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

[SilverTurtle]

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!

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by MoonStar17


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.

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.

[lindsay_iu]

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.

[SigmaChiCard]

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.

[AlphaSigOU]

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

[DELTAQTE]

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

[Lady Pi Phi]

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.

[sugar and spice]

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.

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.

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.

[sherbertlemons]

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?

[XOMichelle]

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

[Beryana]

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

[lauralaylin]

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?

[CutiePie2000]

Originally posted by XOMichelle
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

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

[sherbertlemons]

Originally posted by lauralaylin
[/B]

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? [/B]

Am I going? But of course...I'm already polishing my wand and shopping for dress robes. 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.

[polarpi]

Originally posted by Beryana
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

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! )