[HPforGrownups] Re: Newer UK Edition of CoS Has Three Changes From Origin...

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43691

bboy_mn:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" <bdmorrp at b...> wrote:
> > I promised the group that I would identify changes made in the UK 
> > adult paperback versions of the books as I make my way through them.  
> > I've just finished CoS, and have three changes to report ...
> ....EDITED....
> > 
> > (1) When Harry meets Riddle in the Chamber, in the original edition, 
> > Riddle asks Harry "...how is it that you - a *skinny boy* with no 
> > extraordinary magical talent - managed to defeat the greatest wizard 
> > of all time?"  In the newer edition, it reads:  "...how is it that a 
> > *baby* with no extraordinary magical talent managed to defeat the 
> > greatest wizard of all time?" (Ch. 17, emphases mine to show the 
> > differences).
> > 
> ....EDITED...
> > 
> > (2) As Harry is running from the Basilisk in the Chamber with his 
> > eyes shut, the original edition reads "*Voldemort* was laughing" 
> > while the newer edition reads "*Riddle* was laughing" (Ch. 17, 
> > emphases mine to show the differences).
> > 
> ....EDITED...
> > 
> > (3) In Chapter 18 of the original edition, when Lucius Malfoy and 
> > Dobby appear in Professor McGonagall's office, it reads:  "The elf 
> > was carrying a stained rag with which he was attempting to finish 
> > cleaning Mr. Malfoy's shoes.  Apparently Mr. Malfoy had set out in a 
> > great hurry, for not only were his shoes half-polished, but his 
> > usually sleek hair was disheveled.  Ignoring the elf bobbing 
> > apologetically around his ankles, he fixed his cold eyes upon 
> > Dumbledore.
> > 
> > 'So!' he said 'You've come back.  The governors suspended you, but 
> > you still saw fit to return to Hogwarts.'"
> > 
> > The newer edition completely eliminates the paragraph about Dobby 
> > polishing Mr. Malfoy's shoes and when Mr. Malfoy speaks, it 
> > reads: "'So!' said Lucius Malfoy, his cold eyes fixed on 
> > Dumbledore.  'You've come back.  The governors suspended you, but you 
> > still saw fit to return to Hogwarts.'"
> > 
> > This change has me baffled - why would Dobby be with Lucius if Dobby 
> > wasn't in the middle of performing a menial task such as shoe-
> > polishing?  Why leave this out?
> > 
> > In addition, the newer edition also has Dumbledore telling Harry that 
> > Voldemort is the last remaining *descendant* of Slytherin (Ch. 18), 
> > but since we all know that JKR has already owned up to that error, 
> > I'm just mentioning it as an aside.
> > 
> > I'll keep you posted as I make my way through PoA!
> > 
> > ~Phyllis
> 
> bboy_mn comments:
> 
> What I want to know is WHO is making these decisions? Then I want to
> know WHY?
> 
> I hardly believe that the publishers are consulting JKR on all these
> changes, and I certainly question whether some copy editor (or
> whatever they are called) is qualified to rewrite a book with a plot
> this complicated. There are subtle seemingly insignificant things that
> eventually turn out to have major plot/story critical significants. 
> 
> Now I find, to complicate matters even more, that there are not TWO
> english to english 'translations' of the book but three; British
> English, Brit. to American English, and Brit. to Canadian English. Now
> I have to wonder, how many other version of English are different? Are
> the changes in the Australian English version that we don't know about? 
> 
> 
> I REALLY REALLY don't like this, REALLY. I think it is fine for copy
> editors (or whatever they are called) to correct minor errors, but by
> no means whatsoever should they be rewriting the book, and certainly
> shouldn't be throwing out entire paragraphs. 
> 
> In the third example you gave, regarding Dobby, I think the missing
> paragraph is critical. The mark of a good house-elf, as we find out
> later, is that you don't see them, you don't know that they are there;
> so for a house-elf to appear the way Dobby is in this scene, is
> significant, very significant. Since house-elves remain hidden, it's
> important to justify why Dobby is there.
> 
> I simple can't seen any justification that a copy editor could
> possible come up with that could explain changing or leaving out this
> paragraph.
> 
> 
> I think JKR needs to sit down with the publishers and have a serious
> talk with them, and maybe do some serious butt kicking while she's at it.
> 
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
> 
> 
Eloise:

Oh dear, I really must try to remember to take off my invisibility cloak when 
I post. I seem to have been leaving it on rather a lot, recently. ;-) 

Or perhaps it's just the *Eau de Chou* which I habitually wear, which puts 
you off, bboy_mn.  ;-)  

(J/K)

Since I forgot, so that you didn't read my reply to Phyllis yesterday, let me 
reiterate.

