Mike (and Psmith)?

[john wolfe]

Can any expert help?
I know that 'Mike' was published in 1909 and later re-published in 2 books:
'Mike at Wrykin' and 'Mike and Psmith' (= 'Enter Psmith'). I've downloaded
the texts from Gutenberg (1909 editions).
What I'd like to know (Google couldn't help; at least not a dummie like me):
Did Wodehouse edit or re-write the original 1909 text before re-publishing?
Or was the original 'Mike' just reprinted in 2 books?

Thanks in advance for rallying round,

John Knatchbull-Huguesen

[Neil Midkiff]

Post by john wolfe
I know that 'Mike' was published in 1909 and later re-published in 2
books: 'Mike at Wrykin' and 'Mike and Psmith' (= 'Enter Psmith')....
Did Wodehouse edit or re-write the original 1909 text before
re-publishing? Or was the original 'Mike' just reprinted in 2 books?

Richard Usborne writes (in _The Penguin Wodehouse Companion_):

"When, in 1953, Herbert Jenkins reissued the long, single-volume _Mike_
(1909) as two books, _Mike at Wrykyn_ and _Mike and Psmith_, they did a
little modernization on the text. Cricketers Fry, Hayward and Knox
became Sheppard, May and Trueman, the indoor game diabolo became yo-yo,
'bunking' (a match) became 'cutting', and 'jingling, clinking
sovereigns' became 'crisp, crackling quids'."

He seems to suggest that the editorial changes were done by the
publisher, not by Wodehouse himself.

I've never seen a copy of the 1935 version of the second half of _Mike_,
which as you say is called _Enter Psmith_. McIlvaine's Wodehouse
bibliography says that it consists of chapters 30-59 of _Mike_ with a
few changes, implying that the 1953 _Mike and Psmith_ is just a
retitling of _Enter Psmith_.

So I'm a little uncertain about just when the changes to the second
(Psmith) half were made.

In any case the changes were not substantial. I've just looked at the
first chapter of _Mike and Psmith_ and chapter 30 of _Mike_. The
opening sentences were reworked a bit to make the second book's
beginning stand on its own. Saunders is described as "the professional"
cricketer employed by Mr. Jackson; those two words were not needed in
the one-volume original. Phyllis in 1909 says that father seems "in a
beastly wax"; this appears as "in a beastly temper" in the 1953 edition.
Mathematics is abbreviated as "Math" in 1909 and "Maths" in 1953;
"gymnasium pair" is altered to "gym team". Otherwise the chapter is the
same in both versions. In other words, unless one is looking closely,
the reader is not likely to notice any changes.

-Neil Midkiff

[Ian Michaud, TWS]

Post by Neil Midkiff

Post by john wolfe
I know that 'Mike' was published in 1909 and later re-published in 2
books: 'Mike at Wrykin' and 'Mike and Psmith' (= 'Enter Psmith').... Did
Wodehouse edit or re-write the original 1909 text before re-publishing?
Or was the original 'Mike' just reprinted in 2 books?

"When, in 1953, Herbert Jenkins reissued the long, single-volume _Mike_
(1909) as two books, _Mike at Wrykyn_ and _Mike and Psmith_, they did a
little modernization on the text. Cricketers Fry, Hayward and Knox became
Sheppard, May and Trueman, the indoor game diabolo became yo-yo, 'bunking'
(a match) became 'cutting', and 'jingling, clinking sovereigns' became
'crisp, crackling quids'."
He seems to suggest that the editorial changes were done by the publisher,
not by Wodehouse himself.

Also in the 'Pursuit' chapter of "Mike and Psmith" (the chapter where Mike
creates a diversion by ringing the fire-bell) in the original story Mr
Downing's pursuit of Mike was handicapped because the schoolmaster "was not
in the strictest training, and that it is only an Alfred Shrubb who can run
for any length of time at top speed shouting "Who is that? Stop! Who is
that? Stop!""

