Are American words subbed in for British ones when “Harry Potter” books are published in the U.S?
In particular, there’s a bathroom in the second book (Chamber of Secrets) that figures prominently. Over and over, they call it a ‘bathroom’ instead of ‘the toilets.’
What do the British versions of the book have?
The title of the first book wasn’t even the same in the two countries (Sorcerer’s Stone over here, and Philosopher’s Stone over there). And there were a bunch of other changes too.
I’m assuming that the books are Americanized. I know that “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was called “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” in the UK. Apparently the publishers didn’t think that American readers would know what a Philospher’s Stone was.
I would be interesting, though, to see a list of the differences, if any (“truck” for “lorry,” etc.)
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/strictly_british1.html
A plug for Vanderark. The man is awesome. HPFGU4Ever!
Darn, ultrafilter, you beat me.
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/help.htm Language Resources.
In Order of the Phoenix* they say, “We managed to keep our peckers up” in the English version, but “We managed to keep our spirits up” in the American version. I noticed several other differences as well, but I don’t remember all of them. After reading The Sorcerer’s Stone and The Philosopher’s Stone, I decided to just get my books from amazon.uk so that I would have the author’s version.
Short answer: They change a lot of British terms into American ones, but not all of them. The change from “Philosopher’s Stone” to “Sorceror’s stone” can’t be described as an Americanization. It’s just a typical publisher-ordered change because they think they can choose a title that would sell better.
[SomethingAwful.com]](http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1539) has a series of Harry Potter cover parodies. One I like, and along the lines of this discussion, is “Harry Potter and the Magic Rock (Now futher simplified for American children!)”
–Patch
Don’t forget the porn version: Harry Porthole and the Sorcerer’s Bone.
Same here, Johnny L.A.
I read both versions, and the Americanizing was somewhat lighter in the latest one.
The “pecker” line did make me laugh, but I knew what was meant by it. I just have a filthy mind.
Can someone please explain to me why it’s somehow considered “wrong” or “cheap” or… a word like that… to Americanize a British novel? I just don’t get it.
When Ms. Rowling speaks of people carrying their “torches,” American readers (especially children) are going to assume that she means sticks of wood with burning rags wrapped around one end; not flashlights.
Should we risk confusing or misleading the audience for the sake of preserving the author’s text?
No. We should take advantage of the opportunity presented to encourage the audience to broaden their horizons by expanding their vocabulary to include the Britishisms present in the author’s text.
Off to Cafe Society.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
You do have a point, but it seems to me as a reader that this advantage is outweighed by the distraction of words and phrases that don’t seem to fit. Basically, I’d rather know what’s going on in the story than know what’s going on with small bits of British dialect.
The US market is the only market which does this though. Every other country in the world buys rights and publishes the book as the author intended and kids manage to read it and understand it. I’ve never seen my 10 yo have issues because different words are used in UK, US and Australian books.
I think it’s a form of dumbing down the books and I don’t know why the US publishing houses continue to do it. I know that Rowling was arguing to have her books not Americanised this time round but the rest of us have little to no hope if we sell to the US market.
I figure because since millions of kids around the world can cope without a novel being translated into their vernacular, U.S. kids can cope, too. As a kid, I read a heap of books containing odd American or British expressions. When confronted with such a situation, I asked someone or worked it out. I remember coming across a crossword that had the clue “Guys and ____ (4)”, and had no idea, even when I had G_LS filled in.
I for one take offense to the idea that changing vernacular terms is “dumbing down”.
I am fairly well read, in both American and British literature, and I agree that it can get distracting and confusing to anyone not versed in British slang.
According to stories I’ve heard (I have no particular cite) these books got millions of kids reading that wouldn’t have been otherwise. What’s wrong with making it that much more accessible?
I agree with FilmGeek.
Is “flashlight” a dumb word compared to “torch?”
Is “keep our peckers up” somehow more intelligent than “keep our spirits up?”
Sure, children in other countries don’t get the book translated into their own vernacular. This is a testament to the HUGE U.S. market that makes it worthwhile for publishers to change a few words here and there to their American equivalents. The “smartness” of the books is not compromised by such minor translations. If you prefer the original version–fine. It appears not to be terribly difficult to obtain here in the U.S. I don’t see what the big fuss is about.
Just a nitpick, but I actually assume she really means torches with an open flame, because they don´t really use electricity, do they? Unless you mean muggles, I´m not sure what scene you are referring to.
As to whether or not it should be done… I think it´s okay to “localize” children´s books, though I prefer to read the original version. There´s another way of doing it, though, which I prefer: an Austrian author whose books I loved as a kid just added a (rather amusing) glossary with Austrian terms that German readers might not understand. This preserves the “local flavour” and the feeling of the book, helps to avoid confusion and teaches you new words.