be a multi-cultural country. Those of us who recognize, understand, and respect the various nuances of cultural tradition are proud to call ourselves multi-cultural.

[This message has been edited by Elan (edited January 13, 2006).]
 

In other words, you implicitly demonstrated American multi-culturalism, while explicitly failing to explain it.
 

quote:

---

'Gotten'? What is 'gotten'?
Is that an Americanism?

---

I think Elan hit on something, maybe we are focussing on different aspects of the word.

You see culture means:

cul·ture P Pronunciation Key (klchr) n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

mul·ti·cul·tur·al P Pronunciation Key (mlt-klchr-l, -t-) adj.
Of, relating to, or including several cultures.

It is true that a person's culture may have many influences, but a person can only have one personal culture. Because 'culture' refers to the total or combination of all the aspects at any given time. Clearly one's culture can change over time and throughout our life.

For me, the concept of a 'multi-cultural individual' seems illogical because a personal culture is a synthesis of ALL the influences and choices, not a collection of fragmentary traits uninformed by the others.

But the word 'multicultural' referring to a group is perfectly okay. It can incorporate a number of seperate (total) personal cultures. However a personal culture is only a representative of a broader social culture. A multicultural group, society or event will therefore always be generalised because addressing specifics will always provoke the question, 'WHO decided that THAT THING is part of MY culture?' So to be fair, a 'multi-cultural' thing, can only indicate the predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize a group.

Therefore it will always be prone to accusations of superficiality and stereotyping.

So 'multicultural' -- indicates something that is generalised and superficiaI.

quote:

---

As for multi-cultural homes...non-multi-cultural homes are a definite minority here in the U.S., it's one of the things that makes our society fundamentally different from others, to an extent that people from other nations do not understand and frankly cannot even imagine.

---

It is a fundamentally unstable postion to accept the uniqueness of one's own personal culture, its influences and intricacies, but deny the same courtesy to people other than ourself by accepting generalised stereotypes of them. The above statement is such a great illustration of this position that I had to quote it, but I don't believe it is really your postion. I could be wrong.

So what defines a person's culture? My understanding is that it is a TOTAL of all behavioural patterns, beliefs and practices they have received from their forebears coupled with those that have incorporated throughout their life derived from their influences and their choices.

To be fair, you could talk about America as multicultural, but not Americans. You would be within your rights to refer to an 'American culture' however to define it would be like juggling mercury. The moment you think you have it, it changes shape and is gone.

Edit: Here is a (stupid) question: Would an alien observing Earth be correct to refer to the 'Human Culture'? If so, I wonder how would they define it.

quote:

---

As for your final question, yes, that is correct. It is defined, in law, as not being the "official" or even "preferred" system.

---

So what is the official system?

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 15, 2006).]
 

[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited January 15, 2006).]
 

Don't make me explain 'society' to you.
ie
so·ci·e·ty
B: A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

(This definition -- apart from implying that a multi-cultural society is not a single society because it does not have a common culture -- implies that a so-called 'multicultural society' must actually be a number of 'culturally diverse groups' associating one with another).

Of course people can have a personal culture. If it were not so there would be no cultural transmission of their new or peculiar beliefs, practices etc to their kids, friends or associates.

It is the process of TRANSMISSION that makes it culture.

We had a situation here in Australia where a dingo killed a kid on an offshore island. The dingoes had learned to come too close to humans to feed off rubbish. The Parks Rangers went and shot them all. Only the ones who would not come near humans were spared. Do you think that we continued to have a problem? No.

Why? Because the rubbish-eating dingoes did not pass on that behaviour/practice. Could an individual dingo in the future develop a rubbish-eating behaviour capable of being transmitted to their offspring and others? Of course. At that point, the dingo is generating a new culture, different from those that preceded it and probably from those that will follow.

It is similar to the spread of corruption in police service. The old dingoes teach the new dingoes how to eat rubbish-- so to speak. How can this culture, once established, be changed? Prevent the transmission. By assessing the old cops and isolating the ones you suspect may be corrupt. Ensure that the straight cops you have identified train-up the new recruits.

Does this mean that corruption will never reemerge? Of course not, because recruits bring in their own personal cultures to the job, right? Culture is about TRANSMISSION of those beliefs and practices, so even if they bring that trait to the job, you have created an environment designed to discourage the emergence, and retard the spread, of corruption.

You can't tell me that your folks didn't teach you a set of principles , beliefs, practices etc that is pretty much unique and combines to help create who you are. You do not have the same set of beliefs and practices etc as either of them, but rather a syntehesis of both plus a collection of others you have chosen for yourself along the way. You are wholly you. A totality of traits.

All forms of society have a culture. I am a family man, a son and father, I am also a church goer, I am also a designer, I am also a worker, and I am also an executive, I am also scots-descended Australian and a Queenslander, I am also a husband and partner etc etc etc Each of these social organisations has its own particular culture, different from other similar organisations around the world. The only place in the world where all these specific societies meet is in me. Each has influenced me in profound ways that I did not choose, but I have also changed my beliefs, practices etc by choice and with an attempt at fairness and integrity. Does that make me multicultural?

