Question for *AMERICAN* fans of the Harry Potter books?
 

As you all know, Book #5 is looming on the horizon, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix!
I am very psyched to read this next book.

And now, my question, and I direct it to the Americans (because I live in Canada and I want to know what you all think!)

I'm not sure if you knew this, but in Canada, and Australia (being parts of the "British Commonwealth"), we received the books in the way that J.K. Rowling originally published them (cuz she lives in the British Commonwealth, too)
For example, Book #1 was called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (I think the movie in Canada was called "Philosopher's Stone", but I saw it in Australia and it was DEFINITELY called "Philosopher's Stone" there.

In the USA, Book #1, was called Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone (as was the movie).

Also, in the "US Version" of the book, there were many other Americanizations in the book (which are detailed in
this article here).

Here's a small excerpt of said article:
__________________________________________
"So where the Harry of the British editions has a passion for pudding, especially jelly, the Harry adapted for America prefers dessert and Jell-O. Bad guys are "crooked" instead of "wonky"; "puff balls" replace "bobbles" and "complete lunatic" takes half the menace and all the energy out of "barking mad."

The British Potter checks a "timetable" for his beloved classes at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, but dreads the "holidays." In the American versions, though, Harry's classes are listed in a "schedule" and it's "vacations" that force him to go home to his detestable foster family.

In perhaps the ultimate over-Americanization of all, "Father Christmas" becomes "Santa Claus." The good news, though, is that some words appear to be untranslatable. The kid disparaged as "ickle Ronnie" stays disparaged; the kid disparaged as "little Ronnie" would at least have a chance of someday growing up. "Ickle" stays, in both British and American versions.

"Shirty" stays, too, but it's italicized - apparently to make sure we understand it isn't a typographical error."
_______________________

So, to you Americans, how do you feel about this? Do you feel insulted? Do you feel somewhat cheated that you are not getting the "true, authentic experience" of reading Harry Potter, the way J.K. Rowling wrote it? I think people (no matter what country) are smart enough to glean from the context what the author means..they don't need to have a book's words altered for them.

Tell me what you think......please!

Howdy!

I got hooked on HP when my husband informed me that Minute Maid (Coke subsidiary) was going to be involved in the promotion of the movies. We picked up a copy of the first book, just to see what the fuss was about. I happened to glance at the first pages before work one day. Three chapters and an hour later i was REALLY late!

I'm torn in half on this one: I can see that if you are not really familiar w/ British vernacular, you are going to get lost with some of the terminology. They really are two different languages. So I understand the need for some translation.

Personally, the British phrasing and expressions adds a subtle ethnic touch that gets lost in the translation. But then, I'm a big BBC-America nut and I love British culture.

On a similar note, I thought it was an excellent idea that only British actors and crew be involved in the making of the movies. For the same reasons: American expressions and pronunciation take away from the "feel" that Rowling originally created.

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)
Camped out by the mailbox waiting for Order of the Phoenix.....
:D

I can sort of see the reasons for the Americanization - but yes, I do feel insulted that some editor arbitrarily decided that Americans don't know what a philosopher, a timetable, or pudding is. :rolleyes:

One of these days I'll have to get hold of the unadulterated versions...

What I also don't get is that while "timetable" and "schedule", mean virtually the same thing, Philosopher and Sorceror mean totally different things? :confused:
Like you would never lump Socrates (a Philosopher) and Gandalf (the Sorceror Wizard Dude from Lord of the Rings) together??

I am not insulted at all. The changes are very small, and they don't take away from the story. I think it's silly to change these little things, but it's no big deal to me.

The one exception is the Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone. I had no idea what the Philosopher's Stone was until the movie came out. I had never heard of the story behind it. But, if I recall correctly, there was a poll on Harry Potter For Grown Ups that asked if people knew what the Philosopher's Stone was before reading the book, and the British seemed to have heard about it more than the Americans. So that change I can sort of see.

Btw, only 70 days left! I don't know if I can wait that long. The movie comes out today, and I ordered it from Amazon. Dumb move on my part, it hasn't come yet for me, but I know someone who had it on Wednesday!

Don't forget, many Americans have never left their zip codes, so are totally unfamiliar with British idioms and slang.

Many moons ago (fifty, to be exact), Ian Fleming wrote the first book of the adventures of Britain's most famous secret agent, James Bond. The series was popular in England and Europe, with a small, devoted fan base in America.

It was not until 1960 when Life magazine published an article on President John F. Kennedy's ten most favorite books; number 7 on the list was Fleming's From Russia with Love. That's when 007 mania began taking off.

Fleming's first book, Casino Royale was full of Britishisms and a few French words thrown in for good measure. (Fleming, like his alter ego James Bond, was fluent in French, German and Russian.) When first issued in paperback in the USA, the title was altered to You Asked For It and the dialogue Americanized, since the publishers thought at the time 'Americans wouldn't know how to pronounce Casino Royale'.

Some of the American editions of Fleming's books had chapter titles changed; in is second book, Live And Let Die, one chapter title in the original book read: "N***** Heaven". The American edition changed it to a more benign "Seventh Avenue". (Ya gotta remember this was the early 50s, not the PC culture of today.)

