Dumbledore/Sirius/Second-Class American Edition

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 40304

Judy Serenity:

> I also want to point out that JKR portrays Dumbledore as being 
> omniscient (all-knowing), or very close to it.  He has the Pensieve.  
> He knows Trelawney's predictions, and knows which ones are accurate. 
> And, he has Fawkes, who appears to be able to tell who is evil is who 
> is not. Plus, of course, he has his own knowledge and wisdom. It is 
> strongly implied that Dumbledore can tell that his actions will have 
> the desired effect, although it's not always clear how.  For example, 
> how did he know where to put the Mirror or Erised so that Harry could 
> find it?  What makes him so confident in Harry's abilities to defeat 
> Riddle/Voldemort?  (etc, etc)

I've steadfastly resisted the idea that Dumbledore is omniscient.  He has a 
lot of tricks, such as the ability to become invisible without a cloak and 
the apparent ability to read minds, or judge veracity (e.g., CoS ch. 12 pp. 
208-09 US).  But the Pensieve contains only memories, and his own, at that.  
It's probably not hard to tell Trelawney's *real* predictions, where she in 
effect is possessed by someone else, from the charlatanism she ususally 
affects.  As for the Mirror, invisible Dumbledore might have summoned it to 
the classroom Harry entered.  I think he expected Harry to try out the 
invisibility cloak, so he might have been surveilling Harry.  But your point 
about Fawkes is interesting; I think it is Fawkes and its companion the 
Sorting Hat that are omniscient; Fawkes comes because Harry is loyal; 
Dumbledore didn't send him, as I read it, because Harry was in trouble.  And 
he brings the Sorting Hat with Godric's sword.  Dumbledore only appears 
omniscient because he has so many magical powers; but he also has confidence 
in the future and the wisdom to avoid micromanaging. 

Caroline
--wondering why, if Dumbledore's such a powerful wizard, he doesn't 
have his own Marauder's Map-type security system so he knows 
*exactly* who's in Hogwarts at all times

Oh, I think he does, but he obviously never looked at it when the Marauders 
went out to join Lupin at the full moon.  

Judy Serenity again:

I don't 
blame Lupin for leaving the Shack as a student; I blame Sirius.  Well, 
OK, as a major fan of Snape, I'm not favorably inclined towards 
Sirius, so maybe that's no completely fair.  Still, knowing their 
personalities, isn't it likely that Sirius and James were the ones who 
wanted to leave the Shack, not Lupin? Lupin had been trying to hide 
his lycantropy from everyone, even them; why would he leave and risk 
exposure?

I know there are a lot of Sirius fans out there, but I agree with you.  I had 
this in mind when I said a couple of weeks ago that Lupin and Pettigrew were 
the followers of this gang and James and Sirius were the leaders.  (Lupin 
can't be completely exonerated from blame, however, because he did go along 
with it.)  I think, in fact, that I would add James and Sirius to the list of 
characters whose activities can be described as reckless endangerment, though 
I'm sure James and Sirius were quite confident that they could keep Lupin in 
check.

Christi:

> I agree that some of the changes were understandable, even necessary, 
> for an American audience.  Remember, over here we think "football" is 
> something played by overpaid prima donnas with helmets and heavy 
> padding, and a "jumper" is a form of sleeveless dress (Imagine the 
> poor parents who are confronted with the question of Ron and Harry 
> cross-dressing!).  Some things do get lost in translation. [snip]

Without wanting to launch into an indictment of American provincialism, I 
think the changes to the American editions were a missed opportunity.  
American culture is so dominant that too many Americans have simply never 
been exposed to any other culture, and while the language differences between 
the American and British editions are not that great, wouldn't unedited 
versions of the books have been a wonderful way to expose all the American 
children who have been reading the books to British modes of expression?  I 
know as a child I was always fascinated by books that provided a window into 
life in foreign countries, even where the language spoken is nominally the 
same.

But instead, we get bastardized, "PC" versions.  I hope the editors' 
decisions say more about American marketing than about Americans.
> 
> ~Christi, who experienced great confusion when, in reading "Bridget 
> Jones's Diary," she saw the heroine express a desperate need for 
> a "fag"...

This is the one possible circumstance that IMO would justify changes in the 
text; fag is an offensive term here in the U.S. and though the context might 
make clear that something else was intended, Christi's example illustrates 
that it's not always clear.  But "philosopher"?  I'm saddened at the mere 
thought that an American editor finds the supposed intellectualism implied by 
the word (if there is any) offensive.

And in response to

> David, who thinks that having US 'translations' gives the series a 
> certain mystique: American fans can graduate to the 'original text', 
> while Brits can see if the (JKR-approved) translations shed light on 
> the original.
> 
Sad but true, I will treat the arrival of my UK editions as a "graduation."  
And as the Dean Thomas addition quoted by Judy Serenity should make clear, 
the changes to the American editions are not improvements.

Debbie, noting that even with shipping costs, the UK edition cost 
substantially less than the US edition at the bookstore 



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