[HPforGrownups] US/UK Versions

[Jenett]

No: HPFGUIDX 34481

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 Jefrigo21 at aol.com wrote:

> I would like to know why the 'American' Editors did not put in some kind
> of dictionary in. It will be a good thing and some people might pick up
> on LEARNING about different cultures. There are somehings I did not
> know, and know them now.  But, kids do ask about words or meaings they
> don't understand.

A couple of things worth bearing in mind, I think:

1) Scholastic wasn't really *used* to doing this kind of trans-Atlantic 
work. 

I'm American, but my father was English, and my mother grew up in 
Great Britain. Most of the 'British' books we had came directly from 
England (my father made a trip back every year to see friends, and I 
always gave him a requested book list, plus he'd bring back anything 
friends recommended I read) 

The few exceptions were *not* from children's publishers, mostly, (at 
least not in the realm of Scholastic) but were people like Penguin/Puffin. 
(I know my Swallows and Amazons/Railway Children/E. Nesbit editions are 
all one of the two.) 

At the time, you really couldn't get a lot of conventional British
children's books (especially school stories and Enid Blyton and such) in
the US (At least in the northeast, wehre I'd expect it to be possible if
it was anywhere) This would have been in the late 70s and 80s. I know - my
parents tried, because I kept wanting more of them.

2) No one quite expected the books to be this popular originally. Or that 
they'd be read by such a wide age range so enthusiastically. 

They'd market quite well to Scholastic audiences (except for the length, 
which is a bit long for what a lot of people think that demographic 
audience would read) but that demographic range isn't one where (according 
to conventional theories) you want to put any more barriers in front of 
the reader than necessary. (And from one point of view, you already have 
the length barrier...)

I, I should note, disagree strongly with this theory - but I'm not a 
publisher of children's literature in the US. 

3) US Publishers seem to be a bit wary in general about forcing the reader 
to do too much work, at least in fiction. 

This is more true in children's 
fiction, I think, than in other genres, but you still see it in, say, 
science fiction - if you have to have a glossary or a cast of characters 
list so people can keep things straight, you're almost guaranteed that 
someone will say the book is too complex. 

Again, I disagree with this take on the publishers (note how well
Tolkien's works have been selling recently, and they are *not* simple,
either as far as context or language use) but again, I'm not a publisher
and no one's asked my opinion. (And in all fairness, there are fiction
publishers who assume their readers have brains and are willing to make 
use of them even while reading fiction.) 

-Jenett