Another thing that got me was the students buying their books for school-do kids in the UK really have to buy their own textbooks?
I think it has something to do with the Crimean War. I’m pretty sure Balaklava was the location of the Charge of the Light Brigade. More than that I couldn’t say and I didn’t turn much up with a quick Google search either.
You will note I said in Harry Potter’s wizardy world before that.
When he was at the Dursley’s house, reading his books under the bedclothes, then yes, you’re right, of course, in your version he would have a flashlight whereas in mine it would be a torch.
It’s not just children’s books that get this treatment. IIRC, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series had some alterations made for the American edition, and I’m sure the same has been done to many other British books.
I remember reading in a magazine article about the Harry Potter books that they were especially challenging for the British-to-American “translators” because there are so many wizard words (“Spellotape”) that are based on British terms (“cellotape”). They decided to leave most of these alone and focused their attention on Muggle terms.
With few exceptions, I also find this annoying. However, when it comes to slangier Britishisms that are unlikely to appear in American dictionaries, or words that have different meanings in the US and UK but context is not enough to make this clear, change is justifiable. I’m against dumbing things down, but I’m also against making things needlessly confusing – especially for kids.
For instance, in the American Edition of Order of the Phoenix, the Weasley twins remark that they were able to “keep our spirits up” during exams. In the British edition, they say “keep our peckers up”. I doubt many Americans are familiar with this British expression, and possible that a couple of boys in their late teens really might use it in the American sense (“we were able to achieve/maintain erections”) in the same context. But that’s a bit racy for a children’s book! Had it been left alone it would have shocked more than a few readers, and some of them surely would have made a fuss about it. So it was a smart business move for the publishers to tweak that one. If changing a single word can clarify the author’s intended meaning while avoiding embarassing misunderstandings then I think it’s reasonable.
-
Hardy Boys books do get updated from time to time - precisely for that reason (although the back cover will say something like “Mr. Dixon has included the latest crime-solving techniques”). I have a 1930’s “Hidden Harbor” where they are in a car (roadster) chase that got up to 35 - then 45 miles an hour! It also has the boys interviewing a former slave about the history of the harbor.
-
No fourth graders I know (and I have one, and he has lots of friends) would pick up a Hardy Boys book. It’s Harry Potter, Redwall, Series of Unfortunate Events, Shakespeare Stealer, Thief Lord, etc.
Lamia, are you saying that in England this phrase has never had anything to do with the penis? And if so, what the heck is a pecker?
Never? Beats me. You’d have to ask a Brit that one and not just an Anglophile. 
But in this particular instance, that’s not the intended meaning.
In this sense it means…well, “spirits”, pretty much, or “courage”. To make a WAG, this may be similar to “keep our chins up”, with “pecker” meant to suggest to the mouth/nose by evoking the image of a bird’s beak (what it “pecks” with), but I don’t really know the origin of the expression.
No, IIRC Thomas Dean shows up multiple times as a background character. It was a mistake that left him out of the sorting list, but since the American version comes out later, it could be corrected.
Does “chum” have a different meaning than fishing bait? I was reading a Hardy Boys book and the brothers went fishing, and when Jow called Frank “chum” I thought “Yeep! There’s gonna be some fratricide and a coverup!” and immediately put down the book because I was so disturbed. Should I finish reading it?
Asylum, posts like that are one of the reasons I come here. For some reason, that made me happy. 
“Chum” means buddy. You should be able to pick that up from watching vintage Batman episodes.
It really is very vintage vocab.
Not so vintage. From the Simpsons episode where Bart sells his soul:
Bart to Millhouse: “Nice doing business with ya, chummmmmmmmmmmm … p.”
Anyone who says it’s a good idea to change Britishisms to Americansims because kids might find it confusing… well nobody seems to care about changing Americanisms into Britishisms, so the rest of the world (including kids) just has to leasrn from context what the hell you guys are talking about half the time.
If we can figure it out as kids, then so can the US kids. In fact I encourage it, so they will learn some fascinating cultural facts about the world, as well as where to go to look some of it up, if need be.
[geek mode=“on”]
Electrically-powered devices like a battery-powered light source wouldn’t work at Hogworts. Remember, Harry wouldn’t be able to summon a scuba tank to rescue Ron during the Triwizard Tournament, and Draco Malfoy was definitely not communicating on a walkie-talkie. (Though I admit the failure of the scuba tank thing perplexes me; surely an underwater device such as that isn’t exactly electrical.)
I can’t remember precisely if Harry ever uses a flashy-burny-drippy-handheld-fire torch in the wizarding world, especially when he could just wave his wand and say lemons! or whatever it is.
[/geek]
You know, someday, I would really like a better explanation of why electronics and batteries and such doesn’t work other than “the world is just set up that way.” What the heck is going on with magic that it manages to screw up electromagnetism and basic chemical reactions? Every time I hit that, my suspension of disbelief goes away for a little while.
“Lumos”
I assume it’s Latin…
What the hell is a baker’s opposite? An anti-baker? And if so, shouldn’t he be buying an anti-bun?
Ooh, is that where you get antipasta, too?
And strange though it may seem, I actually don’t have a problem with technology not working around Hogwarts. It’s totally illogical, but somehow it just… works.
I suspect “the baker’s opposite” is “the baker opposite of Harry” (not "the opposite of the baker), or, the baker across the street.
If the baker touches his opposite, do they explode?