Harry Potter Scholastic

[HarryT]

I would always prefer to read the original version of a book, if possible, and these are British books, set in Britain. It really grates to read an "Americanised" version and see American expressions that would never be used in Britain. Britain does not have "parking lots", we have "car parks"; our post does not arrive through a "mail slot", but through a "letter box", and many, many other glaring differences.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would always prefer to read the original version of a book, if possible, and these are British books, set in Britain.

I agree. I bought the UK versions when Pottermore launched so I'd have the original text.

My nephew's been reading them off and on and while he didn't understand what for example a jumper was or what trainers were he does now and he learned something new.

[HarryT]

Good for him! I think it's a little insulting to the reader's intelligence to suggest that he or she is incapable of learning the meaning of unfamiliar words or expressions.

[cromag]

I guess it depends on whether the "reader" is the "audience."

We started reading the Harry Potter stories to the kids when they were 5 and 7 years old. And while we could have stepped out of the story to explain cultural differences, we were all much more interested in conveying the story. And for my daughter, especially, who was 5 and fell completely in love with the story, it was helpful to tell the story in American terms that she recognized.

As it turns out, she's now in college and still loves the stories. And now it makes sense for her to re-read the stories with the original British terms to get a better feel for the original story and setting.

But, when she was 5, that wasn't our primary goal.



BTW, I have no problem at all if an American story (not even necessarily an American children's story) is culturally translated for a British (or Canadian, or Australian, etc.) audience.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cromag

I guess it depends on whether the "reader" is the "audience."

We started reading the Harry Potter stories to the kids when they were 5 and 7 years old. And while we could have stepped out of the story to explain cultural differences, we were all much more interested in conveying the story. And for my daughter, especially, who was 5 and fell completely in love with the story, it was helpful to tell the story in American terms that she recognized.

In that specific case, I agree with you, but it's worth pointing out that the books were never targeted at 5-year-olds.

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In that specific case, I agree with you, but it's worth pointing out that the books were never targeted at 5-year-olds.

And additionally, Americanised or not, I'd expect the books would contain quite a few words that a five-year-old isn't familiar with anyway.

Especially with the Harry Potter books and world, which contain a rather remarkable number of made-up words (as well as words with somewhat-Latinish roots) and brand new concepts, from "muggles" to all the spell names, adding perhaps a dozen formerly-unfamiliar British terms to the list of "new words to acquire / understand from context / remember" shouldn't be a huge problem for any keen reader.

[NickyWithNook]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

As an American, I am very upset about this, they bastardized the book. By assuming the US is somehow magically less intelligent than the UK, and doesn't know what a Philosophers Stone is.

There is no such thing as a Sorcerer's Stone.

Also, aren't the majority of characters in HP sorcerers? Any stone any of them had would be a sorcerer's stone, but a philosopher's stone is something specific.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by NickyWithNook

Also, aren't the majority of characters in HP sorcerers? Any stone any of them had would be a sorcerer's stone, but a philosopher's stone is something specific.

Technically, they are Wizards, not Sorcerers, but I see you point.

There is also the fact that the Sorcerer's stone is a random made up concept, as opposed to the Philosopher's stone which is an old cultural legend, well-known in certain circles, which gives a powerful background to the story.

Mostly, why do British readers get judged as intelligent enough to grasp the idea, above and beyond us Americans???

There is for example, Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, which doesn't seem to have had this problem. It's a fairly popular book, too.

[Gazella]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I remember when this first came out with the alternative US spelling that somebody told me that, as well as this, the film, "The Madness of King George III" was renamed just, "The Madness of King George" for the American market. The reasoning being it was assumed that Americans would say to themselves that they hadn't seen "The Madness of King George I" or "II" so wouldn't bother to watch it.

I've always assumed that this was apocryphal. Is it?

Yes I read about that. On a similar note, when "Licence to Kill" was changed to "Licence Revoked" because Americans wouldn't know what 'revoked' meant.

Two of the key individuals working on "Licence Revoked" – Timothy Dalton and director John Glen – identify MGM as the driver for the title change. Glen writes in his autobiography, For My Eyes Only, that the marketing people protested that American audiences wouldn't know what revoked meant. Dalton supports this, telling Bill Desowitz in James Bond Unmasked that MGM thought that no one would understand it.

The emphasis switched from MGM's marketing people to US test audiences. It was their apparent incomprehension at the word 'revoked' that convinced the producers (or MGM) to go for the title change. Still with the onus on audiences, Pfeiffer and Worrall offer another reason – that 'it was discovered that US audiences associated the term with losing a driving licence'.

More recently, though, the MGM marketing people have returned to the spotlight. In a caption for a Licence Revoked concept poster reproduced in his poster book, Alastair Dougall describes a 'fear' that audiences wouldn't know what revoked meant, and Mark O'Connell writes in his brilliant book, Catching Bullets (2012) about a 'belief' that revoked was unfamiliar with US audiences.

[ApK]

Don't get all defensive, people, it's not about intelligence.
It's about effective marketing and effective story telling. I'm with Cromag. It was not Rowlings intention to make these books a vocabulary lesson. She wrote using words and expressions her audience would understand. She didn't go all Tolkien on them and create a new magical language for everything (spells aside). She didn't make her audience go learn a new term for "car park." She made the language familiar and accessible.
Scholastic ensured the same experience for American readers.

The UK editions are available to us if that interests folks.

And I agree with Pfeiffer and Worrall. If the Bond movie was called "License Revoked" we'd be picturing Bond (as played by Woody Allen) in traffic court arguing with a meter maid.
That's what that phrase invokes (or is it evokes?) here. "Kill" is a stronger word to attract audiences to an action movie.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Gazella

Yes I read about that. On a similar note, when "Licence to Kill" was changed to "Licence Revoked" because Americans wouldn't know what 'revoked' meant.

Don't the two titles mean exact opposites? "Licence to Kill" means that you HAVE a licence; "Licence Revoked" means that you DON'T have a licence.

At least "Sorcerer's Stone" and "Philosopher's Stone" mean pretty much the same kind of thing - a stone with magical powers.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't the two titles mean exact opposites? "Licence to Kill" means that you HAVE a licence; "Licence Revoked" means that you DON'T have a licence.

At least "Sorcerer's Stone" and "Philosopher's Stone" mean pretty much the same kind of thing - a stone with magical powers.

The title doesn't need to explain the plot in detail.
The story references something about Bond's license to kill. That makes both titles appropriate enough.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

The title doesn't need to explain the plot in detail.
The fact that the story concerns Bond's license to kill makes both titles appropriate enough.

Titles of books and films are often different in different countries. Around a third of Agatha Christie's books have different British and American titles, for example. It's something that's always happened in publishing.

[Gazella]

That’s right. For instance, "4.50 from Paddington" was published in the US under the title "What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw" because publishers thought American audiences won’t be able to "connect" to the novel due to its "Britishness". In Brazil, the novel is published as "The Eyewitness", "The 4.50 Train" in the Netherlands, etc.

Also, some American films when they get released in the UK have somewhat different titles than the original US titles. To give an example, the American crime film Bonnie and Clyde. In the UK this film was advertised as Bonnie and Clyde … Were Killers! . Bonnie and Clyde were Americans so they thought it better if they added that second part to the UK title in order to make it clear to British audiences who are unfamiliar with Bonnie and Clyde.

So it's not about lack of intelligence but about the cultural differences between the two and other countries as well.

[HarryT]

I would make a distinction, however, between changing the title, and editing the book to change cultural references. I just don't see the need for the latter at all.