This Alfred Shrubb was apparently a famous middle-distance runner one
hundred years ago. In the 1953 edition Shrubb was replaced in the text by
Roger Bannister.

The Mixer

[Neil Midkiff]

Post by Ian Michaud, TWS
This Alfred Shrubb was apparently a famous middle-distance runner one
hundred years ago. In the 1953 edition Shrubb was replaced in the text by
Roger Bannister.
The Mixer

A useful data point! Bannister would have been just going on six years
old when the second half of _Mike_ appeared as _Enter Psmith_ in 1935.
So at least some of the _Mike and Psmith_ updates were newly revised in
1953.

This suggests looking back at my previous quote from Usborne about the
revisions. Cricketers "Sheppard, May and Trueman" are presumably David
Sheppard (played for England 1950-63), Peter May (1950-63), and Fred
Trueman (1952-65), indicating these were 1953 editorial changes for
_Mike and Psmith_ as well. Bannister, Sheppard, and May were all born
in 1929; Trueman was born in 1931.

Does anyone have a copy of the 1935 version to compare who was mentioned
in these places?

-Neil Midkiff

[Charles stone-Tolcher]

I have a 1950 copy of "Enter Psmith" (AC Black publisher- same dust jacket

as the first edition I believe) but I would have to search for any
differences between this book and "Mike" or the serialised "Lost Lambs"
that I also have. Certainly Phyllis does say "Beastly Wax" in this
edition so it follows that Enter Psmith is the same as the second part of
"Mike". "Freddie Trueman would not be mentioned in this edition as Trueman
would have only been four years old in 1935 when Enter Psmith was first
published.
Pillingshot
I've never seen a copy of the 1935 version of the second half of _Mike_,
which as you say is called _Enter Psmith_. McIlvaine's Wodehouse
bibliography says that it consists of chapters 30-59 of _Mike_ with a few
changes, implying that the 1953 _Mike and Psmith_ is just a retitling of
_Enter Psmith_.
So I'm a little uncertain about just when the changes to the second
(Psmith) half were made.
In any case the changes were not substantial. I've just looked at the
first chapter of _Mike and Psmith_ and chapter 30 of _Mike_. The opening
sentences were reworked a bit to make the second book's beginning stand on
its own. Saunders is described as "the professional" cricketer employed
by Mr. Jackson; those two words were not needed in the one-volume
original. Phyllis in 1909 says that father seems "in a beastly wax"; this
appears as "in a beastly temper" in the 1953 edition. Mathematics is
abbreviated as "Math" in 1909 and "Maths" in 1953; "gymnasium pair" is
altered to "gym team". Otherwise the chapter is the same in both
versions. In other words, unless one is looking closely, the reader is
not likely to notice any changes.
-Neil Midkiff

[Mike Schilling]

Post by john wolfe
Can any expert help?
I know that 'Mike' was published in 1909 and later re-published in 2
books: 'Mike at Wrykin' and 'Mike and Psmith' (= 'Enter Psmith'). I've
downloaded the texts from Gutenberg (1909 editions).
What I'd like to know (Google couldn't help; at least not a dummie
like me): Did Wodehouse edit or re-write the original 1909 text
before re-publishing? Or was the original 'Mike' just reprinted in 2
books?

Note that _Mike_ began as two different magazine serials, "Jackson Junior"
and "The Lost Lambs", which adds another set of questions about the
revisions between magazine and book publication and whether the two books
split at the same place as the serials. I can't speak to any of this.

[Neil Midkiff]

Post by Mike Schilling
Note that _Mike_ began as two different magazine serials, "Jackson Junior"
and "The Lost Lambs", which adds another set of questions about the
revisions between magazine and book publication and whether the two books
split at the same place as the serials. I can't speak to any of this.

Yes, the split is at the same place. "The Lost Lambs" begins: "If Mike
had been in time for breakfast that morning he might have gathered from
the expression on his father's face, as Mr. Jackson opened the envelope
containing his school report and read the contents, that the document in
question was not exactly a paean of praise from beginning to end."

