Changes in Vocabulary

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 16255

Hi --

Doreen wrote:

> Sorry, but JKR made ALL of the editing changes "by herself."
>
> >From a Scholastic Interview:
>
> Q. What kind of manuscript changes had to be made to make the U.S.
> version more understandable to American readers? Specific things, like
> the title change of the first Harry Potter book?
>
> A. Very few changes have been made in the manuscript. Arthur Levine,
> my
> American editor, and I decided that words should be altered only where
> we
> felt they would be incomprehensible, even in context, to an American
> reader. I have had some criticism from other British writers about
> allowing any changes at all, but I feel the natural extension of that
> argument is to go and tell French and Danish children that we will not
> be translating Harry Potter, so they'd better go and learn English.
> The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the
>
> British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. We
> discussed
> several alternative titles and 'Sorcerer's Stone' was my idea.
>
> From:
> http://www.southwestnews.com/rowling.htm
>
>
> Q: Do you assist with the vernacular, idiomatic expression and other
> vocabulary changes between the UK and the US versions of the HP series
> ?
> (Jenny Lando)
>
> A: Do I assist ? I do it all! <snip>
> (JKR)
>
> Ahem ... does this make JKR an idiot?

I think you've got a good point, Doreen.  But, I don't think it's quite
correct to say that JKR does all the changes "by herself."  She was
clearly influenced into making some changes initially (the title for
example), and at that point, she must not have felt she had any real
leverage to resist those types of changes.  I think she has a good point
about not "translating" British expressions for American readers being
akin to refusing to translate into other languages.  I would have rather
seen it in a glossary is all.

But, technically speaking, I'm sure that there is coordination between
the American editorial staff & JKR.  I'm sure they point out some things
that they believe ought to be changed or explained.  I'm sure she's not
*literally* making the changes herself.  I suspect she was just taking
some of the heat off Scholastic, if she did in fact believe that making
these types of changes was a good idea.

It does seem that they've all back-pedaled on this issue though.  Maybe
it was the rushed timing more than anything, but very few of these
British/American changes were made to GoF (or certainly *lots* less than
say PS/SS).

Melinda wrote:

> I just wanted to speak up with a bit of an opinion on the subject of
> vocabulary changes in the books.  As an adult I would have had no
> problem with having a glossary to look things up.  In fact glossaries
> are quite common in fantasy books which I often read and in those
> that do not have them I am pretty adept at figuring out what a word
> or phrase means.  However let us remember that these books were
> written first with children in mind and not adults.
>
[Everyone on the list probably groaned when they saw this one! "Oh, no
-- Penny hasn't had the baby yet, and she's still around to make the
usual comments on this issue.]  Welcome, Melinda!  You've stepped into
one of my favorite topics.  If you search the message archives, you
could find lots of posts from me on this topic.  Pretty much everytime
anyone says, "Well, this or that can be excused because these are
*childrens' books* after all," I have to step in.  JKR has said over and
over and over that she did *not* write the books with any target
audience in mind.  She's also been critical of parents who let their
children read them too early -- "I know what's coming and it's too much
for younger kids."  She also has steadfastly maintained that she will
not tone down the books for children.  She has a story to tell, and it's
not going to be geared for the 9-12 set.  Harry et al. are going to be
15/16 in the next book.  They'll be 17/18 in the final volume.  These
are not going to be 9-12 books -- not the last volumes.

I think Bloomsbury's marketing dept just stuck that label on PS because
Harry, the protagonist, was 11 in that book.  I don't believe they
consulted JKR at all about how the books should be marketed.

She's also said she's not at all surprised by the large adult following
she has since she wrote PS as something she herself would enjoy.

Ebony may step in with her usual thoughts on your last sentence quoted
above.  I agree with her that we're not giving American kids enough
credit if we think they can't figure out some of this through context or
by (gasp!) going to the dictionary!

> Though these books have become universally loved by adults and children I wonder a
> bit if they would have achieved such success if JKR had not been
> willing to bend a bit.  Would US children have enjoyed the books as
> much from the start if they had had to puzzle out many unfamiliar
> words even as they were struggling to read in the first place.
>
If they're struggling to read at age 9-12, the American education system
is in far worse shape than I thought.  I'm not downplaying the slow
learners or anything.  But, the vast majority of American children in
the 9-12 age group (the "alleged" target audience) can read.  If they
are really honestly just learning to read, they are far too young (in my
mind) to be reading any of the later books anyway.

Penny
(ending her rant more quickly than normal -- <g>)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]