There is such a thing as a philosophers stone, though (well, mythologically), and there is no such thing as a sorcorers stone. It's like saying, "They're never heard of unicorns, so we'll call them horn-horses."

The philosophers' stone was an alchemical concept - it was supposed to be able to turn lead into gold.

I as a reader am very insulted. That's why I buy the Canadian editions.

I wouldn't necessarily say that I was insulted, but I think it's stupid. We had this discussion on another board, and everybody said that, when they were younger, they picked up lots of things from British culture just by reading books written in Britain . . . they didn't need them to be "Americanized," they figured things out as they read. And I think the publishers are not giving American kids of today nearly enough credit.

For whoever asked why it was changed from "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorcerer's Stone," it was because the publishers thought that American children would find the word "philosopher" off-putting and boring, where "sorcerer" sounded way more interesting and more likely to induce kids to read it.

personaly i have tried to read the british version, and i kept getting stuck, i had to get my friend (who is a Brit) to translate, the book should be fun to read, so if they change is to the vanacular it is fine by me....

Chris

Nope. In Canada it was Called the Philosopher's Stone. Book and Movie.

edited to add: I'm so glad I read the British version.

I don't know if insulted is quite the right word, but I do think it was unnecessary.

In the American movie "HP & The Sorceror's Stone" the cast definately refers to the actual object as the sorceror's stone. I asked my friend (an American living in London) if it was philosopher's stone when he saw it in England. & he wasn't sure. He thought it was until I asked him, because I couldn't imagine them filming all of those scenes twice just to change the one word.

I think they actually did, though.

My nephews have the video (Canadian version) and not only is the title "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but the cast definitely call it the Philosopher's Stone in the movie, too.

Eh...I don't care too much...and I don't think it would be too hard to get my hands on a British version if I really wanted to...

Sarah

I have been quite obsessed with Harry Potter and I have ordered my copy of book #5 already!! :)

As for the changes. I think for some it might be appropriate, considering that you have to think of it as what the majority is. Sad reality is that majority of people who will read one of JKRowling's books will NOT know how to understand the language found in HP.

Also, younger children who are being read HP might get lost in the words, still somewhat older children will be able to figure it out if they are reading the words and are able to understand the context of the passage and/or sentence.

Still, as for me I would LOVE to get a hold of the Brittish copies, I find the language very interesting and I love how they talk on the movies, very authentic to the characters that JKRowling created.

I cant wait for book #5!!!! :D

If you want to get Harry Potter books in the "British" or "Canadian" format (they're the exact same kiddies, but the Canadian will be cheaper for you Americans),

You can order from:

www.amazon.ca (Please note the " .ca ", not .com !! .ca means Canada, so that is the Amazon site for Canadian orders) or
www.chapters.ca (which is kind of like your Barnes & Nobles or BORDERS)

CutiePie..
Thanks for confirming that for me. I still think it's weird (& expensive!) to change the film that way.

Not that it's gonna keep me from being at the bookstore for the release of Book #5, even if it's the bastardized American version! ;)

I actually think the opposite is true. Younger children, who are new to reading, are used to coming across words they don't know in books, and since they're often too lazy to get a dictionary and look the word up, they'll just assume what it means from the context. (I did this all the time as a kid, lol!) The younger readers won't understand that "wonky" isn't used in America -- they'll just think it's another word they don't know and they'll assume the meaning from the context. The older readers, who know that "wonky" isn't an American word, are the ones that have more trouble with it.

I think an interesting compromise would be to print the British version but with a British/American translator in the book so kids could look up that crazy British slang and figure it out themselves, rather than having it all done for them.

I read somewhere that the reason the title of the first book was changed is because in the U.K. philosopher means wizard, magician, etc...and in America the word is thought of more as someone such as Aristotle...a thinker.

Though I don't know the words that were altered, i think they found a broader audience by changing the slang. young american kids aren't going to know what a loo is, or what peckish means, what a gaff or meff is, or whatever british slang they might use. It's not an issue as to whether you as 20 yr olds can interpret what JK means, but whether kids can, and whether her books will get sold. I guarentee you would not like her books near as much as if it looked like Irvine Welsh (Trainspotting) wrote it.

and for the philosopher/sorceror argument, that's exactly why the words had to be switched: hell, get on one's tits there means "To annoy, to get on one's nerves," what's that mean here? something a bit different, i think.

Well... as long as they don't resort to 'Nadsat' (the language used in A Clockwork Orange, both in book and film). :D

I have no problem with J.K Rowling adapting the book for us. I am an American and proud to be one. Why should we feel insulted when they change our movies overseas all the time to adapt to the culture there? We are not all the same.


I love the HP series and I have all the books, can't wait for #5.


And I so agree that I am glad they kept the kids british. I got into a disagreement with some guy on the HP boards who's kid auditioned for harry and he's from America. He said they should take the time out to "teach the kids" how to speak British. Adults even have a hard time doing this and it takes months to learn, so why not hire the real thing? They did stay true to the book in that aspect.

