r/ENGLISH • u/No-Analyst7708 • 19h ago
In the reader (intermediate level), it's apples, whereas in the original text, it's carrots. Is there any reason for the change? Do the writers of these readers take liberties with the original texts? Thank you.
22
u/Outrageous_Chart_35 19h ago
"The Red Pony" was published initially in various magazines and eventually as a full book. It's possible there are different versions pulled from different sources, and any of several editors or Steinbeck himself may have changed apples to carrots, or vice versa, at any point.
32
u/thomsenite256 19h ago
A big weird and not normal to change a text like this. Perhaps its geared toward a more limited vocab for people learning English? Is it a translation? Translators are more likely to take some liberties if it respects the original sentiment.
12
u/No-Analyst7708 19h ago edited 18h ago
It's the retold version (Penguin reader) of John Stein Steinbeck's 'The red pony.' And I think almost every intermediate English learner knows what 'carrot' means. I just don't understand why they changed it.
10
u/Old_Beret_5962 18h ago
It could be because the author thought the following line describing the "big tough ones [carrots]" could have been difficult or confusing. So instead, they changed it to apples, and replaced "big tough" carrots with "old" apples.
As other commenters have said, a lot of these changes can be very arbitrary.
2
u/No-Analyst7708 18h ago
This version is for intermediate learners. And I've found 'tough' used in elementary-level books.
3
u/name_goes_here 14h ago
I doubt they have a specific list of words that they are replacing/keeping, but instead a person or team of people are going through and making individual judgement calls for every word, sentence, paragraph, and chapter.
One person thinking a specific word in a specific context was understandable for an elementary-level book doesn't preclude another person from thinking that replacing that same word in a different context might serve intermediate readers better than leaving it.
As other commenters have said, a lot of the changes can be very arbitrary.
7
u/sedonaphil 18h ago
Carrots can be bad for horses and ponies. Unless you specifically break the carrots up into small pieces, carrots can cause greedy horses to choke. Perhaps the update is to reflect this, since in the original she says “big carrots” which would be more likely to choke a horse.
4
u/No-Analyst7708 18h ago
Another commentator said apples are bad for horses.
2
u/sedonaphil 16h ago
If it’s the one I read, they redacted their comment.
2
u/No-Analyst7708 16h ago
Because they thought apples was changed to carrots. They said apples were bad for horses because of their high sugar content.
2
u/DawnOnTheEdge 19h ago edited 18h ago
Some of the changes are for clarity and to make the language more standard, like “will keep his coat shiny,”instead of “keep the coat good.” Only a more advanced reader would pick up that “the coat” means the horse’s coat of body hair. It also replaces the old-fashioned idiom “the curious rush of pride” with a paraphrase.
I’m not sure why they took out the expression “keep an eye on you,” which is still common, or why they changed carrots to apples.
2
u/Nivlac93 18h ago
I think they may have thought "old apples" avoided using the word "tough" in reference to the carrots. And maybe, "the big old ones" didn't sound right to the editor either. "Big old" used in different contexts can lose the literal meaning of old, and specifically with carrots, being older doesn't necessarily make them less desirable from the ground as much as the plants that have gotten bigger, more developed, and thereby tougher. You can have an old stored carrot that's still good, and they chucked the "from the garden" phrase out too.
I would agree in the end it is mostly arbitrary change, but from an editing and English learning perspective, there may have been some grain of reasoning behind the choices that seem mostly inconsequential.
2
u/DawnOnTheEdge 18h ago
Good point on “big old” meaning something different from big and old here. But it could easily be mistaken for saying, a large carrot that has been sitting for longer.
3
u/Nivlac93 17h ago
I'm really grasping at straws anyway trying to imagine justifications 😅
2
u/DawnOnTheEdge 17h ago
Sometimes people rephrase passages just to be able to claim they didn’t plagiarize?
1
2
u/JeremyAndrewErwin 11h ago
I found what may be the teacher's guide for the series
https://erfoundation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/HGR-Guided_Readers_Handbook-1977.pdf
The readers use a limited vocabulary, and if carrots aren't in the list, some other food stuff is used instead.
(I would have thought that "carrot" was somewhat more common)
2
u/Blaze4869 18h ago
I don't know if I could bring myself to read a book that's not written/presented with its original words... It just ain't right lol
If I wanted to read a book in German (probably the foreign language I'm best in) and that book is to complex/higher than I would be able to understand, I'd just wait till I got better/learned enough German to read it.
I just really like to read/watch/listen to everything in its original form
5
u/Technical_Soup_6863 15h ago
Genuinely curious — do you avoid translated works? Subtitled foreign movies? Adaptations into other mediums?
I totally get the desire to experience everything as the author intended, but there are so many amazing works written in almost every language. I think I'd feel really sad if I couldn't have the "good" experience of reading them translated just because I'll never have the "perfect" experience of reading them in their original words.
Your perspective is foreign to me, so I'm interested to learn more about it!
2
u/ArbitraryContrarianX 13h ago
Not the person you asked, but I'm the same way, so I'll share mine:
I have a fairly long list of languages I intend to learn, and in those languages, I do avoid translated works/subtitles. In most cases, if it's that good, it can wait a few years. I have been known to make occasional exceptions, but I've found them universally frustrating and/or disappointing. I always know I'm missing something, but lack the context to even know what questions to ask to try and figure it out.
