Luna Lovegood is NOT supposed to be the hottest little thing at Hogwarts!

[ForumBot]

This is how I always imagined that Hermione should look. I´m not all that broken up that she´s hot.
I feel dirty.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Except that I think you’ll find that native Sinophones far outnumber native Anglophones.
[/QUOTE]

It may be factually correct, I just wanted to point out that it wasn’t logically necessary, that’s all.

[MarcusF]

*Originally posted by * Arnold Winkelried:
I’ve read in an interview of J.K. Rowling that, although accepting that many changes suggested by the editors made the books better, there are some changes (especially the title change of the first book by the US editor) that she probably would have fought harder against had she felt more confident. I imagine that many first-time authors will not push as hard against the editor’s wishes, and that they get more assertive once they become popular and have more bargaining power.

For the thoughts of a British author on this Americanisation process check out Lindsey Davis’ web site (the author of the Falco historical detective stories set in Imperial Rome).

When I first started being published in America, I did meekly accept all requests to change terminology which was supposed to be ‘too British for Americans to understand’. It hasn’t arisen for a long time, partly because Mysterious Press are models of restraint and perhaps because I have learned, when using unfamiliar language, to make the meaning so clear from the context that only the most crass copy editor would query it and risk the flak (flak = anti-aircraft fire, dear cousins, Brit slang for a colourful argument).

But the underlying assumption that British books have to be modified for the American market needs to be rethought. It’s loathsome. Nobody would ask for this to be done in reverse. Britons accept faucets and such, and tackle US books written in a strong argot because that’s an essential part of their flavour. (Come to that, we accept Ian Rankin and Christopher Brookmyre being indelibly Scottish, even impenetrably Scottish…)

So, what I am being asked to do if I change words or phrases for American editions is to pretend I am not English and to obliterate my ‘voice’ - yes, that great ideal, beloved of US writing classes. I don’t believe you would dare to expect this of a Spanish or French author, or a Latin American or Japanese author. Nor do I believe that an American author writing about a distinct region, using some of the patois of a native people or the street talk of a particular city, would - or even could - be asked to modify their vocabulary for other Americans. It would be denying cultural identity, absolutely politically incorrect. So is it right that an anaemic Mid-Atlantic tone is regularly applied to British books - and that this is accepted, even by British authors, as a proper thing to do?

No.

Let’s get it straight now. I will correct mistakes, inconsistencies and passages that even I can’t understand in retrospect. Otherwise, don’t even ask. The Falco books are English in origin. Their ‘voice’ is not only English, but narrowly defined on occasions right down to the bolshie British Midlands, in the mid Twentieth Century, with influences from BBC Radio and middleclass girls’ education. This voice is crucial. If it means readers have to stretch themselves, then gung ho and jolly good show. Bolshie is another word implying the onset of a colourful argument; that will be obvious from the context. Enough said.

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
I was just bothered because I knew the thread would end up being about the changes.
[/QUOTE]

It can be trying, but like Fred and George, we’ll try to keep our peckers up.

[RickJay]

The absurdity of changing the terminology for Ameriucan audiences can be illustrated by the fact that the Canadian editions DIDN’T change the terminology or the title of the first book - despite the fact that Canadians, in 90% of the relevant cases, use the American term. Canadian kids don’t say “jumper,” they say “sweater.” They usually call their mothers “Mom,” not “Mum,” say “Boogers” instead of “Bogeys,” and would say they learn something “by heart,” and would never use the term “Barking” to mean “crazy.” (Newfoundland, well, that may be different.)

So given that Canadians usually use American terms, why issue the British version in Canada, and not the U.S. version? Because it simply wasn’t necessary, and it wasn’t necessary in the USA, either. American kids have been reading British children’s literature for generations. They would have clued into the British slang.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

[QUOTE=asterion]
That’s why I’m getting book 7 (and have gotten copies of all the other books so far) from Amazon.co.uk. Of course, I’m paying as much in shipping as I am for the book itself, but it’s worth it because it allows me to keep my feeling of superiority while still reading a children’s book.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you can try getting the Canadian editions mentioned by saoirse in this conversation: Raincoast publishing.

Shipping is probably cheaper?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7) [Adult Edition]: Rowling, J. K.:...

Here are Amazon (Canada)'s shipping rates to the USA:
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/help/customer/display.html/701-7447150-4235568?ie=UTF8&nodeId=918768

[Cat_Whisperer]

[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
featherlou writes:

> I thought I made it fairly clear that I was surprised by this knowledge.

I apologize if that came across as a nasty comment. I was surprised because you’re not new here and everytime there’s a Harry Potter thread on the SDMV it eventually turns into complaining about the changes in the American editions of the books. I was just bothered because I knew the thread would end up being about the changes.
[/QUOTE]

No problem; somehow I’ve missed learning that in all my time here up until now, and it did surprise me, because it is quite stupid. Kisses and hugs all around?

[DeadlyAccurate]

In OotP there was a scene where Professor McGonagall tells Harry, “Have a biscuit.” Then the narrative mentions how she pushes a plate of “cookies” toward him. That seemed like a good example of a compromise between the American and British terminology.

(I admit, I had a totally different idea of what “snogging” meant when I first read that Kreacher was found snogging a pair of someone’s pants.)

[Ludovic]

[QUOTE=RickJay]
The absurdity of changing the terminology for Ameriucan audiences can be illustrated by the fact that the Canadian editions DIDN’T change the terminology or the title of the first book - despite the fact that Canadians, in 90% of the relevant cases, use the American term. Canadian kids don’t say “jumper,” they say “sweater.” They usually call their mothers “Mom,” not “Mum,” say “Boogers” instead of “Bogeys,” and would say they learn something “by heart,” and would never use the term “Barking” to mean “crazy.” (Newfoundland, well, that may be different.)

So given that Canadians usually use American terms, why issue the British version in Canada, and not the U.S. version? Because it simply wasn’t necessary, and it wasn’t necessary in the USA, either. American kids have been reading British children’s literature for generations. They would have clued into the British slang.
[/QUOTE]
Grrrr! WTF is a “Sorceror’s Stone” anyway? :rolleyes:. Naming it its actual name would have made more sense to me, and it only became apparent halfway through the movie (and see, it’s not like changing the name got me to read the books.)

[Nightsurfer91]

Luna Lovegood is my favorite character in the series, besides maybe Sirius. Evanna Lynch was a fox in the movie no doubt. Even if they dolled her up more than her character was written to look like, I’m glad they chose her. Her dreamy voice with that hint of Irish dialect was just too good. It reminded me of Kirsten Dunst’s voice in Interview with a Vampire. It’s kind of hard to believe that they would ostracize and make fun of her. You know with the movie version somebody would have looked past her oddities and would of been nice to her. Hollywood and Adaptational Attractiveness… what can you do?