American editor underestimates the intelligence of Harry Potter readers

When I got my first Harry Potter book (the Scholastic edition) I noticed that it used American spellings (things like "color" instead of "colour"). And the name of the book didn't match the movie (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone).

Later at another bookstore I found the Canadian edition (from Raincoast books), and it had much prettier cover art so I bought the rest of my Potter books from there. And I was so unhappy about my American book that I ended up buying Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone from Raincoast too.

It's not just the spelling that's Americanized in the Scholastic edition. A quaffle is compared to a soccer ball (not a football), a Beater's bat is like "a short baseball bat" (not a rounder's bat, whatever that is), and Hermione has a crying jag in "the "bathroom" (not the toilets). All that in about 4 pages.

Is this interference called for? There's no question for me personally - half the charm of the Potter stories is their Britishness (I'm pretty nerdy about my love of things English) and I can't help but feel that the American books are butchered. But they're more approachable for American kids. Does this dumb them down too much?

EDIT: I've changed the title to reflect what I see as the real issue. But this discussion has brought home the fact that many Americans see everything un-American as, at best, not the sort of thing impressionable kids should be exposed to.

well, we basically do, but then again, spaniards and mexicans basically speak the same language... with DIFFERENCES!!!!

if my 10 year old cousin wants to read harry potter, and feel the magic and go on the adventure, and get turned on to reading because he can get into a book and it doesn't feel like a social studies project, i say go for it!

the american version still talks about kippers and puddings and a variety of other "british" things, but it does really give american kids a clue as to what is going on. seriously, i wouldn't know cricket terminology! and i'm highly educated, pretty smart, and i've been to england!!! what chance would a 10 year old have???

oh that strait up sucks! i love it when anything keeps its local color. i dont read those books as they are not of interest to me...

but urgh...it should of been kept original.

funny book story...

my little brother was reading a tolken book...
comes running in my room saying it swears...

"gather all the f*ggots for burning"

and i laughed and explained that just meant like kindling for a fire.
lol

but bottom line i think in this situation is sales. more people will buy it if its easy to read.

flashbacks to highschool ...how stupid everyone sounded trying to read w.s. macbeth etc...lol

obviously there are DIFFERENCES, and i never said that there weren't. that's why the books were changed, so that the books would be more marketable to americans. this is what i've said since my FIRST COMMENT in this thread. i just think it's sad that they aren't marketable to americans in their original wording because of their britishness and how we'd HAVE to explain so much to the children reading them. why don't you think kids should have a challange? it's obviously not going to challange them too much, the books are written for a specific age group. i LOVED learning when i was a kid, and i STILL love learning. i would have loved something like harry potter in the original form when i was 9 and i love it now (though i prefer fantasy books written for an older crowd, Robert Jordan, Margaret Weis, etc).

Have you seriously never encountered the abundance of people from England that terribly butcher the English Language?  Quite a lot of them actually are aware of it too.  I hear how much Americans butcher the english language, but then that suddenly gets dropped when it becomes so apparent that they spell & speak atrociously.  I really resented that statement.  As I said above, The English language, (and I mean the British version) is full of slang & lazy speakers just like anyone else who speaks it.  I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that it wasn't.  Perhaps William & Henry speak very well, but it isn't even the average way.  Just like here, languages get altered through the years, by different groups or classes or regionally, or because of a lack of education (or caring about what they had learned) & a lot of other factors.  You're going to tell me no one is England says Wa'er rather than Water ALL the time.  It's the norm. in at least one area.  Tell me that's speaking properly.  Even over there there are plenty of people who pick on how other people speak.  Just like here.  Regional issues like the North & the South are not confined to the U.S.  

robinsue74, i don't think anyone said british english is somehow better than american english or that they all speak properly. the whole argument here is that some are happy that the book was localized, some aren't happy that it was, and we all have our various reasons why.

robinsue - for me it's not an issue of whether Rowling's British English is better, but of having her books be faithful to what she envisioned when she created Hogwarts. And written English is far more standardized than spoken English, anyway (nobody *writes* wa'er, do they, any more than Americans write wadder for water. We get along). I don't think we're putting British English on a pedestal but for me it's an inseparable part of the Harry Potter series.