*IF* these are changes from the original UK edition, they are changes that 
were made early in the publishing history, at the very least between the 
first publication of the hardback and the first printing of the paperback, 
which is the edition I possess (and boy, am I regretting these days being too 
mean to buy the hardback for my kids when it first came out).

*AND* in this case, as in every other case that I remember being cited here, 
the Canadian and UK editions agree, as does Grey Wolf's Spanish version, from 
which we can conclude that the Spanish ones were (unsurprisingly) translated 
from the British, rather than the US editions.

Now, lets look at these 'changes'.

The first one - well, as Phyllis pointed out, 'baby' makes sense in context, 
'skinny boy' doesn't.
The second one - again, as Phyllis pointed out, calling Riddle 'Voldemort' 
there is inconsistent with the rest of the chapter.

My conclusion? These are obvious authorial errors, picked up and corrected in 
the British edition, which somehow slipped through the net in the US. I do 
not for one minute think they represent an editorial decision to go over the 
author's head and 'change' her book, any more than in the case of the change 
from 'ancestor' to 'descendent', which JKR herself admitted was an error and 
which is the only change which I definitely know was made between the 
publication of the UK hardback and papaerback versions. (The paperback 
contains no indication that it is a different edition, simply stating it was 
first published 1998.)

..................
Dobby and the shoe cleaning

Well, I'd dearly love someone who has the original UK hardback to tell us 
what it says.
As I pointed out yesterday, my first paperback edition omits the 
shoe-cleaning paragraph. So does the UK audio book.

I find it extremely unlikely that any editor *put that in* and I seriously 
doubt that it was decided to omit it between the hardback and paperback 
editions, although I don't know that for sure.
The most obvious conclusion to draw is surely that its omission was an 
editorial change (and we have no evidence whatsoever that it wasn't JKR 
herself who decided to omit it) made prior to publication but after the 
manuscripts were with the two publishers. The change got made in one edition 
(so, yes, maybe the publishers did suggest it) but a similar omission was not 
made from the American edition.

There is a consistent pattern emerging here which simply points to the final 
authorial/editorial tweaking of a manuscript being published in two countries 
simply not being properly co-ordinated.

Bboy_mn again:

>We recently discussed a good example of why copy editors shouldn't
>presume that they know the book better than the original author. It
>has come to light that the American version of PS/SS has Hagrid saying
>that he has to get the giant motorcycle BACK to Sirius, then we find
>out later, it was originally written to say, he had to get the
>motorcycle put away. Obviously, a change by an American copy editor
>who hadn't read the later books, and didn't realize he was changing
>something significant>>

Eloise:
Yes, we did, didn't we. Or at least you did.
What you say here is simply incorrect, as I attempted to point out at the 
time.
I then (wearing my invisibility cloak again) replied:

>I don't think you can blame the US editors for this one. I have an older UK 
copy (first >ed paperback) which similarly says that Hagrid is intending to 
return the bike to >Sirius, as does Phyllis's US copy, so the Lexicon was 
correct: it's not a 'translation' >issue.
>
>My guess is that either JKR had simply forgotten she'd written that when she 
wrote >the scene in the Three Broomsticks or that it was only in writing PoA 
that she >started to sort out in her own mind the chronology of what really 
happened in the 48 >hours following Voldemort's vapourisation. Either way, 
the change in the most >recent UK edition would seem to be an attempt to 
correct the inconsistency.

Let me say this clearly. The change to 'put away' is *NEW*. It irons out a 
storyline anomaly that has been the same in both UK and US editions of the 
books from the start. (Although it only became an anomaly on the publication 
of PoA.)

Eloise
Jumping up and down and waving her arms in the air in order to attract 
attention.
(And giving Phyllis a big hug for being able to see through the invisibility 
cloak. Although I'm not sure about the changes being made between HB and PB, 
though it is logical. I really want to get my hands on a hardback.)



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