Translation and Cultural Issues - UK and US differences

[ftah3]

I'm bringing this from the main list because relevance specifically 
to HP, while present, is minor.

Jo Ellen writes:
> > I have never read the original versions, but it irritates me to 
no 
> > end that the American publishing company assumed that the US 
> > population was too ignorant to follow the British slang used in 
the 
> > original versions. The only reason that I can think of that this 
was 
> > done  is because, statistically speaking, US students are behind 
in 
> > reading comprehension and other areas when compared to their 
European 
> > and Japanese counterparts, but that is only my assumption. 

Pish posh on that last assumption.  It has nothing to do with reading 
comprehension and everything to do with exposure to Brit-speak.

> > Considering that the 
> > US imports many movies and television programs for children from 
> > Great Britain, I can't imagine that most US children have not 
been 
> > exposed to British slang at some point, so it makes me wonder 
what 
> > areas of the country, what statistical information,  and what age 
> > groups were used for this market study?

Any area in the country.  To be quite honest, American children have 
*not* been overly exposed to British linguistic eccentricities (i.e. 
slang), because British film and television aren't incredibly 
prevelent over here.  In some areas of the country moreso, but 
overall the nation's children watch cartoons, sitcoms, action flicks 
et al which use US slang.  Even British characters in the 
aforementioned venues use US slang and linguistic conventions.  And 
speaking for myself, the only British show my toddler had access to 
via educational television was...Teletubbies.  And if you know about 
Teletubbies you know that by watching that British import my son 
wasn't learning proper speech conventions at *all,* much less being 
exposed to British speech conventions.

In my opinion, American children *could* have read and enjoyed the 
un"translated" version, especially as the changes weren't (imho) 
terribly significant.  But it's possible that the numbers of kids who 
read the Americanized version would have dropped drastically, simply 
because kids who don't read much won't stick to something that makes 
no sense to them, and in terms of marketing strategy it was smart to 
fiddle with terminology at *least* in the first book.  

Eloise:
> I think though, that perhaps we do filter out thing we don't 
precisely 
> understand when for instance seeing a movie (oops, I mean a film) 
which we 
> can't do when reading. I have no problems with US movies, but do 
find that I 
> notice anomalies and ambiguities more when speaking directly to 
Americans. 
> American journalism is something else again, stylistically very 
different 
> from ours and I find it quite hard-going.

I think you've got a good point.  In film, the scene, acting, 
context, emotion, et al go to making the words make sense even if 
you've never heard them before.  Written text doesn't necessarily 
have that.  Running across the word "bogey" on paper without the 
obvious "ew" factor involved might be completely mysterious; but 
hearing Ron talk about "bogies" on the Hogwarts train can be ignored 
yet the scene is still amusing because of Ron funny expression and 
tone of voice.  

Eloise: 
> Incidentally, when I was ranting to my husband about the change of 
title from 
> PS to SS, his immediate response was that no-one could be expected 
to know 
> what a philosopher's stone was anyway. Once I had got over my shock 
at his 
> ignorance, I thought he had a point, but then since Harry and Ron 
have no 
> idea either, until Hermione enlightens them, changing the title 
seems pretty 
> pointless. What is a sorceror's stone, anyway?
> It's a bit like saying that Raiders of the Lost Ark should have a 
different 
> title as those not conversant with Judaeo-Christian tradition would 
not know 
> what it was. (Come to think of it, I wonder how many people did go 
thinking 
> it was Noah's Ark?)

IIRC, the point wasn't that the American audience wouldn't know what 
a philosopher's stone was, it was that an American audience might not 
get that it was a 'kid's' book about exciting fantasy stuff, 
because 'philosopher' sounded so terribly stuffy and unexciting.  
It's sort of like the fact that productions for TV movies use certain 
key words to target certain audiences; they've done studies which 
show that certain title words draw crowds, and others illicit 
mediocre to nonexistent audience interest. It's marketing strategy, 
and frankly, Scholastic had a very good point when they determined 
that "sorcerer" would peak interest far better than "philosopher."  

All imho, and like Eloise said in a bit I didn't quote, I hope I 
don't tread on any toes....

Mahoney