Was US POA audio modified from UK or US print?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 95393

Amy wrote:

as an American from a southern state, I find it disturbing 
> that there are so many stereotypes in the U.S. alone about
ourselves; and then to hear all of the *accusations* ...if you
will...from other countries,  I find it a bit hurtful...none the less,
as the topic is Harry Potter, I would say I agree with Potioncat in
that I also think the original text should have been left as is. I
think it is awesome that these are English (English) books, and would
prefer to read them 
> that way, and will probably get a copy of the British versions and
re-read them to my 9 year old. We ( and I guess maybe I should not
make generalizations here) do not think ourselves better than anyone
else, <snip>I love to explain to my son what the words 
> mean and he loves to hear it, and occasionally comes back with his 
> exasperated voice..." I know Mom!" so maybe we just dont give our 
> kids enough credit...
> 
> Amy...who would love to see us all get along like the sorting hat 
> would love to see the different houses unify and work together!
> (please dont throw stones at me...my computer might break :)

Carol:
Hi, Amy. No stones, don't worry! As a fellow American, I'm a bit
divided on the question of "translating" British English into American
English. I think the original decision was well-intentioned but
possibly mistaken, based on the idea that these are children's books
and they should be accessible to children. The most important
consideration was encouraging children to read. (I agree that children
are smarter than we give them credit for despite what I consider the
inadequacies of the American educational system but possibly
Scholastic didn't hold that view.) I doubt that the publishers, or
even JKR herself, anticipated the phenomenal popularity of the books
among adults as well as children. 

While I do think it was a serious mistake to substitute "murder" for
"curse" in the first chapter of GoF (how in the world did that one get
by JKR), and it's annoying (to me!) out to have Hufflepuffs and
Ravenclaws shuffled around in the rosebush sequence in the same book
so that we don't know how many Miss Fawcetts there are (I still think,
as an editor myself, that the American editor may have caught and
corrected an inconsistency that the British editor didn't see), I
don't think that a child even cares about such details. He or she
wants to know what's going to happen, to laugh at some of the jokes,
to gasp in delighted horror as Harry faces some new peril, to shrewdly
(and sometimes correctly) guess what's coming--and harmless changes
from "jumper" to "sweater" or "fringe" to bangs actually help that
process by not getting in the way of comprehension. A change of "get"
or "prat" to "idiot" or "mental" to "crazy," however, would spoil the
very British flavor of the books and would definitely be an insult to
the children's intelligence. I think the American editor deserves
credit for not making those particular changes.

Are you familiar, Amy, with a book called "How to Speak Southern"? It
came out in the early 1970s (I think) and was, of course, intended to
be humorous. At least I found it funny after having spent a year in
North Carolina (where despite being from Arizona I was considered a
"Yankee"). Anyway, I think it would be hilarious to "translate" the
Harry Potter books into "Southern"--not to help poor li'l Southern
children to understand them but to amuse adult fans of the books
(though I'm not so sure that I want to hear the "Southern" version of
"prat"). 

Meanwhile, it don't make *me* no never mind that the American editors
have tried to help out American children in the first few books. And
don't you worry about those stones. Ya'll is jis as sweet as a punkin
pah . . . .

Carol, remembering some bits of "Southern" from her brief sojourn in
North Carolina