US & UK editions,

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 35575

"colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> wrote:
> I don't think changing the word jumper to sweater was so 
> God-awful and compromised the integrity of the HP series.  I mean, 
a 
> jumper in America is a ladies dress -- and doubt that Harry is a 
> cross-dresser. Even though the "primary" language in Britain & 
America 
> is English, there a lot of differences in our slang -- for example, 
> loo for bathroom, lift for elevator, randy -- well,er, all of you 
> Brits know what randy means! 

The one major issue I have with this position is that no publisher 
has ever seen the need to "correct" UK editions of any American book 
I've ever read. OK, So King, Grisham and all the other blockbuster 
writers are marketed at an adult audience so it's accepted that we 
adult Brits can manage. But American children's and youth literature 
(which admittedly isn't that big over here because we have a very 
rich local tradition) has never seen the need when publishing in 
Britain to change a single word.

So, the odd phrase isn't immediately comprehensible, or the odd word 
has a different meaning. Did I know what "candy" meant when I read 
the Bobbsey Twins as a child? No. Why shouldn't an American child 
learn what "sweets" are? To my mind, the British word is actually 
more descriptive...

This is "dumbing down" at it very, very basest. It's patronising to 
the (American) reader who (it is assumed) can't be bothered to think 
that British English may be different or to do a bit of research into 
what the word or phrase means. The differences between our languages 
are not that different. If part of the appeal of the Potterverse to 
Americans is that it opens a window on a different culture, then 
surely it should also open a window on that culture's vocabulary?

> Although I do agree that the title of the 1st book should not have 
> changed.  There is an explaination of what the stone is; the prefix 
of 
> said stone did not really have to change.

The less said about that, the better. I've been angry about it when I 
first learnt of it, and my ire has never subsided. I'm not saying 
that the word "Philosopher" means any more to the average British kid 
(or even, let's admit it, adult), but as you say, the concept is 
explained very well in the book and prior knowledge is irrelevant. As 
for putting people off reading it, well.... Mr Levine has a very low 
appreciation for his target audience.

Incidentally, does anyone know if (apart from the title of the first 
book), any changes were made to the American text of Philip 
Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy? (it should be noted that even 
the British editions are published by Scolastic).

-- 
GulPlum aka Richard Sliwa