A Canadian paper just picked up my review of Philip Roth’s Everyman. I’m not particularly happy with it for various reasons (mostly because it’s poorly written and my editor chopped it up a bit) , but it’s out there, and there is nothing I can do about it now.
Otherwise, the book was vintage Roth, to the point of being almost a rehash of all his other personas he’s tried out throughout the years. A watered-down version of Zuckerman. But, of course, this being Philip Roth, the book was also amazingly well written most of the time.
May 15, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Why use the word “colour” instead of “color” in your review? I’m sorry, but I don’t undertand the difference between the two. The online Mirriam Webster dictionary defines “colour” as a “chiefly English variant of ‘color’”. Their definition of “color” says that it is a derivation of Middle English. I know a bit about Middle English, mostly from reading Chaucer’s Cantebury Tales, but I forgot to bring my Middle English dictionary with me today.
Otherwise, good review. I wonder if the ideas raised and discussed in the book will not prove more relevant depending on one’s station in life. I know that when I re-read a book, often what I get out of the book changes with my perspective and outlook on life at the time I am reading it.
May 15, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Joe, the quick answer is that the review you read was printed in a Canadian newspaper, which most likely uses British English. Either their editor there made the change, or AP sends out a “British English” version in addition to an American.
I’d imagine the Canadian newspapers just run their stuff through a spell-checker to get things coming out that way.
Perhaps Paul knows better..
May 24, 2006 at 11:58 pm
yeah it is Canadian to spell colour with a ‘u’. Harbour, labour, etc. We also say serviette instead of napkin sometimes and we often sit on a chesterfield instead of a couch. It is an exciting place up here where anything could happen (within reason and as long as it doesn’t get people upset).