Perhaps, with an English edition, ALL the words will be included (joke).
Actually, no joke. I have I think three paperback editions of "OTB" (including the first one I bought in 1963), and in that one there happens to be a missing line of dialogue. The line is literally one separate line in a conversation, by itself constituting an entire paragraph. In reading the book the first time, I realized that the conversation suddenly had one character responding to herself -- meaning that a line had been dropped. It was not until a number of years later, when I was given a newer copy of the book, that I immediately looked up that page and found that indeed a single line had been accidentally lost in the earlier edition. Nothing of drastic importance, but you do want the whole book, of course. Anyway, that seems to have been a one-off error, never repeated to my knowledge.
Of course, a British edition will have Shute's original British spellings, so in that sense you're getting the purer, original version!
Tell you a quick story. An older friend of mine lived in Australia, among other places, for several years when he worked for Grumman Aircraft. His son met and married a girl down under and now lives there permanently. A few years ago I asked who his son worked for. He replied, "For something called the C.S.I.R.O., and don't ask me what that stands for." I answered, "Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation." [I write it here in its native spelling!] He looked at me with surprise and I simply said, "I read 'On the Beach'."
In the movie, Dwight (Gregory Peck) mentions the group when he's asking Moira (Ava Gardner -- who's just passed out) about Julian (Fred Astaire), saying, "I understand he works for the C.S.I.R." For some reason he left off the "O", which is in the correct abbreviation. Incidentally, for no reason I can think of, the character of "Julian Osborne" in the movie is "John Osborne" in the book. Maybe Stanley Kramer didn't want to use the name of the English playwright, or some equally silly issue. There are other character differences I'll leave it for you to discover.
reply
share
Toshi51
9 years ago
Interesting story. I guess the book is part of Australia's cultural history, along with "Mad Max" and the BeeGees.
I ordered a first edition, not a collectable but in good condition. Reading the Queen's English is a nice change. UK books are printed in fonts that are sometimes more interesting. Usually the paper is better quality and are the bindings. Just better books.
Interesting about the John Osborne character. US produced movies are all about lawyers. They must have their own buildings at film studios.
Here is a story about English books. I am a fan of Douglas Reeman. Twenty years ago, many of his books were not available in the USA for some reason. I contacted his publisher to inquire why that was, reminding them "we do read here." He appreciated that humor and within a year or two all of Reeman's works became available stateside. I do not claim to be the cause of that. Perhaps I just sped them along.
reply
share
hobnob53
9 years ago
Well, one thing I learned a lot about from reading the novel is Australian geography. Geography was always one of my favorite subjects, even as a kid (still is), so the book intrigued me for that reason too.
I never noticed any significant or fundamental differences between the quality of American and British books. I have noticed differences in things like fonts and paper, as you pointed out, but never encountered any general qualitative issues of one country vs. another. I've had British editions of not great quality, but in my experience there's been no consistency in one being better or worse.
I tend to doubt the Osborne business had anything to do with lawyers back then. I think somebody simply had a goofy idea. After all, the name was in the book, and names of real people did make it into other films with characters unrelated to the real individual. Or maybe they felt Fred Astaire just looked like a "Julian"!
Not quite the same thing, but when they filmed the first movie version of Orwell's 1984 in 1955, the name of the Inner Party character (played by Michael Redgrave) was changed from O'Brien to O'Connor -- doubtless to avoid viewer confusion, since the star of the film was Edmond O'Brien. Speaking of changes from a novel, it was only a few years ago I learned, from exchanges on that film's IMDb site, that the ending of the British version was very different from the US print. The former received a sort-of (in the context of things) upbeat ending, while the American version is more or less faithful to the novel. I've never seen the altered UK ending. But the British did the same thing the same year in Halas and Batchelor's cartoon version of Animal Farm, giving it a "happy ending" that completely ruined the point of the book, as well as the story.
But back to name changes: two 1953 movies have cast members playing characters with the last name of another, actual cast member, and that does cause a bit of confusion. In Mogambo Ava Gardner plays a character named Kelly, despite the presence of co-star Grace Kelly. Similarly, in Escape From Fort Bravo, William Demarest plays a man called Campbell, even though his closest companion in the film is actor William Campbell. Neither of these would have been difficult to change.
I'll bet you did play the crucial role in getting Reeman's books published here. Once or twice I've contacted a "small-batch" video producer asking or recommending that a film be put out on DVD and, lo and behold, a few months later, there it is. It's reassuring to know that sometimes people do listen.
reply
share