No. Like everyone else, I am influenced by many and various cultures but I do not possess many cultures. I have a personal culture derived from these influences and from my own choices.

My wife is Chinese/Samoan raised in New Zealand and living in Tasmania and my children are Chinese/Samoan/Scots/Australian. Does this make us a multicultural family? Maybe, but we also have a common culture, because we are a family. Does it make ME multicultural? Certainly not.

In a nutshell, you can't have a multicultural person because how can a person have two separate sets of attitudes and behaviours that they do not have in common with themself?

Its absurd.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 15, 2006).]
 

And of course culture is transmitted one person at a time (i.e., on an individual basis). That is how each person comes to share in the culture. Because every person is different, no one adopts all of their birth culture (or subsequent cultural exposures); and even if they did, they'd be unlikely to pass along all of it successfully. Because of this, a culture would die out or change beyond recognition very quickly--unless the society were there to help fill in the transmission holes of the parent(s).

quote:

---

This definition -- apart from implying that a multi-cultural society is not a single society because it does not have a common culture -- implies that a so-called 'multicultural society' must actually be a number of 'culturally diverse groups' associating one with another

---

quote:

---

cul·ture P Pronunciation Key (klchr) n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

---

Multiple societies within a single geographical region make for multiculturalism. And a single individual who inherits the culture of more than one of those (still existing) societies is a multi-cultural individual.

[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited January 16, 2006).]
 

quote:

---

Edit: Here is a (stupid) question: Would an alien observing Earth be correct to refer to the 'Human Culture'? If so, I wonder how would they define it.

---

Having travelled to three continents and visited many countries, it isn't hard to see beneath the cultural surface. I am struck more by our similarities than by our differences.

 

...you're absolutely right. Ultimately, as humans, we have such a shared set of core values that I sometimes wonder just who we manage to get along so badly a lot of the time.

Individual concerns seem to be pretty much the same, the world over, and arguably could be boiled down almost to one single fundamental human desire; wanting to improve things for your children's sake.

The fact that I neither have nor want children clearly makes me an alien

 

With me, that'd make at least two aliens around here... the invasion has begun...
 

per·son·al·i·ty P Pronunciation Key (pûrs-nl-t)
n. pl. per·son·al·i·ties

The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person.

and remember the definition of culture:

cul·ture P Pronunciation Key (klchr)
n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

I think you are right, personality IS what I was calling personal culture.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 16, 2006).]
 

What I think is most important now is that we unite in the face of this alien horde at our doorsteps.

Chris and TCHER: Loose lips sink ships. (We're on to you.)
.
.
.
.
.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 16, 2006).]
 

quote:

---

Of, relating to, or including several cultures.

---

I'll be quick with this one. I never said that individual Americans were generally multi-cultural (though I do make that claim for myself, or ourselves, as an individual, depending on how you define that term). I just said that Americans as a group had that quality to a degree that non-Americans don't believe possible and Americans themselves rarely truly notice.

On the other hand, looking at the definition above, there isn't any problem with saying that most individual Americans are "of [or] relating to...several cultures." And, to a degree that non-Americans simply don't understand. Believe me, I'm not making a paradoxical statement here. Simply stating a general fact about another culture, even a comparative fact about it, doesn't mean one doesn't relate to other cultures. It just means that one can state facts.

Like I (also) mentioned, I don't expect non-Americans to be capable of understanding or believing the degree to which Americans (here a plural refering to a group of people as a whole) are multicultural. I don't really mind being proved right...but it is getting a bit redundant by now
 

quote:

---

I just said that Americans as a group had that quality to a degree that non-Americans don't believe possible...

---

What evidence do you have that other peoples cannot be equally multicultural? Or is the idea simply something you don't believe possible?

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 18, 2006).]
 

I know a number of Americans who are "cultural blends", and it's hard to imagine cities more effectively multi-cultural than New York or Los Angeles.

However, in my experience, many Americans are utterly hopeless in knowing what to do or how to act when actually faced with non-American cultures, and end up coming across as extremely boorish and superior, so I'd counsel caution about getting too carried away about championing the multicultural nature of American society.

But, of course, all my evidence for this is purely based on personal experience.
 

And tcher, did it occur to you that you were the hopelessly non-multi-cultural person in those particular encounters? Because that thought definitely crossed the minds of those boorish Americans you met (meaning that they worried that they might be at fault, and probably had to intentionally suppress their multi-cultural impulses).

As the above paranthetical comment might indicate, I'm not "championing the multicultural nature of American society." I think that some of the underlying causes of the complex might be good things, but by and large I think it's silly.
 

[This message has been edited by tchernabyelo (edited January 18, 2006).]