At one time, Hailey Joel Osmond was considered for Harry. For real I would of been watching the movie and all I would have though was "Look at the sixth sense kid playing Harry Potter" lol.


QT

I personally don't think the books/movies should have different versions. I don't see what the difficulties are. Granted, my mother is English and I grew up in a house full of British slang. But really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the characters are trying to say. I think in many ways Canadians and Americans will think alike and may have difficulties understanding British slang. So why did they change it for them and not for us. If I were JK Rowling, I would have said screw you, I'm not changing my book. Give people some credit, I'm sure they would have figured it out.

I agree -- I don't understand why they thought American kids would be too dumb to figure out what British slang meant but Canadian kids weren't. The school systems here aren't THAT bad. :p

I read tons of books with British words and slang in them when I was little and I figured out what "loo" and "jumper" and "anorak" were by the context. I don't think kids have gotten that much stupider since I was one, either. :D

I think it just goes along with the American culture of dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator. People think that everything should be as easy and enjoyable as possible -- there are so many people who don't realize that if you put a little bit of effort into something it often makes it that much more enjoyable, and it challenges you to do something that you haven't done before or learn something that you haven't learned before. Unfortunately, this part of our culture -- the part that says that learning doesn't have to be a chore, or that hard work isn't always something to avoid -- is quickly becoming nonexistent. But that could lead me into an entirely new rant, I think.

I personally found the changes to be unneccesary. If Scholastic felt some terms really would be too hard tounderstand, they could have put a British glossary in the front of the book; I've seen that done before. But really, I felt I wouldn't have much trouble understanding the language- I say this having read the British edition of Philosopher's Stone.

BTW, anyone going to Nimbus 2003?

I actually read the British versions, I learned they spell things differently there. It was a shocker, to know that the words I had spelled wrong all these years were actually spelled right to millions of people across an ocean.
-M

I own both editions of the books (hardcover American and paperback British). I prefer the British because of the language. It is easier to imagine it set in Britain when using 'jumper' and other British vernacular. They also come out in paperback a lot earlier in Britain! :)

Sarah

BTW, anyone going to Nimbus 2003? [/B][/QUOTE]

I wish! My husband would never go, and I don't want to go alone, so I"m not going. But it sounds like they'll be making the discussions available to us after the conference, so I'm content with that I guess. Are you going?

We spell things differently in Canada too:
USA: Canada:
color colour
neighbor neighbour
write a "check" write a "cheque".

Am I going? But of course...I'm already polishing my wand and shopping for dress robes. :D Am extremely excited...plan on enjoying the discussions and stalking my favorite fanfic writers. Not to mention the big brawl that I predict between the Harry/Hermione fans and the Ron/Hermione fans.

The first time I read the series, I actually read the first three books from the British versions (picked up when studying abroad in England). After reading the fourth book(edited to add: the American version), you notice a difference. There's a part of me that wishes that the versions were all the same across the world, but then there's the part of me that figures if I really want both versions, I'll buy both versions (books are my one main vice! ;) )

I have a couple of friends going to England later on in June and I have already asked them to get me a copy of any British Harry Potter book so I can read the "original."

I so agree with Adrienne on this! Do any of you remember that Rosie O'Donnell was chomping at the bit to play Professor McGonagall? Eeew. "She" gives me the willies. (Rosie, not Professor McGonagall)

I had heard that she wanted to play Mrs. Weasley. I think she's equally missuited for both parts, personally.

Actually, I think at the rate her career's going right now, she'll be chomping at the bit for any part... :rolleyes:

This is a little off-topic, but I have the COOLEST poster from the first movie!

I was studying abroad in London when the first movie came out, so my friend Merry (who is obsessed as I am, if not more so) and I headed down to Leister Square the day of the premiere. The theatre is HUGE and was all decorated as Hogwarts, with big house banners hanging up. It was a really neat experience, we saw JK Rowling and a bunch of the actors coming to see the movie (we saw Harry, Hermione, Ron, Fred and George, Crabbe and Goyle, Hagrid...) and it was really cool.

So they had these big posters hanging on all the barriers, and they had a stack of leftovers they were handing out at the end - so Merry and I each got one of those. And a few weeks later, Alan Rickman came and talked to one of my classes (I know, you're all jealous!) and so I got him to sign it!

The neatest thing is that it says "The Philosopher's Stone" - everyone looks at it and asks "Why doesn't it say Sorcerer's Stone?" And then I get to tell my London story! :)

*wibbles* Lucky! What's Alan Rickman like in person?

Oh My God!!! I am so insanely jealous. The closest I've ever been was when I went to see Private Lives in NYC. I was sick so I couldn't even try to see him as he left the theatre. Did you get a picture of him?

Well, my theatre class had seen Private Lives in London, so Alan Rickman had come in to talk about that - I do have two pictures of him, surrounded by about 30 eager theatre majors. :)

He was nice, kind of formal - and I think we surprised him, because we were "supposed" to asking about Private Lives and theatre and all that, and we kept asking about his movies... he kind of laughed at us and had a "silly Americans!" attitude, but he was nice.

And he stole my marker when he signed my poster, but I've forgiven him!