Strange typo/error with contractions (multiple vols.)

Recently I have found a strange typo/error in two completely unrelated LOA editions.

On many longer contractions, such as "hadn't", there will be an extra space, like "had n't". This is particularly grating because it isn't a one-off but repeats constantly throughout the volume.

The two volumes I've found this in, one recent and one old, are:

O. Henry - 101 Stories
Willa Cather Novels and Stories (1905-1918) (Paperback College Edition)

Hoping LOA doesn't repeat this error in some of the forthcoming volumes.....it is highly distracting and occurs hundreds of times in each volume.

Maybe it's the way the writer intended it, maybe writers at that time did that

I have noticed errors in every volume of LOA that I have read. Most recently the Butler volume.

I've noted a few that I was certain of myself and reported at least some some of them. One I recall was in one of the William James volumes. There was a letter transposition in the middle of a word that was clearly not an intended spelling.

That space in contractions seems to be a common typographical choice in the early 20th century; I've been reading my son the Oz novels aloud, and many of them have it. I would assume LOA is not normalizing an accurate feature of whatever edition the copy text was.

>5 Stevil2001: You know what, you might be right! I found this interesting link that possibly explains the practice and why it appears on some contractions but not all:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/217821/space-before-apostrophe

What's strange to me is this goes unmentioned in the Notes On The Text in both volumes. It is such a glaring difference for the modern reader that I think they would mention it. I'm as well-read as they come and had never encountered it.

As it stands I am 90% sure you are correct. I wish I could fully confirm it. I should have more faith in LOA editors.

I've run into this practice from time to time (though I don't recall whether I've seen it on LOA volumes specifically) and I've always assumed it was an authorial predilection. In any case, I doubt if the appearance of this in LOA is a typo, but is rather following the original published text. If that is the case, I wouldn't expect note to be made of this practice in a particular work in the Notes of the Text, just as I wouldn't expect those notes to mention unusual or idiosyncratic spellings that an author might use.

Before 1910 or so, many authors and publishers (both magazines and books, both in the U.S. and in Britain) retained the space between the two words that make up a contraction. You'll find this is true in works by not only Cather and O. Henry, but also Stowe, Cooper, Irving, Alcott, Dreiser, Twain, London, Wharton, both Jameses, Jewett, and virtually every other author I can think of.

I'd venture to say that it may have even been the *more* common style for several decades, as contractions began to appear in texts because of the increased use of dialect in fiction. If you do a search for "had n't" (in quote marks) or "would n't" in Google Books, scores of magazines and books will come up--nearly all from before 1910 (or from recent books *about* fiction from the 1800s).

As the century progressed, the conventions changed, and every publisher/author was different in their approach. Some authors and publishers, for example, closed up contractions if the word was monosyllabic (it's, don't, won't). You can see that in the 1852 edition of Uncle Tom's Cabin (see: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Uncle_Tom_s_Cabin/gTw7045TBdgC?hl=en&gb... The elimination of the space from all contractions was not ubiquitous, however, until the early 1900s.

This is basically a spelling issue, with a side of punctuation. While most publishers of classic books modernize texts, LOA does not alter spellings, punctuation, or capitalization for its publications. (I'll note that, judging from several books I have here at home, neither does Penguin Classics. My copies of My Antonia, a collection of Jack London's stories, and The House of Mirth all retain the original formatting for contractions.)

--David

Thanks all, this is solved and it is clear the error is mine. Interestingly enough, no edition on my bookshelf for any work of this time period retains this practice - including all of my Penguin Classic versions. Every version of Twain I have, across numerous publishers, modernizes the contractions. It seems to be a fluke I've gone decades of reading without ever encountering this before these two LOA volumes.....the more you learn!

>8 DCloyceSmith: I just went to my Alcott LOA volume to see if it exhibited the same, as I read that cover to cover years ago. On the first page or two of Little Women one finds modernized use of "haven't", without the space. So seemingly at least some of Alcott within LOA was modernized, or the original text didn't use this practice.

In any event, it does appear a fluke I have never encountered this.

>10 booklover2022:

Since there was no "style guide" for publishers, there was little consistency within an author's oeuvre or even among books published by a single publisher. Similarly, sometimes the spaces will appear in one edition and then will be eliminated in a later one, sometimes with the author's supervision/approval, sometimes not.

As for Alcott:

"Little Women" did not have the spaces in contractions in early editions. I can't link to a first edition, but here's one from 1880:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Little_Women/xHbaFO0ow3kC?hl=en&gbpv=1

The book I was thinking of for Alcott specifically was "An Old-Fashioned Girl" (which we haven't yet published), since I have an old printing here at home. It included spaces for many contractions. You'll note that some of them look like half-spaces, which is interesting in itself. Here's a link to the first edition:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Old_fashioned_Girl/g2cCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&am...

Similarly, the only Twain book that I can recall offhand that used spaces in contractions is "A Life on the Mississippi." You can see samples of the these contractions on pages 341-342 of our edition (Mississippi Writings), but they're throughout the whole book. I'm sure there are stories in our Twain Tales volumes, too, that employ the older style.

--David

>11 DCloyceSmith: Always on the lookout for hints about future LOA publications, my metaphorical ears perked up at mention of Alcott's '"An Old-Fashioned Girl" (which we haven't yet published).' David, is that positive sign that we can look forward to more Alcott in LOA's future?