Harry Potter Scholastic

[Gazella]

I have the Scholastic paperback editions of the Harry Potter books. Anyone know what form of English (GB or US) are the Scholastic editions written in?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Gazella

I have the Scholastic paperback editions of the Harry Potter books. Anyone know what form of English (GB or US) are the Scholastic editions written in?

You have them? You tell us:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html

[Witty Username]

They use US English:

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Scholastic

Also, book 1 is titled The Sorcerer's Stone for the US market, it was The Philosopher's Stone in UK.

[Gazella]

Ah ok. The reason why I'm asking is because I want to get the 5th book in ebook. Pottermore is the only place to get the HP series in ebook form. And they have an option to choose the 'Book Language' and since I'm not British nor American, I had no idea which version to choose. So I wanted to get the English form used in the Scholastic editions. So thank you for letting me know.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Witty Username

Also, book 1 is titled The Sorcerer's Stone for the US market, it was The Philosopher's Stone in UK.

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.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by Gazella

Ah ok. The reason why I'm asking is because I want to get the 5th book in ebook. Pottermore is the only place to get the HP series in ebook form. And they have an option to choose the 'Book Language' and since I'm not British nor American, I had no idea which version to choose. So I wanted to get the English form used in the Scholastic editions. So thank you for letting me know.

Since you're neither British nor American, if you want the books to be closer to the way you write English then ask yourself, do you spell things like this: "colour" "analyse" "centre" etc., or do you spell things like this: "color" "analyze" "center" etc.? If you use the first spellings, you'd prefer the British version; if the second then you'd prefer the American version.

If you want the "original", then that would be the British version.

[Bilbo1967]

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.

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?

[Gazella]

Yes, the second spellings. I'll be getting the American edition. I just checked out the differences between both in the HP books and I've come across a few British words that I'm not familiar with. It's always nice to read the original of course but I found the words I just read to be too "British" for me. Though we do say 'football' and not 'soccer'

[eschwartz]

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?

Put it this way -- I wouldn't put it past them.

[ApK]

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.

Pretty sure there's no such thing as a Philosopher's Stone, either, but if you can prove me wrong, I have several pounds of lead in my garage I'd like you demonstrate on....

But seriously, folks...I knew what the Philosopher's Stone was, but I still think Sorcerer's Stone is the better title. It has better meter, alliteration, and, as I believe was Scholastic's actual stated reason for the change, it more overtly communicates the "magic" element, which might attract more readers.

ApK

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

Pretty sure there's no such thing as a Philosopher's Stone, either, but if you can prove me wrong, I have several pounds of lead in my garage I'd like you demonstrate on....

Oh, it exists all right, just as a legend, not scientifically proven compound.

But seriously, folks...I knew what the Philosopher's Stone was, but I still think Sorcerer's Stone is the better title. It has better meter, alliteration, and, as I believe was Scholastic's actual stated reason for the change, it more overtly communicates the "magic" element, which might attract more readers.

ApK

Wait, so does that mean the British spelling should've been changed too?

You look up Nicholas Flamel, and you'll get an extensive discussion about the Philosopher's Stone. No Sorcerers in sight...
Which is more confusing?

What mainly irritates me is the double standard. If Harry PotterWorld has a Sorcerer's Stone instead of a Philosopher's Stone, I can deal with that, well-read though I am. But to imply that the difference is between American and British readers....

[ApK]

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?

Hmm...I'm starting to wonder if I'm wasting my time trying to find the Tom Hanks box set of Apollo 1-12

Anythewho....Not only do I believe that, but I think there WAS a movie released a while back with a roman numeral title, and it DID cause that confusion. But I can't recall exactly.

Meh, maybe I'm thinking of Travelling Willbury's Vol. 3.....

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Oh, it exists all right, just as a legend, not scientifically proven compound.

D'oh. You got my hopes up. Let me go cancel the order for that private island....

OK. I'm back.

Wait, so does that mean the British spelling should've been changed too?

I dunno. I won't second guess Rowling. She seems to know her audience there just fine.
I think Scholastic made the right decision for here, though.
I have seen enough Monty Python, Benny Hill and other assorted BBC shows over my lifetime to tell you one thing: Sometimes what works for the British doesn't work here.

You look up Nicholas Flamel, and you'll get an extensive discussion about the Philosopher's Stone. No Sorcerers in sight...
Which is more confusing?

Neither. Over here in America, we're smart enough to not be confused by such things. We understand changes made for global marketing reasons.

But to imply that the difference is between American and British readers....

I believe it is. Vive la différence.

[crich70]

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.

What's really ironic is that alchemists did search for the stone for centuries and more often than not instead of finding a way to extend lifespan they probably shortened their own lives by being exposed to all those dangerous chemicals. Transmutation of elements can be done (in a reactor) but the amount of gold made that way is very small and of course you spend more $ making it than you get in return.

[Gazella]

Originally Posted by ApK

But seriously, folks...I knew what the Philosopher's Stone was, but I still think Sorcerer's Stone is the better title. It has better meter, alliteration, and, as I believe was Scholastic's actual stated reason for the change, it more overtly communicates the "magic" element, which might attract more readers.

ApK

Right, but also because they doubted Americans would be familiar with the term "Philosopher's Stone" and for some reason they thought having the word "Philosopher" in the title would turn readers away from the book.