Anne of Windy Poplars, Anne of Windy Willows

Up until now, these books were combined as they were seen as different titles of essentially the same work.
Recently they were split with this disambiguation notice:
"'Anne of Windy Willows' was published in the US and Canada as 'Anne of Windy Poplars' because the American Publisher thought it too similar to 'Wind in the Willows', but obviously the Windy Willows title was the one Montgomery originally chose, and it was used when it was published outside those two countries. However, there are some textual differences, so the two works should not be combined"

I have the Windy Willows title and til now didn't know of any differences between the two titles...

So, what ARE these textual differences?

Are they simply minor changes in text, like what I understand occured in the UK vs US Harry Potter editions? (BTW They are NOT split even if there aresome US and UK vocab changes)

Or, have I been missing whole sections (or plot points) because the book my grandmother gave me was published in Australia and not the US?

edited typos

... if the textual difference is switching "willows" to "poplars" throughout then I'm going to go with merge. To me this seems very like the Harry Potter situation.

The CK history shows that btt4me added that disambiguation notice on Feb. 18. Why not ask her that question on their profile? It sounds like the difference is minor enough to not justify a separation but we might as well see what she has to say about it.

According to Wikipedia:

Montgomery's original title for the book was Anne of Windy Willows, but her US publisher requested that she change the title because of the title's similarities to The Wind in the Willows. Additionally, her publisher requested some cuts to the book, mainly for perceived gory or terrifying content. Montgomery complied, and the edited novel was published in the United States and Canada as Anne of Windy Poplars. Her UK publisher, however, did not see the need for the edits and published the unabridged version under the original title, Anne of Windy Willows.

so >1 ryn_books: - you apparently get MORE details rather than less by reading the NON-US version.

An essay that includes a comparison is found here:
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~FG5M-OGM/avonlea/differs.htm
(translation is to the left).

The main points from the essay:

In chapter 5 of The First Year, Anne goes for a walk in a nearby graveyard. She is surprised to meet the local dressmaker, Miss Valentine Courtaloe, there. Miss Courtaloe is able to provide Anne with brief histories on many of the persons buried in the cemetery. There are 9 graves described in Anne of Windy "Willows" that are missing from "Poplars".. (bold mine - PL)

In her last letter to Gilbert at the end of the book Anne writes to Gilbert that she "went to my old graveyard and wondered IF STEPHEN PRINGLE HAS CLOSED HIS EYES AT LAST, AND if Herbert Pringle occasionally chuckled to himself in his grave." (Caps by essayist)

Being the perfectionist that she was, LMM had carefully removed this reference to Stephen Pringle when she edited "Poplars" at Stokes request.

and some more:

Readers of "Poplars" will find it hard to believe that, despite all the Tomgallon tragedies that they have already read (in chapters 10 and 11 of The Third Year), Miss Minerva Tomgallon revealed 11 more tragedies to Anne in "Willows" than in "Poplars". (Again, bold mine - PL)

Having read the essay - I don't know that the edits - 9 grave descriptions and 11 additional tragedies - are enough to warrant a full "Work" separation. BUT including this in the disambig may be off interest.

Considering the raging discussion going on about NCE's versus original works (among other discussions about works and expanded works), I'd say that these two editions definitely belong combined.

>3 jjwilson61:
Thanks for that tip.
Have dropped a note on their profile and invited them them to join the discussion.

The differences are not enough to warrant separation. Not at all.

Hi there.
Passing on the message from the member who separated them.

"A fairly complete list of the textual differences is given in the thread. My reasoning for separating the two books is that serious fans would really like to have a copy of each. If there were a grouping level below work (perhaps it could be called "variation" or "version") and above edition, then I would suggest that the two books be distinguished that way. As this type of granularity does not exist, I separated the books into separate works. I know that they really are essentially the same book, but saw no other way to distinguish them. If the concensus is to regroup them, I'll not do the work to separate them again. One thing is certain - it is not something that I would like to see any hard feelings over. "

I think it would make sense to put in a disambiguation note that there are textual differences as well as the title variation.

I would still be inclined to combine them - my Harry Potter à l'école des Sorciers is combined with my Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone even though the French edition is somewhat abridged from the English version - I still consider them the same book, and I can see both versions easily distinguishable by title when I look at the work page.

Yes, I would combine them, too, but with a note so that the information here is available.

Those differences sound much smaller than those between, say, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, to say nothing of the differences between translations that are routinely combined.

This topic is six years old, but Anne of Windy Poplars and Anne of Windy Willows are still separate works. I have just read them side by side, and searched online, and the textual differences are minimal. The passages that were removed from AofWW don't add up to more than two pages—not enough to be considered an abridgement. The only other differences are very minor changes in punctuation and word choice (waked/awakened). I am reluctant to combine such a popular work myself, but if someone who is better at tying up loose ends than I am would like to do it, I can assure you that they really are the same work.

There is a pdf of the differences here: http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/anneofgreengables/images/4/48/List_of_differ...

As a collector of LMM works, I agree that these two versions should be combined. The differences between the texts is not enough to merit separation under LT's usage.

I note that the comparison PDF uses modern paperback editions. At first glance, that seems risky to me because within a given country or even publisher there can be a cascade of different editorial changes made over time. It would be best to compare original editions from each country. I have a Harrap hardcover from the UK and a Stokes hardcover from the US. These are probably as original as they come for each version. I'll try to find some time to see if the paperbacks are faithful texts from their respective countries.

I suppose it has been discussed before but an author like Douglas Adams has seen some pretty extensive differences between U.K. and U.S. editions, including use of the "F" word in the original U.K. versions. Yet, I'm sure these are combined.

Jules Verne books have more extensive changes according to translation and how far down the road the work was printed. Some translators, like Edward Roth, inserted many passages that are not found in Verne's text in French or other translations. These works are combined. Occasionally we can succeed in separating out texts where one is largely augmented and edited by Jules Verne's son, Michel, during Jules' lifetime as compared with modern translations that go back to the Jules Verne manuscripts which make for rather different stories.

Not differentiated, even though they should be, are the two versions of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew stories. Here the same titles were sometimes used at the head of completely different stories in what collectors call "original text" and "revised text" editions. Some stories are simply "cut down" and others are completely rewritten. For these, the ways that a collector knows the difference is the copyright year and the number of pages/chapters. It's hard for LT to know the difference, of course.

Such are the problems with combinations. Often these are combined and I agree that Anne of Windy Poplars/Anne of Windy Willows should be combined.

James