Chapter 30 of _Mike_ starts with a one-sentence paragraph: "Two years
have elapsed and Mike is home again for the Easter holidays." It then
continues exactly as above.

_Mike and Psmith_ begins "If Mike had been in time for breakfast that
fatal Easter morning he might have gathered...." and continues with the
rest of the sentence as above.

There are minor spelling differences between the first chapter of "The
Lost Lambs" and the _Mike_ version (Marjorie vs. Marjory, unbiassed vs.
unbiased) but otherwise the initial chapters are apparently identical in
a quick scan. I haven't cross-compared the whole text in this
side-by-side fashion but have read both editions and don't recollect
major differences.

Many Wodehouse stories and novels got substantial rewrites between their
initial magazine appearance and their hardcover first editions, but that
doesn't seem to have been the case here. And certainly the decision to
split _Mike_ into two books makes sense, as it follows Wodehouse's
original conception of the stories as serials published a year apart
(April-September 1907 for "Jackson Junior"; April-September 1908 for
"The Lost Lambs").

-Neil Midkiff

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Neil Midkiff

Post by Mike Schilling
Note that _Mike_ began as two different magazine serials, "Jackson
Junior" and "The Lost Lambs", which adds another set of questions
about the revisions between magazine and book publication and
whether the two books split at the same place as the serials. I
can't speak to any of this.

Yes, the split is at the same place. "The Lost Lambs" begins: "If
Mike had been in time for breakfast that morning he might have
gathered from the expression on his father's face, as Mr. Jackson
opened the envelope containing his school report and read the
contents, that the document in question was not exactly a paean of
praise from beginning to end."
Chapter 30 of _Mike_ starts with a one-sentence paragraph: "Two years
have elapsed and Mike is home again for the Easter holidays." It then
continues exactly as above.
_Mike and Psmith_ begins "If Mike had been in time for breakfast that
fatal Easter morning he might have gathered...." and continues with
the rest of the sentence as above.
There are minor spelling differences between the first chapter of "The
Lost Lambs" and the _Mike_ version (Marjorie vs. Marjory, unbiassed
vs. unbiased) but otherwise the initial chapters are apparently
identical in a quick scan. I haven't cross-compared the whole text
in this side-by-side fashion but have read both editions and don't
recollect major differences.
Many Wodehouse stories and novels got substantial rewrites between
their initial magazine appearance and their hardcover first
editions,
but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. And certainly the
decision to split _Mike_ into two books makes sense, as it follows
Wodehouse's original conception of the stories as serials published
a
year apart (April-September 1907 for "Jackson Junior";
April-September 1908 for "The Lost Lambs").

Once again, the collected wisdom of afw emerges triumnphant! Much
appreciated.

[john wolfe]

Thanks a lot to all the gentle people here...you helped me to make up my
mind. As I said I downloaded both 'Mike' and 'Mike and Psmith' from
Gutenberg. But after reading one Wodehouse novel on my computer screen
('Three Men and a Maid') I shuddered at repeating the experience (not
Wodehouse, but reading him this way), there was a firm nolle prosequi from
my inner voice when it came to reading 'Mike'. But which book to buy? Now,
with more than a little help from you all, I think buying and perusing the
original 'Mike' will be the best choice. At least I'm certain now nothing
essential was added to the re-issues. (Shame on me, but I'm afraid the
famous cricketeers from the 40s mean just as much to me as those from 1909.
Which comes from living in an uncivilized country - but that can't be helped
now)

Thanks again,

J.K.H.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by john wolfe
As I said I downloaded both 'Mike' and 'Mike and Psmith' from
Gutenberg. But after reading one Wodehouse novel on my computer screen
('Three Men and a Maid') I shuddered at repeating the experience (not
Wodehouse, but reading him this way),

I read several of the early Wodehose books by printing them out from
Gutenberg. The result is as readable as a book, if slightly less
convenient to hold.