I believe that one of the new freedoms offered by the internet is the opportunity at last to implement a sensible reform of English spelling. No academic institution can do this without being accused of arrogance, no government would take the political risk; but there are alredy signs that some users of the internet are "rationalising" spelling.

I believe that if a few (but only a few) re-spellings are introduced in a consistent way which does not reduce a page of text to an unfamiliar puzzle to the reader, we can begin a reform which, over several decades, would bring written English back into line (as far as such a language can be) with its spoken sound.

For that reason, I've used in my books a number of respellings that I hope will be acceptable and so contribute to this process. Or if some other modest proposal gets wide acceptance, I will be happy to fall in with it.

The principle behind all my choices (and I think it is the first principle for any practical attempt to reform English spelling) is that reading should remain a familiar and comfortable experience. Readers need to feel at ease with the text, to be able to relax and enjoy reading it. It should look good on the page - basically right and familiar, with not too many changes or too drastic a change at one time. The page should still look like a normal page of English, with just a few, like-fashioned changes from the norm. If we are comfortable with the text, in spite of noticing every now and then what looks like a mis-spelling, we will get used to its "oddities" till they become standard, by the natural processes to which all languages should be subject, if they are not to fossilise.

In line with this overall objective, I have applied the following principles in choosing my words for re-spelling.

1. Not to make a wide-ranging selection, but to keep to a few types of change (e.g. reducing the use of "gh" and changing "ea" to "e" where that is the sound).
   
   
2. To use American rather than British spellings, as the former are more phonetic.
   
   
3. To make an exception, for the time being of a few short words, which are more likely to look odd and off-putting than longer words re-spelt (e.g. "homested" but "head").
   
   
4. Not to change, in this first step, certain highly significant or emotionally charged words. Until we get used to new spellings, writers will not want to distract or "throw" readers just at the point where they are using these words. In my book "Jesus Messiah", where death is a highly significant theme, I kept that spelling and decided against "deth". To change "human rights" into "human rites" would throw in confusion just at the point where you want the reader to respond spontaneously with all the normal feelings and associations.
   
   
5. To concentrate on consonant changes, which are much easier to agree than vowel changes, as there is more uniformity of consonant pronunciation. For that reason I have kept "gh" where eliminating it would have raised questions about how to represent the remaining vowel sounds. (E.g. "thru" and "lite", but "thought" and "high".)
   
   
6. Certain horrendous spellings should disappear at once and forever. I hope readers will recognise "diorea" and "hemorage", because I can't hope to remember how they're ment to be spelt.

The result has been the following list of re- (or if you prefer, mis-) spellings. I cannot guarantee that it is complete, or that I have consistently applied it. It is not applied in "The Warrior God" or "Too Close to God", which were written before the internet existed. I think you will find that their frequency does not disturb the text too much.