Oh my goodness, what book are THEY reading?

[iris_ft]

No: HPFGUIDX 106802

Tammy Rizzo wrote, after reading the translation of an article 
published in Le Monde:
"I just finished it, and I can't help but wonder, what on EARTH are 
they
putting in the French translations?!"

Iris (a French member):
Hi, Tammy!
The first time I read the series, it was in its French version. I 
can tell  you that our translator, Jean François Ménard, has done a 
good job. He didn't change the story at all. We never see Harry 
eating a slice of camembert, and Hagrid doesn't drink a single drop 
of Beaujolais. Even Trevor escapes la sauce au beurre, though he 
looks like a frog.

Tammy:
"Or is this just one more example of someone reading the books with 
a particular agenda in mind, and thereby skewing their perceptions 
towards their own pre-set bias?"

Iris:
I agree with what Del replied to your post: put the blame on the New 
York Times for publishing the article that made you feel 
uncomfortable.
I'd like to add, with Kneazy, that Mr Yocaris, who wrote the 
article, is probably an elitist academic. These people generally 
despise what is `popular', like the `Harry Potter' series. But 
however, I don't think it's only a French or an academic tradition. 
All academics are not pit bulls, Kneazy, they are only
 too much 
specialized, and, yes, some of them tend to think they are 
absolutely right (for both reasons, I refused to work for university 
when they asked me). Back to our topic, I'm not sure Mr Yocaris 
wanted to protect our Belles Lettres from `easy to read Harry'. He 
was criticizing the books because they were famous, and this is 
an `international and common' reaction. You probably know in your 
own country people (and not only academics) who don't like a book, 
or a movie, or an artist, because they are successful. There are 
many Potters, and many Malfoys to hate them because they are famous.
  If Mr Yocaris didn't see, or didn't want to see what these books 
actually are
 well, too bad for him. After all, it's only *his* 
opinion, and *his*  goof.
Example: he wrote Cedric died because he was *weak*. He forgot that 
Cedric was one of the Triwizard Tournament champions, and had the 
characteristics of a knight. 
He obviously misinterpreted the character. He wanted to criticize 
the books, because, as a trainer for future teachers, as an 
academic, it was his job. He simply gave an evidence of what happens 
when you talk about something without mastering it completely, or 
when you build an unbiased analyze.

If you can read French, or if it has been translated to English, you 
can read an essay titled `Harry Potter, les raisons d'un succès', by 
Isabelle Smadja. I think you could like it, and a t least you could 
see that a *single* article, written by a *single* author, doesn't 
reflect necessarily  the opinion of a whole nation.



Jem replied to Tammy saying:
"So then the only explanation can be the ancient rivalry between 
France and England which has now extended to America, having rapidly 
ruled out any unbiased analysis of the actual work of fiction and 
here I'm speaking of the Potter books not the review itself."

Iris:
Rivalry? Even with people like Mr Yocaris training the future 
teachers, the Harry Potter books are by now part of our school 
programs, and not only when the kids are given English lessons. One 
way to belittle the fame the English Potter books and the American 
Potter movies have here in France could be not to talk about them. 
But what happens is quite the contrary. And on another way, I've 
never heard of French people blacklisting or burning the Potter 
books 


Jem:
"Oh let's go have another croissant, shall we? Then do some shopping 
in
our trendy boutiques, spending beaucoup euros on transient fashions 
from
Parisien ateliers."

Iris:
As I said previously, a *single* article, written by a *single* 
author, doesn't reflect necessarily the opinion of a whole nation.

 

Amicalement, 

Iris