UK vs. US

[anne_t_squires]

No: HPFGUIDX 170573


> 
> Ceridwen:
> That's true for adults, but the books, PS/SS and CoS especially, are 
> for a children's market.  Children know a lot, but if the author 
> started saying that the walls have skirts (baseboards: US), they may 
> not want to try and find a British to American dictionary on-line, 
> they'll just imagine the walls wearing women's clothing.  They might 
> have a good laugh at calling a "stove" a "cooker", too.
> 
> I was thirteen when I first read Sherlock Holmes.  This is both a 
> time and place difference, but I thought Holmes and Watson walked 
> around London holding hands, because they went "in a hansom".  Yes, I 
> did learn that it's a type of cab, after several years.  That's why a 
> lot of "Classics" have footnotes, to explain differences of time 
> (Lydia got a fish?  Phew!).
> 
> And, confess, when the books started calling pull-over 
> sweaters "jumpers", how many people flashed to little dresses made to 
> wear over blouses?  Even if you know what the author's talking about, 
> the mental images can yank you right out of the story if they're 
> foreign enough.  Who wants to stop reading in the middle of a good 
> part just to check some on-line dictionary?
> 
> Ceridwen.
>
Anne Squires:
I would like to point out that not *all* Britishisms were purged from
the earlier books.  A quick skim of the first few chapters of 
"Sorcerer's Stone" reveals underground instead of subway, post instead
of mail, cupboard instead of closet. There are probably more examples;
but, as I said, I merely skimmed.  Furthermore, I have the distinct
impression that more Brit-speak has been included in the American
versions as the series has progressed so that by the time OotP and HBP
came out numerous expressions were not changed.  And I must say I was
chuffed to learn "chuffed"  and other similar expressions.  Quite
often one can extrapolate meaning from context.  But not always.  It
can be both fun and interesting to figure out what different
expressions mean.  However, sometimes it can just be distracting.

I consider myself a well educated (BA & MA) and well read person; but,
it took me four or five HP books to realize that "pudding" means
dessert.  I thought everyone in the books must really love what I, as
an American, think of as pudding which is a type of soft, thick
dessert similar to custard.  I thought this preference for "pudding"
was a wizard thing.  I had no idea what treacle was until I googled
it.  I think that too many Britishisms can distract the average
American reader, child or adult, from the flow of the story.  Of
course, as one reads a British book you want it to have a British feel
or tone.  However, you don't want to sacrifice comprehensibility for
tone, I wouldn't think at any rate.  I think it's a delicate balancing
act that the publisher/editor has to walk in this regard. Also, we
mustn't forget that the peculiarities of the WW are enough to deal
with for the average reader (or should I have said "to be going on
with"?).  For an American reader the world one becomes immersed in is
two-fold:  not only the Wizarding World itself, but also the fact that
we are reading about the **British** Wizarding World.   As Ceridwen
said, if the author says the walls have skirts many American children
would think just that, given the fact that we are dealing with a
magical world.  Remember how many of the wizards at the World Cup were
inappropriately dressed?  Well, for many Americans, if the author says
men are wearing "jumpers" then they are going to think the men are
wearing a type of dress.  What is British vs. what is wizardish
becomes the problem.  Usually when one reads a British novel set in
the RW one can figure out meaning.  In the case of the HP series that
is not the case however.  The very fact that one is immersed into an
imaginary world can pose a problem for extrapolating meaning.

When I first read that the title of the first book had been changed, I
was insulted.  I thought the publisher was underestimating the
American public.  However, I have since changed my opinion.  It was a
marketing strategy, pure and simple.  We can't say for sure how much
the title affected early sales of the book over here.  Perhaps, their
strategy did, if fact, work. Or maybe the title wasn't a factor at all
in the sales figures.  We'll never know.  I also note that some four
years later in 2001 Warner Brothers went with "Sorcerer" instead of
"Philosopher."  They must have discussed the matter as well (I bet
extensively); yet, they went with the US title.  Someone must have
thought that "Sorcerer" would sell better than "Philosopher." Who's to
say they were wrong?  It was marketing, that's all.  Remember this was
the first medium-not-to-be-named.  For many people this was their
first introduction to the series.  The term "Philosopher," I think,
(and obviously others think as well) ***could*** have been a major
turn-off for many potential audience members.

For what it's worth, I think JKR could have titled DH "Harry Potter
and the Philosopher's Ontology" and the book would sell millions in
pre-orders alone in the US.

Anne Squires