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.

Jenn, If Side A has that argument, then I am curious as to why the author and editor did not also change non-colloquial, but more advanced words so that it could be easily understood?

The author/editor did not take "big words" and replace them with more common "little words".

lol If there's one thing I can safely say I do not have, it's an inferiority complex, about any nation but particularly when it comes to Brits.  That's funnier than you could have ever thought.   heehee nice try though. 

I love people!  So if someone generally insults your entire Country's people, and you speak up, you must have an inferiority complex.  LOL  That is convenient logic, boy.  Granted, I'm a New Yorker living in the South & I've been known to make a snide remark or two while trying to get things done down here, as Southerners will often do while up North, but make no mistake, I will defend this country when (and only when) I feel things said are blatantly untrue & that most certainly does not stem from any feelings of inferiority.  I'm far from alone on that.  I think that's sorta how we became the United States to begin with.  ;) If a person from another country is complaining about something here, politically or otherwise & they are NOT just talking about of their butt, I'm ok with that.  Heck, I often agree.  But there is plenty said about the U.S. that's just some stupid thing someone came up with one day & it ended up getting passed around so much people say it who don't even necessarily believe it!  I love how Americans eat nothing but hot dogs & hamburgers.  One of my favorites.  :)  Again, I'm always left wondering exactly what Americans those might be.  Would those be the Italian Americans?  Irish Americans?  Asians?   I'm thinking not.  lol  er yeah, that one's an annoying insult because we feel inferior or we think it's true.... suuuure, that's it.  Silly people.  :)

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

Of course I'm glad all this was done with Ms Rowling's approval. But if "Mum" and "Happy Christmas" are truly incomprehensible to young Americans, I'll withdraw my whole argument.

Perhaps the question isn't... are "Mum" and "Happy Christmas" incomprehensible to young Americans or... did Arthur Levine FEEL they were?

One puts the onus on American children, the other on Arthur Levine.

Mum and Happy Christmas and a variety of other, more mild colloquialisms were only changed in HP: SS or HP: PS depending on which edition you have.

Since that book, there has been less changing of the colloquialisms, at least, for the more obvious ones.

I like where hk is going ... 

I want to heap all the blame on Arthur Levine too.

For this, and for any and all other literary hatchet jobs an editor has ever perpetrated on a masterful work of art.

Presumably, Heather, after the movie came out, 'Mum' and 'Happy Christmas' became a lot more comprehensible?

Hmmm....I guess I would imagine that the translation started with grammatical and spelling changes. To me this is justified and reasonable. Grammar and spelling is different between British and American English. As young readers, I think its important to see consistency in these areas, especially since they are two areas that are highly tested in the schools. I am sure that companies such as Scholastic (which is a huge distributor of children's books to schools) are going to be concerned with maintaining consistency in spelling and grammar.

I understand that many feel that there is a cultural loss in the translation and that it is good for kids to be exposed to cultural language differences. I don't argue against this; however, it sends a mixed message when it comes to technical aspects of writing.

If I were a teacher that has the responsibility of teaching proper comma usage (which I am not, and do not claim that my own comma use is proper), it would be frustrating to have popular fiction fight against the job of teaching American english.

One person brought up that Canada, South Africa, and others do not have their own versions of the book. It is also my understanding that these countries write and speak in British English. So although there are many dialect and regional differences in word use, the grammar and technical aspects are supposedly the same.

As far as the other cultural and regional changes they made, I think it just goes back to marketing. Like it or not, a company is going to do what will make them the most attractive to their target audience.

this was clearly a marketing decision; rowling would hardly come out against it - she'd be shooting herself in the foot (or, rather, her wallet).  the US is a huge market, and this decision was made to maximize sales potential.  they're appealing to the lowest common denominator in order to attract the widest audience.

and nobody is putting the onus on american children.  they're not responsible for their literacy (or lack thereof).

Hi everyone, Im on a scavenger hunt and next on my list of things to find is "a dead horse that has been beaten", and i heard I could find one in this thread. Can anyone help me out here? 

*hands hoolie a rounder's bat*

*points to thread*

Ooo.. is it Pinata time? >;D

*blindfolds hk*

*hands him a rounder's bat too*

*skedaddles out of thread*

What? You're not going to spin me around first?

What kind of lame arse pinata game is THIS? ;(

a moderator off topic........hmm intriguing :)

J/K HK

*yells back into thread to ssbuckeye*

Hey will you please spin hk around a few times!  He needs to be disoriented.  I was disoriented and forgot!

Disoriented? Is that when they take you out of the Far East?

*badumching*

oh lord.........ok

*spins HK around...let's him find the bat on his own...better for my own amusement*

*races back in to hang up a pinata effigy of Arthur Levine - races back out*

8D

*wanders around, dizzily, tries to find the bat, accidentally runs into a tree* Ow.

ssbuckeye:

You said:


One person brought up that Canada, South Africa, and others do not have their own versions of the book. It is also my understanding that these countries write and speak in British English. So although there are many dialect and regional differences in word use, the grammar and technical aspects are supposedly the same.

I don't know about the rest of English speakers, but Canadian English is much closer to American English than British English. The accent in most regions is similar to many parts of the US: I think it would take a trained ear to figure out how Canadians and Californians differ, for instance. The grammar is basically American (for instance, I almost never use "shall"). The spelling is mixed, with about 25% American usage and 75% British usage (A Canadian will write "colour",  "centre", and "grey" British-style, but "tire" and "wagon" American-style). I really have no clue about the punctuation!

The point is that Britain is almost as foreign to us as it is to Americans.