I’m sure this issue has been dealt with before, but I was wondering—how much difference is there between the American versions and the UK versions of the Harry Potter books? I know the title of the first one was changed for the American market, and for a long time, I thought that was the only change, but I now know that the text of the books has changed somewhat, too. But how much? Because if the changes are significant, I think I’d rather buy the UK versions of the books, even though it would cost more money to get them (I know there are some Dopers who did that). Of course, I expect some things to be altered (boot to trunk, torch to flashlight, that kind of thing). I can’t really think what else could be changed…
Oh, and although this probably goes without saying, this should be a spoiler-free thread. I haven’t read any of the books, just seen the first two movies, and I don’t want the stories spoiled for me (plus, others contributing to the thread might not have read all the books yet). I mention this because I assume you’ll be giving examples of changes that have been made in the American versions and I don’t want someone to accidentally use an example that contains a spoiler.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that other than changing the Philosoper’s Stone to the Sorcerer’s Stone, the only changes were in changing British spelling to American spelling (colour/color, honour/honor, etc.) Were there other changes than these?
Not speaking from experience of actually reading them here, but I understand that some words and idioms have been changed (not just the spellings) - does the term ‘bogey’ appear as a flavour of Bertie Bott’s Beans in the American editions? I seem to recall hearing that the name of a garment had been changed, can’t remember whether it was pullover or cardigan, but it was something like that originally.
More than spelling. Off the top of my head, they changed: ‘the chemist’s opposite’ to ‘the pharmacy across the street’ and ‘We kept our peckers up’ to ‘We kept our spirits up’. I’m pretty sure in some of the books ‘trainers’ is changed to ‘sneakers’ and ‘jumper’ is changed to ‘sweater’.
Well, thanks for the responses, everyone, I think I’ve made up my mind. And thanks to those who posted the link to that comparison page. Thanks to what I read there, I’m probably going to order the UK versions from Amazon’s UK site. Like I said, I can understand things like changing “jumper” to “sweater”, in fact I’d expect it (especially in the case of “Keep your peckers up”!). But changing “Dear Harry, (it said in a very untidy scrawl) I know you get Friday afternoons off” to “Dear Harry, I know you get Friday afternoons off” just seems pointless. And that wasn’t the only or worst example of a change like that. I mean, why would they alter the text like that? Is J.K. Rowling okay with these changes? I know I wouldn’t be if I were in her place.
I bought the books from the amazon.uk site. Twice, actually. I ‘lost’ my books, so I ordered replacements. Now I have two sets of the UK editions, except for the Book 6, of which I only have one.
I think Rowling agreed to the changes in The Philosopher’s Stone (notably the title) because she was a new author then. I think her publisher told her the book wouldn’t sell in the States unless she changed the title. (Never mind the ‘back story’ that there really is a legend about ‘The Philosopher’s Stone’ and there really was – at least in the legend – a person named Louis Flammel.) No she has more clout, I think there are fewer changes in the latest book.
They altered the text like that because in the US editions, the “letter” is set apart from the text in a special font to make it look like a handwritten note.
So in the UK, it looks like this: Dear Harry, (it said in a very untidy scrawl) I know you get Friday afternoons off
And in the US, it looks like this
Dear Harry,
I know you get Friday afternoons off*
It wouldn’t make sense to say “untidy scrawl” because the reader can see it is an untidy scrawl. (You have to picture a more untidy font ).
It doesn’t appear to be completely accurate, though. I’m re-reading #1-5 now, before I read #6. I’m on my re-read of #3 (Azkaban) right now, and in looking up the page numbers on that chart, I can’t find some of those phrases (American version) anywhere near. So either the page numbers are off, or they are going off some other edition than the hardbacks sold in America. (Yes, I’m checking nearby pages, too – and still can’t find some of the phrases).
Sadly, some of the changes render certain jokes or references less meaningfull (i.e. changing to the American version) – although to be fair, one would have to understand the British term anyways to get the joke. Example: sellotape changed to Scotch tape for the American version – but even in the American edition, Ron tried to fix his broken wand (in book 2) with Spellotape.
Wow, I looked at that list and was unaware of how many differences there are in the two dialects. And here I’ve been reading a variety of English authors, and watching Monty Python and other British fare for most of my adult life. But I would still have been perplexed by many of those words.
