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.

Maybe I'm suppressing my annoyance at the fact that nobody ever caters to Canadians' limited ability to cope with foreignness. Why, Food Network Canada even shows Paula Dean without subtitles!

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.

Oh, I'd missed that.

flamel, what on earth do you base that statement on?? What documentation do you have to back up your "fact?"

athena - that's just what I'm hearing from some of the participants in this thread.

Everyone seems so worked up. Y'all need to chill out.
It's apparent that the sides aren't gonig to agree or whatever, so let's handle this after-school special style - let's agree to disagree and move on.

If not tried before, do you want to close the topic from posting, Flamel (as to avoid further arguing (unless y'all want to keep discussing this, but I see no merit in it for either side, so, whatever floats your boat))?

Seriously though flamel, if you thought I was trying to be mean, I wasn't. I was trying to express my opinion without annoying anyone.
:)

I think it's beaten to death, duzzie, but only a moderator can block a thread (which is what you suggested). I'm going to have a nice metaphorical bath and go relax.

I'm tempted to ask what exactly un-american means since most of us who live here ARE just that... in a matter of speaking.  I don't know too many people who's blood isn't greatly un-american, if you look at it that way.  I bet if we all checked in we'd have ancestors, relatives & in some cases might have even been born un-american.  So when exactly was it we started hating and fearing all things non-american.  I can't think of a single culture or country offhand who's people like to be speaked about with highly unflattering generalizations. 

Don't say things that ARE insults & then turn around & give people a hard time for not being pleased with it. 

" athena - that's just what I'm hearing from some of the participants in this thread."

Where, please? To which specific posts are you referring?

robinsue, athena, and everyone: please check out my newly updated bio. It's all I have to say now. I do want that (metaphorical) bath, and relaxation.

it seems to me the defensiveness here reflects an inferiority complex on the part of the american posters rather than a british sense of superiority.  are there even any brits here?

athena, don't get your knickers in a twist.  flamel makes a thoroughly valid point (several of them, actually).

pgeorgian, my "knickers" are not in a twist. (Nice tactic to try; much easier than refuting my posts, hmm?) I find it hysterical that someone who claims these books were changed because someone -- the "American editor," apparently -- [supposedly] thinks that American aren't smart enough to understand the British terms doesn't himself understand the British terms. :-D

Flamel also claims the Harry Potter books past book 3 are not intended for children. I happen to have a child, am familiar with books that are assigned and read in schools, and with books that appear on lists of recommendations for kids by, for example, children's librarians. Guess what? The Harry Potter series shows up often in schools, is often recommended, etc. and so on. My son is away at camp now, and one of the burning questions for many of the kids is how they will get the last Harry Potter book at camp.

There happens to be a fair bit of kiddle lit that is dark. Heck, even Disney movies for kids have their dark spots, parental death among them.

Of course, anyone can believe whatever they'd like. If someone is going to state an opinion as fact or come to unsupported conclusions in a public venue, they just might get called on it. That doesn't mean those doing the calling have an "inferiority complex;" it might just mean some peoople prefer facts and logically-drawn conclusions from those facts rather than unsupported (and unsupportable) conclusions.

If you can back up the assertion made in the original post -- that the intelligence (or lack thereof) of readers is the reason for the vocabulary changes -- kindly do so. So far, I haven't seen ANY supporting evidence presented for that opinion.

just to be clear, athena,

are you asking for evidence or support that Americans are less intelligent or are you asking for testimony from Rowling and/or her editors about their editorial process?

Because the former might be found (or refuted), but the latter is likely to be proprietary, and left for you to have your opinion about.

"Arthur Levine, my American editor, and I decided that words should be altered only where we felt they would be incomprehensible, even in context, to an American reader... The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. In England, we discussed several alternative titles and Sorcerer's Stone was my idea." -- JK Rowling

ok - there you have it... words were changed because they were felt to be "incomprehensible, even in context" to americans.... case closed

Voila! Thanks, hgielrehtaeh.

Now I have to go put some things in the boot of my auto and have the aluminium knob on the end of the trafficator fixed.

well now...don' that just slap yer arse and make you say 'uncle'...

*cue Benny Hill music*

lol, kathygator!

An interesting article on the "ruination" of English: http://www.pbs.org/speak/ahead/change/ruining /

"...incomprehensible, even in context, to an American reader..."

yep, that about sums it up. 

Yup, just like American books are edited for vocabulary for British readers... because there are words that are "incomprehensible, even in context," to a British reader.

Amazing!

Funny thing is, that just serves as justification to both sides.

Side A can say that means the author and editor assumed it would be incomprehensible because of the reading level and/or sophistication of readers.

Side B can say that means the author and editor assumed it would be incomprehensible because of the colloquial nature of the words.

:)

yes, but there are many english-speaking countries in the world.  they don't print special editions for south african, bahamian, belizian, australian, or canadian readers.