US & UK editions, Big Bang, Steady State

[mjollner]

No: HPFGUIDX 35555

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> 
> The Harry Potter Galleries have assembled a list of the text 
differences between 
> the US and UK editions:
> 
> http://www.popogo.com/hol/words/wordgallery1.htm

Thanks for the link - I'll have to take a look at it - but the point 
of my post was that upon perusing my newly received UK editions, I 
was amazed at how *few* textual changes there actually are between the 
US and UK editions, and how great are the differences between the 
respective cover illustrations.  I suppose once Scholastic decided 
that Book One needed a title change, the powers-that-be felt, "why 
stop there?".  So IMO, there is no need for separate editions, but the 
fact that there are so few *real* differences between them means that 
the US editions are not "dumbed down"...

The covers of the US editions are much more attractive than their UK 
counterparts and stylistically, the various titles seem much more a 
part of the same series.  They also give a much cheerier impression 
of the contents, which is misleading, especially for Books Three and 
Four.  The UK illustrations are for the latter titles are much darker 
in tone - if I hadn't have read the book already, the dragon on the 
cover of UK GoF would have made me think the work was pure fantasy 
rather than a hybrid (though Harry's sneakers might have given a 
clue).  And I can't seem to shake the picture of Padfoot on the back 
of UK PoA - saliva dripping from his jaws, sharp teeth bared - which 
reminds me more of the fiend dog in "The Hound of the Baskervilles" 
than the warm and protective character of GoF, not to restart the 
whole PoA Sirius v. GoF Sirius debate again!  The US edition 
illustrations are comparatively warm and fuzzy, though any broad 
cultural extrapolations based on those observations will have to go 
OT...

Several other people posted within the last few weeks that they too 
had ordered the paperback boxed set from Amazon UK; anyone disagree 
with my observations?

<cindysphynx wrote:
<Now that I think about it, I am going to wrap up all of my theories 
<into one gigantic mega-theory, a theory substantial enough to swallow 
<the entire Potterverse:  The Big Bang Theory.

<You see, Big Bangers generally tend to believe that most Big 
<backstory questions can be answered by a Big Event in the character's 
<life.  In other words, characters don't just wake up one morning and 
<decide they want to evil.  Or good.  Or something else they weren't 
<the day before.  No, we believe in clearly identifiable and 
<significant canon catalysts for major character changes in outlook.  

<Indeed, Big Bangers have a rather rigid bright line test to assist us 
<in determining which theories are acceptable.  If we can't imagine a 
<climactic, Oscar-worthy scene in which a character chooses a 
<dramatically different path because of a Big Event, then the theory 
<won't fly under Big Bang.  We have no use for fuzzy lens shots, 
<montage sequences or soliloquies where characters stare off into 
<space and develop a new perspective on their circumstances.  No, Big 
<Bangers chew the scenery.  People who drift off to buy popcorn before 
<a Big Bang scene are going to be completely lost for the rest of the 
<story.

Hear, hear!  My internal drama queen thrills to this theory!  There's 
something theatrical in Love of Lily, too - I have been eyeing 
LOLLIPOPS warily from shore, trying to decide if the accomodations are 
worth the price (to my stomach, if not my conscience) or if I should 
hold out for a suite-for-the-price-of-a-cabin deal, with a big bottle 
of antacid thrown in for good measure - but *this* is a theory I want 
to embrace wholeheartedly.  Though I have to admit I can't say "Big 
Bangers" with a straight face.  Ahem...

But then Eloise comes along with her good sense and "Steady State:"

<The Steady State theory ( short version)

<The essential point is that Snape is complicated: his change in 
<allegience comes not from a change in his essential nature, but from 
<a growing awareness of what that nature is. It rests on his soul 
<being a battleground between two world views. Loyalty to Voldemort 
<stems from his background and then his school experiences which seem 
<to confirm that good and evil are meaningless concepts. The defection 
<to Dumbledore results from a growing self-awareness, a realisation 
<that he does believe in good and evil. Catalysts may have taken 
<place, but are not necessary. Snape doesn't actually *enjoy* being on 
<the 'Light' side, he is there out of conviction, though his 
<temperament militates against it.

<L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (in which I don't believe - yet!) and 
<C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. (about which I am agnostic) are, I think, 
<compatible, as are ambushes and any other number of embelishments.

But...but...but...(trying not to sputter her breakfast Diet Coke all 
over the keyboard) where's the fun in that?!?  OK, so your theory is 
perfectly reasonable and sound and even persuasive, but it just 
doesn't have, y'know, *pizazz.*

So might I suggest an acronym to jazz things up?  How 'bout 
M.E.T.A.M.O.R.P.H.O.S.I.S.: Mere Evil Troubled Awareness, Motivating 
Our Racked, Principled anti-Hero Onward, Seeking Integrity and 
Solution?

OK, so it's a little weak in the middle.  Couldn't find a better noun 
for the "H." We can't all be Tabouli, now can we?!? :)

Mjollner, still looking longingly toward her tiara