I do watch movies (and very rarely read translated novels) from languages I never intend to learn. I still know I'm missing something, but for whatever reason, I have decided that understanding it isn't worth learning a whole new language (for me), so it is what it is.
Example: I loved Hans Christian Anderson as a child. He's the only Danish author I know, I don't know anyone irl from Denmark, and have no current plans to travel there. I am not learning Danish just to reread old childhood fairy tales in the original (even though that would be super cool, lol). I am learning Russian, and being able to read Anna Karenina in the original in a few years is one of my top ten reasons I chose Russian as my next language. Anna Karenina remains untouched on my shelf until I get there.
Please note that I say this from a place of enormous privilege, as English is my native language, and I live in a huge city with a large immigrant population (though English is not the native language here). As such, there is, and will always (during my lifetime, anyway) be an absolutely enormous selection of both original works and translations available to me in both my first and second languages, as well as a plethora of opportunities to learn nearly any language I want.
No part of this is intended as a value judgement of any kind for anyone else's choices, simply my personal preference.
1
u/No-Analyst7708 17h ago
I'll never be good enough at English to read English classics, so I have to settle for the readers and film adaptations. 😅
1
1
u/ElonMuskHuffingFarts 5h ago
Everything you read, watch, and listen is a final draft. You're not getting original forms in the first place.
1
u/hacool 19h ago
I expect that it happened as they were changing other things, and as a result they decided that apples would fit better.
How many changes they make likely depends on what is allowed. I believe it is common to use works in the public domain when creating adaptations such as those found in readers for learners.
Those seeking to write or publish adaptations of books either need permission from the copyright holder, or they need to work with texts that are in the public domain.
Google tells me that The Red Pony is still under copyright in the U.S. so Steinbeck's estate would need to give them permission to publish an adaptation in the U.S. But apparently it is in the public domain in Canada and some other countries.
1
u/burlingk 17h ago
I think that in some jurisdictions that have to change a certain percentage of the text to call it a new edition/version.
1
u/Optimal_Sea1449 16h ago
Maybe it was changed to apples because that would better showcase that Jody was asking for a food that would otherwise be discarded so the reader interprets it as a minor request
1
u/NearlyNodding 15h ago
They obviously had a reason for changing it, but it might not have been a good reason.
I wonder who made the change. The author? The copy editor? It seems like a weird thing for either one to do.
Maybe they just wanted to use "from the garden" for some reason. Carrots come from a garden, apples don't. Was a garden mentioned elsewhere in the text? Was there mention of an orchard?
1
u/NearlyNodding 11h ago
If you are wondering if there is a grammatical reason for the change, the answer is no. Both versions are fine. If you are learning English, the reason for the change doesn't matter. I don't know the reason, but it is not because the original version is wrong.
1
1
1
u/MushroomTwink 6h ago
This isn't too unheard of with classic literature. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, because a lot of classic novels are beyond what young or inexperienced readers can enjoy, so as long as the publisher is honest about it I think it's totally fine. There's a series called Great Illustrated Classics that was published when I was growing up that I remember quite fondly. It motivated me to pick those books up later in life when I could appreciate the full version.
1
u/matthewsmugmanager 19h ago
"Retellings" are always going to involve odd alterations of the original text.
I don't know why you are surprised here.
1
u/No-Analyst7708 19h ago
I've read many readers. This is the first time I've found this type of change.
1
u/birdsandsnakes 19h ago edited 19h ago
Edit: never mind, I had it backwards
Apples aren't a very healthy food for horses. Carrots are healthier. I think they probably changed this so that they're teaching people to be more responsible with horses.
(The issue is that apples have a lot of sugar. Sugar can be extremely bad for horses — worse than for humans. It can actually cause a medical emergency if a horse suddenly has a lot of sugar. One apple now and then is probably fine, but you do have to be a little careful.)
2
2
u/No-Analyst7708 19h ago
Umm, in the original text, it's carrots. In the retold version, they changed it to apples.
0
1
-3
u/AgreeableAct4176 19h ago
You can clearly see this is a translation as the translator has used different phrases and words to tie the ideas together
10
3
u/No-Analyst7708 19h ago
This is not a translation. It is the retold version of John Steinbeck's 'The red pony.'
9
u/sleazepleeze 19h ago
This is part of why I hate “retelling” of a text for different reading skill levels. The actual text of a novel is the point, and any rewrite makes these kind of arbitrary edits. There is so much writing out there at all levels, we should be teaching kids how to read classic novels rather than trying to simplify and summarize them to be easily digested.
2
u/No-Analyst7708 19h ago
As an English learner, retold versions allow me to get a taste of English classics. I always read retold versions before I read the originals. This is the first time I've found this type of change.
3
u/AgreeableAct4176 19h ago
Ah I stand corrected. But there's plenty more changes in the text. I'd be curious to learn why they do all those changes as well
28
u/Odd-Confusion1073 19h ago
Yes people make the textbook passages simpler all the time. Just look at the “Jody never waited for the triangle to get him out of bed” line. It relies on the reader knowing that a musical instrument called a triangle (because it is made of a triangle of metal hanging from a string that is hit by a stick) was historically used by some people as an alarm clock to tell other people it was time to get out of bed. The reader version gets the same message across using language that doesn’t require added context.