Well I wasn't actually referring to your post, flamel, or to the books at that point.  It was more toward the some of the last several, specifically addressing Americans as poor speakers of the English Language.  Some definitely were trying to put it on a pedestal, and it does not belong there.  There are those who speak well in both countries, but England in general is hardly a country full of Shakespeares, as I've said in the past.  That refers to both spoken & written language.  I was referring to both when I was talking about butchering.  But yes, I would hope a book, ANY book, aside from those purposely written using a lot of slang would be edited to be at least near perfect.

it just seems unnecessary to propagate the notion that american culture is all there is.  especially for kids.

but let's keep this in perspective: this is an example of one publisher--and one that specializes in marketing to kids, often through schools--making a marketing decision. 

and just to be clear, scholastic sells the americanized versions in canada, too.

Of course, what your idea of "perfect" usage is depends on what country you're in. For instance, in Canada, "colour" is correct, "centre" is correct, and "grey" is correct, but "tyre" and "waggon" are just wrong. But I didn't like the American editor correcting the usage just because it was foreign - the whole book is obviously foreign.

Say i wanted to read  Tartuffe by Moliere...Originaly written in French...i'd say...shucks...i'd better learn some French...but luckily for me the tale was translated into english and i can enjoy all the satire just the same...maybe not with the original "feel" but like the story and understand it. Harry Potter has been translated into a number of languages so people all over the world can enjoy it.  I might be a bit miffed if the brits said..."oh screw you america we'll translate it for everyone but you...heres the british version"  Now if you happen to be like flamel and enjoy the charm that the british cockney adds to harry potter...then go ahead and PURCHASE it ...guess what its for sale!!...as for me...when i get interested enough to read Tartuffe in French...i'll learn the language...until then i'm buying the american version.

you do speak english, right?

by that logic, you should have a different translation for every state and province in the english speaking world.

At one point in my life, I had several neighbors from Great Britain, so I'm familiar with the slang and expressions.  It was amusing that the husband of my friend's British nanny had to beat off American women, who thought he was a "perfect English gentleman."  He wasn't.  He was a retired mill worker from Yorkshire with not much education and an accent to match. 

We did get a kick out of hearing him say things like "Don't wacken babby" translated - Don't wake the baby.  He refered to his daughters as "our Irene" and "our Mary" not just to other people, but when addressing them. ("Give your dad a hug, our Mary"). 

His wife got into some hysterical conversations when she asked people to please knock her up, meaning come and see her. 

Luckily, they both had a wonderful sense of humor.

A question:  Does the British version refer to broomsticks as besoms? 

no besoms, just brooms.

Hmm... I have ancestors from Yorkshire... hmmm...

Actually, someone sure did.  Which they're entitled so say of course, but I was answering it. 

I was referring to this actually:

"saying that americans and brits speak the same language is like saying that someone from spain who speaks beautiful catilion spanish speaks the same language as a mexican!

wrong-o"

Perhaps you missed the post, read it quickly & didn't quite get the point of it.  It was clearly a reference about dialect differences,  indicating the poster feels American English is most definitely not as nice as British English.  That was the whole point of the analogy they used.

Just for the record, I don't tend to hallucinate much.  :P

I read the "untranslated" version of the Philospher's Stone to my daughter (who was too young to read it herself). She loved it. We read it in English, which thankfully, we both speak quite well. Not being a sport's fan, I didn't think of the quaffle as being anything other than a ball. I've tried to throw a football. It's not gratifying. In my mind, if I need to throw anything, it becomes round. That's the joy of reading: you can place any parameters you want to make the words fit your imagination.

I also read "Bridge to Taribithia" which wasn't translated into Canadian or British. It is VERY American (there's not a lot of kids named May Belle in Canada), but because it was also written in English, we read it and enjoyed it. I went to see the movie and was surprised by how little it resembled my imagination.

We've read British books, Canadian books, Aussie books, American books and one or two books from South Africa. Culturally, they're very different from each other and linguistically, the slang that's in there can be a challenge, but if you're not open to reading your native tongue in a number of dialects, even Chicka Chicka Boom Boom can present a few challenges.

