US & UK editions, (moving to OT Chatter now)

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 35606

Moderator Note:

Could we move this thread to OT Chatter now? (hpfgu-otchatter at yahoogroups.com)?

GulPlum: By all means repost this response to Judy on OT Chatter.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Neil

**************

"judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:

> Well, perhaps it is true that American books are usually published 
in 
> Britain without modifications.  I live in the US, so I'll take your 
> word for it.  However, this isn't the question relevant to the 
> Potter books. 

Isn't it? Why *should* UK books be "translated" into American when 
the reverse isn't true? OK, the UK population is about a fifth that 
of the US (sorry, can't be bothered to look up the figures) so 
perhaps publishers don't think it cost-effective to make any changes, 
but even so, no educator or parent has a problem with it. Why 
*should* American educators consider it an issue? (From various 
discussions I've had, American educators *do* have a problem with it.)

The question relevant to the Potter books is, "How often 
> are *British* books modified for publication in the *US*?" 

> changes are very common when a British book is published in the US.

> Maybe the reason for this assymmetry is that here in the US, we 
have 
> little exposure to British popular culture.  

And bastardising British books helps in that exposure, does it? 
Sorry, but I find that argument EXTREMELY patronising. Not only 
towards British culture, but towards the books' American readers and 
their intelligence.

It's also dangerous: is it any wonder that much of the rest of the 
world considers Americans to be closed-minded and imperialistic, when 
they can't accept a culture as close to their own as the British one 
on its own terms without having to "domesticate" it?

> By the way, I found it really irksome that "Philosopher's Stone" 
was 
> changed to "Sorcerer's Stone", but didn't mind the other changes.  
The 
> books still "sound" quite British to me, even with the chnages.

>From what you said about limited exposure to British culture, on what 
basis can you really say that with any degree of certainty, 
considering you're viewing it through the prism of an American editor?