By far the most bizaare on that comparison page IMHO is:
" …three people left to be sorted. ‘Turpin, Lisa’ became"
to
“…three people left to be sorted. “Thomas, Dean,” a Black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table. “Turpin, Liisa” became”
I can understand changing English to US English, but putting in extra bits like a black character (who I assume does nothing else in the book if he’s not mentioned in the UK edition) the American publishers making sure they don’t get sued.
Except that Dean Thomas does appear later in the book. Not in a big role, but he is mentioned again – so yes, it seems to be a weird variance between the editions.
Specifically, Dean Thomas is mentioned at the start of chapter 9 – he’s the one in their dorm who has the posters of soccer teams (or in the Brit versions, football teams), and Ron doesn’t see what’s so exciting about a game with only one ball and in which the players don’t fly. Also, Ron was prodding the posters to try to get the players in them to move.
Dean Thomas also shows up with a line or two later in the Quidditch match against Slytherin. When Flint fouls Harry as he makes his first try for the snitch. Madam Hooch awards a free shot for Gryffindor, but Dean Thomas is yelling “Send him off, ref! Red card!” and Ron asks what’s a red card?
He appears in later books, too – as he’s one of the 5 Gryffindor boys in Harry’s year and shares the dormitory with them (Harry, Ron, Neville, Seamus, Dean).
Dean Thomas becomes one of the important character’s boyfriend in the sixth book. I don’t know why the American editions mention him earlier than the British editions, but I can make a guess. I’ll bet the American publisher, when buying the first book, told Rowling, “I’ve notice that you have characters who are of Indian ancestry and of Chinese ancestry. How come there’s no black characters in the books?” Now, this is actually a very fair question. Rowling really does consider it important to show that the students of Hogwarts accurately represent the population of the British Isles. She really did want to make all children identify with the characters. (Incidentally, the student body of Hogwarts is apparently drawn from all over the British Isles, not just the U.K. One character is explicitly called Irish.) An accurate representation of modern British society would include a few characters who were of South Asian ancestry and of black ancestry (most of whom are what’s called “Afro-Caribbean” in the U.K., which means that they are second- or third-generation immigrants from the West Indies) and a few other places as well. About 6% of the British population has non-European ancestry.
Rowling probably said something like “Well, there are black characters in the novels. Most Afro-Caribbeans in the U.K. have English names. You only notice the Indian and Chinese characters because they have distinctive names.” The American publisher then said, “Well, if you want all children to identify with the characters, how are they suppose to know that some characters are black? Look, let us make one small change. We’ll mention one of the characters earlier in the books and we’ll mention when he’s introduced that he is black.”
Not being a Brit, I have no idea whether this is true or not, but I’ve seen several people at HP fan sites claim that Dean’s speech patterns and football team affiliation would have implied that he was black to a British audience; it only had to be stated in the American edition because most Americans don’t have the cultural knowledge to draw the right inferences.
It’s subtle enough to have entirely escaped the notice of this particular Brit, if so.
I think Dean Thomas’s appearance at the sorting ceremony in the US edition is more to do with JKR correcting an oversight than anything else. Since he shares the dorm with Harry, he should really be mentioned early on – in the original British version he doesn’t turn up till chapter nine.
Dean’s not the only black kid in the book, though. Lee Jordan appears even earlier (at King’s Cross) and he’s certainly black – at least I always assumed he was, because of the dreadlocks.
I bought the UK versions for just this reason. I know most of the changes were pretty minor but the fact that they made them annoys the heck out of me.
What bothers me about the changes in the American editions is that they are inconsistent. For instance, in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in the hardback American edition, Ron (if I remember right) uses the expression “to have a shufti,” which means “to take a look,” at one point. (Can someone give me the page or chapter for this?) Very few American children are going to know that expression. Why bother to change “motorbike” to “motorcycle” or “trolley” to “cart” or “crumpet” to “English muffin” or “dressing gown” to “bathrobe” if you’re going leave in a phrase like “to have a shufti”?
Because then you can trust the readers will look up the phrase online and learn something.
What many fail to realise is that most people outside of the US have had to live with hearing or reading incomprehensible American phrases and words all their own lives and when they didn’t understand them, learned about them. But for some reason, it is expected that the rest of the world adapt to use US phrases so as to not confuse the Americans.
).