Dear Sir,
Ever since I started in journalism in 1958, my spelling (and that of all my colleagues) has been controlled by the prevailing House Style Book.
It also controlled punctuation and capitalization, and frequently was based on a broader style book, like the Associated Press or New York Times.
In my experience, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, et al have been standardized and projected as a manifestation of the publisher’s identity, not the contributing writer’s or the reader’s – a “perk” of ownership, maybe.
Now, as a publisher of U.S. heritage and presumably citizenship, you are operating in a market that has been – and might still be – dominated by U.S. expats, but now has a heavy and perhaps dominant Canadian constituency, plus others from the UK, Australia and other English-using countries. Should you surrender your owner’s “perk” and identity to be hospitable to each of these other national readerships (and contributorships)?
Bear in mind, this affects not only spelling, but as you yourself point out so amusingly, definitions and word usage in some cases.
I would vote No. As a naturalized American and former Australian journalist, I would find the lack of a comfortable and consistent standard spelling to be slightly disrupting and disappointing. Webster’s American English is under assault around the world (the New York-based United Nations does not use it) and other countries like Australia that used to use some of it no longer do. How strident are our Canadian friends in their demands to see their version of standard English used instead of being automatically Americanized in the Guadalajara Reporter?
If they are very upset, I would suspect they haven’t adjusted well to the dominance the largest English-speaking country in the world has exerted over them (and others) since the fall of the British Empire.
Jim Dickinson
Dear Sir,
In response to your invitation to give an opinion re spellings, my suggestion would be to as a rule leave the spellings of English and Canadian contributors as they are. As a Canadian I have become used to seeing American spellings in the Reporter, but if I am reading a piece that I know is from a Canadian contributor it jars me somewhat if he or she refers to neighbors, labor day or, strangest of all, “napkins” when not referring to (alternative word) diapers, but to serviettes.
American readers should have no trouble in understanding such alternatives, but perhaps if the writer is English and mentions dustbins and dustmen, who collect the rubbish, there might be a case for “correcting” such Anglicisms.
So perhaps it should be tackled case by case, at the discretion of the editor.
Ronald Napier
Dear Sir,
As a Frenchman who learned British English in high school (Lycée) and had to adjust to American English when I came to the US for graduate studies, I strongly recommend that you publish any article with the “correct” spelling of the author’s native land. To impose American spelling would be somewhat arrogant as, after all, British English is spoken by far more people than American English on our planet, if only because of India!
Jean-Claude Tatinclaux
Dear Sir,
First, kudos to Joan Jordan for her LLT theater reviews. They are succinct and astute, and I agree with every one of them.
However, as regards her recent review of “The Clean House,” I have one bone to pick. I saw a production of this show in California in 2010, which was very well done. When I saw the production at LLT, I hardly recognized the play. When I reread the script, I realized that it had been cut mercilessly.
Joan has every right to assume that the original script has been adhered to but in this instance it was not. It might be a good idea, in future reviews, to read the script beforehand. Keep up the good work!
Rosann Balbontin
Dear Sir,
Having thoroughly enjoyed the penultimate performance of “The Clean House” at Lakeside Little Theatre, I was surprised and disappointed by Joan Jordan’s less-than-lukewarm review of this play in The Guadalajara Reporter. While I absolutely respect her right to express her opinion, Ms. Jordan’s cutting words seemed more appropriate for a major professional production than an amateur play presented in a small village in the mountains of Mexico. Her criticism of the script, acting, direction, and even the set – which she inaccurately described as “bare bones” – struck me as bordering on cruel.
I will admit that I’m prejudiced in favor of enjoying the performances at LLT, as I’m now friends with many of the regular contributors to these productions. When I very recently ran into some members of the cast and crew of “The Clean House,” I mentioned my displeasure with Ms. Jordan’s review. I asked about Ms. Jordan and I was told that her name is a pseudonym, and no one I talked to seemed to know who she might be. As a former professional journalist, I’m surprised that “Ms. Jordan” chooses to hid behind a shield of anonymity. And I’m shocked that editors and management of The Guadalajara Reporter allow her to do so. Again, I respect “Joan Jordan’s” right to write whatever she feels about a play like “The Clean House,” but I have no respect for her unwillingness to publically take responsibility for her words.
George Frazier