Audio Versions of the Books

[Lisa]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" 
<sherriola at e...> wrote:
> Sherry now
> I agree with you on that one.  Every once in a while, someone makes a
> comment that seems to imply the US version is inferior, and that 
irritates
> me.  After all, it is the same book, just with a few words 
modified.  It
> doesn't detract from the story in any way.
> 
> Sherry


I just wanted to poke my nose in here where it probably doesn't belong 
and add my .02, for what it's worth.

I am a born and bred Iowa girl, U.S.A.  Yankee through and through.  
heh.  I have all of the Harry Potter books in each of the following 
forms:  US Hardback, US paperback (to write in/make notes) UK Adult 
artwork Hardback, and both US and UK versions in unabriged Audio CD.

You really have to be listening/reading closely to catch the 
variations, and while I personally find them interesting, I agree that 
I get a teensy bit of a 'ruffled feathers' feeling when someone 
implies that the US version is inferior or dumbed down.  Now, 
honestly, I think they could SKIP those alterations and leave it 
exactly the same and we'd figure it out.  Is there anyone here who 
can't find out that a "jumper" is a "sweater" or 
that "trainers=sneakers" or that hoover=vacuum?  The differences are 
minute.  

One difference did make me laugh.  In OotP when Fred and George are 
blithely talking about how they managed to keep their spirits up 
during their O.W.L.'s--the British version says "We managed to keep 
our peckers up somehow."  Which of course has entirely DIFFERENT 
connotations in the U.S., at least where I come from.  heh.  "pecker" 
is a slang word around here for male genitalia.  *giggle*

On a related note, I find Jim Dale's reading of the American version 
to be more pleasant to listen to, over-all than Stephen Fry's reading 
of the UK version. The UK audio cd's are formatted better, with some 
interesting special effects such as echo-y sounding voices from the 
Pensieve and such.  But Jim Dale has a broader vocal range.  They both 
give each character a distinctive 'voice' and expression, but Dale 
just has a broader range of voices.  Dale also gives McGonagall a 
thick scottish brogue that Fry does not, and he also SINGS all the 
mentioned 'songs' in the book in a very fun manner.  I often catch 
myself singing "Weasley is Our King" or "His eyes are as green as a 
fresh pickled toad" along with him.  Fry merely reads the words.

On the other hand, Stephen Fry does Snape's voice much better, 
according to what I think Snape should sound like--and because Snape 
is my favorite character of the lot, this weighs heavily in his 
favor.  heh.  I listen to them while doing housework or driving, 
chronologicaly, and when I complete one 'version' I switch to the 
other.  They are both good, just in different ways.

heh.  "What a waste of parchment" to eventually say, "I agree with 
you."

Shanti