HOWEVER... there is one thing missing from this debate: literacy is does not require magnificent cultural/linguistic comprehension. I don't give a rat's patootie WHY anyone is reading a book or which version of the book they're reading... what I care about is that people are READING. Heck, I support Archie comics if it means we're not parked in front of the TV watching reality TV.

~Just one Canadian's opinion

I love what Harry Potter has done for reading!  :)

saying that americans and brits speak the same language is like saying that someone from spain who speaks beautiful catilion spanish speaks the same language as a mexican!

wrong-o!


first of all the term is castillian, second your comment is somewhat offensive.  Spanish just like the British are capable of completely butchering the Spanish language with tons of slang.  Mexicans and other Latin Americans are also capable of of speaking beautiful Spanish. The first time I went to Spain I had to use all of my concentration to understand some of the  young people there and I am a native Spanish speaker.  No, I'm not  from Mexico ;)
And finally who cares if some terms are translated??  As long as kids are reading it's fine by me!

Interesting posts. We were living in Western Australia when the first HP book came out. I think the first version we saw was British, but my husband was in the US at the time and brought back a hardback copy that was an American version. We wanted to have a nice set, so we kept buying the American hardbacks. But before we got them we usually picked up the local version first. Having read both ways, I didn't really notice a difference in terms. I'm a bit of an Anglophile though so I would say I would prefer the British (original) version. That said, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to buy it.

I enjoy watching foreign films with subtitles. The funny thing is that when I later recall scenes from the movies, I recall them with the english words, almost as though the actors had spoken english.

The point is, it is the story that's most important, not whether it's toilets or bathroom. But for those people that think Harry Potter books are just for kids??? C'mon, they are fantastic and I personally can't wait for the next book and movie to come out!!

Me mum's from England as is half me family...

But I'm an American who is very familiar with southern English colloquialisms AND southern American colloqialisms.

I read the American versions of the HP books.

I'd love to read the British versions.

My sole concern with a 'translation' from British English to American English would be that the author approved of all changes.  Since it is the author's work, I feel that, for integrity's sake, the author should make any re-writes, edits, additions to her text.  As long as that's the case, I don't have a problem with it.  Though I do feel very connected to England, and I do enjoy the British-isms.

(I wrote my first sentence in British colloquial usage, but I bet everyone knows exactly what I'm saying.)

This is a really silly argument.  First - and most importantly - Rowling approved each and every change.  That should end the discussion right now.  However,

kindoflikeSarah - so you prefer to read th English version.  Fine!  Read it, but you clearly don't know very much about children if you think that words that they don't understand aren't an issue.

What Rowling wanted to be done by "translating" the books into American English was to have her ideas brought forth clearly and succinctly, as she pictures them in her head.  When you write a book, you are painting a picture in someone else's head.  If that person is wrongly picturing Harry in a dress, or a football shaped quaffle - your story is conveyed less successfully, and in the end is more confusing to a child.

I am an elementary school teacher.  I work with kids all the time, and let me tell you - they absolutely DO pick up on stuff like that.  Confusion is frustrating for a 9 year old.  Often rather than figure it out, they will give up.  If a child gives up reading your children's book - you have failed as an author.

This is, first and foremost, a children's book.  It was written for children and about children.  Rowling was published by a children's book publisher in both the UK AND the US (Bloomsbury and Scholastic).  Yes - adults read the books too, but they are meant for children.  If I were an author, I would want my story to be accessible to all children - not just the ones in my country.  It is not only a smart move fiscally, but a kind move towards children.

By all means, the British version should be published in the US.  However, much of the local dialect would go over the heads of your average elementary schooler.  Not all - some smart ones will pick it up.  But yes, most of them will be coonfused by the words.

It is also silly to think of it as being "dumbed down."  The American editors aren't replacing the 3 syllable words with one syllable words,shortening the chapter length, or making it into a picture book.  They are simply editing certain dialect choices that would be confusing to your average 9 year old American.  I think its great - American kids get to enjoy the books the same way that the British kids do!  Why should the American children have to struggle to understand basic British words, when the British kids can sail through it?  That isn't what the author wants.

Go read your British version, but please don't accuse American children who work hard on their grammar of having things "dumbed down" for them.  It isn't fair, and it isn't accurate.