Eh, I looked on that site and most of the changes seemed to be more grammatical than slang.
Many of my favorite books as a child (The Hobbit, the Chronicles of Narnia, and the Chronicles of Prydain come to mind) were British, and yes, sometimes I came across a word I didn’t know (or misunderstood), or didn’t catch a reference. Dit it frustrate me? Not at all. Quite the contrary: It made the books more interesting, because it opened me up to two new worlds, not just one.
Even if we take an extreme case like “pecker”. How do you think children pick up the “pecker” = “penis” meaning? By it being used in that context. If children read British books in the originals, then they’ll pick up on the British meanings, as well as the American ones.
Whenever there is a claim that Europeans have a built in advantage over Americans because we have cultural diversity on our doorstep whereas you are isolated beyond the oceans it’s too easy to dismiss as nonsense.
I won’t bother the hamsters with a search, but there have been numerous claims from American posters that you have even more variety in your continent than we have in ours.
So any suggestion that American children will be less able to understand imported books than children from other Anglophone countries needs a much more robust explanation than the claim that we have a only a dozen miles of sea between us and French speakers (even apart from your own common borders with French- and Spanish-speaking countries).
Talking of robust explanations, that one seems better to me.
As a former English teacher, Rowling has been quoted in interviews that she was aware of boys’ reluctance to read compared to girls, and that she chose a male central character to encourage them to read her books too. If Americanising the Potter novels has combated resistance among kids who otherwise wouldn’t read much at all then it will have been worth the effort.
For kids who are avid readers, though, it shouldn’t make any difference what country they live in. If a book is so heavy on the use of slang that it’s incomprehensible outside its “home” region then there’s no point trying to sell it as written. For a book that has only limited use of a local vernacular, then publishers are equally right (or equally wrong IMHO) to change it for an American readership as for a British/Irish/Australian/Canadian/etc. readership.
Lloyd Alexander, the author of The Chronicles of Prydain is actually american.
I’d like to buy the British versions, but until I can get them in hardback for $15, this college kid can’t afford them. I don’t mind the Americanization when it’s just a few words here and there.
Maybe it’s also how I see the Harry Potter series; good books, but not quite great literature. Now, if they were to Americanize Shakespeare or Sherlock Holmes or Henry Fielding or…
You get the idea. That would be silly.
Why does Rowling let them americanize it?
MY Australian version of the Phoenix constantly had Ron saying “mate” to everyone. Apparently the British version doesn’t have this travesty which means that theres probably other bits of pointless editing going on in the Australian version as well. This one stood out because it seemed to be sprinkled in without any rhyme or reason
It looks like the Op has been answered and the follow on question (Why Americanize?) has been answered by Alto. Apart from what has been previously stated as two sides of an argument, I think they are just variations in the spectrum of two extremes: complete devotion to the original text/tone of the author and encouragement of comprehension. On one end you might have those that that would believe that no changes or translations should be made to a text, even into a completely different language/script. There is something lost in every translation. On the other end you might have those who value comprehension, perhaps even to the point of blandness. After all, the point of putting something in writing is to convey ideas. I suspect that neither extreme has many adherents. It fact, despite all the discussion above, when viewed within the context of these extremes, the SDMB commenters seem to be very close. It appears that most believe that comprehension is important, but that the Harry Potter books probably don’t need much if any translation.
I suspect from Alto’s comments that the American publisher translated certain words because they commonly do for other publications. Hopefully, JKR will convince them to stop. (The kids are hooked. I don’t think anyone believes they will all the sudden stop reading now.) Some comprehension will be lost, but those interested will look up words they have questions about. Let me put in a vote for a glossary instead of footnotes. I think it would be less disruptive.
I saw this in OOTP. I wondered where they were Australianising it, because they were really pathetic uses of the word mate, too. But, English people say mate, so I just dismissed it as poor writing on Rowling’s behalf (can any English Dopers confirm the presence of liberal "mate"s used in OOTP?)
I couldn’t imagine why an Australian publisher would insert them in - Australians don’t say mate so much that when we read a book that doesn’t say mate we say “Where’re all the mates, mate?”
As a comparable example, there is an American hip hop group called the Roots. Root is a common word in Australia, and its a verb. But we don’t assume that the group is called The Fucks. We understand that people overseas use words differently and don’t mean root like we mean root.
And to me, pecker is a quaint word for penis, too. But, when I read that harry and co. had to “keep their peckers up,” I wasn’t thinking “Harry’s going on a wild sex orgy,” although I may have sniggered. I thought, yup, Harry’s down, he needs to keep his spirits up. I mean, Australia and England aren’t identical countries. Some of the slang in HP leaves me wondering what exactly he means. But I work it out. And my reading experience certainly wouldn’t be improved by changing the words.
Hmm. I was thrilled that after a few pages, I could understand Alex-speak. I didn’t look at the glossary until the end. It was fun, but hardly necessary, I thought.
Actually, if I read that, I would have assumed it was a very dirty way of saying keeping spirits up. I’d say this change is more than appropriate. Children may understand it, but they’ll come up against a very different impression of the gloss than a Brit would.