I love watching an author in the throes of research. "Can I do this--yes! That fits! Ha!"

I'm rereading Sorcerer's Stone. After the much lighter American edit of the last few books, I'm noticing how many British words were changed in this one. The most obvious (other than Sorcerer's Stone rather than Philosopher's) is that the Weasley kids call their mother "Mom" rather than "Mum." I can understand (though not quite agree with) why they'd change stuff like jumper or lorrie, but why change that?

Heaven forfend that American children be exposed to the knowledge that there's more than one flavour of English!

It does my head in. It's so patronising to the readers, and so determinedly parochial.

Actually, I feel quite violently about all the vocab changes. Frankly, a glossary at the front or back of the book would have done the trick (while helping build their literacy skills through use of this handy device), and the American kids would have encountered exciting new words - all the other English speaking kids around the world manage to grasp the concepts of 'cookie', 'pants', 'truck' etc pretty damn quickly when they're enjoying American pop culture even without said glossary, and I don't think they're smarter than the US kids.

And, hey, they could probably even have coped with learning that the name for the magical alchemist's stone that turned dross into gold was 'The Philosopher's Stone' without it scarring their little minds. (I doubt the word philosopher crops up in UK classrooms or playgrounds any more frequently than it does in the US - and yet somehow the kids manage to cope with the word and add it to their vocabularies. Miraculous.)

bangs head on desk

Yeah, I don't understand the change from Philosopher to Sorcerer at all. As for most of the others, I read a lot of British books as a kid, and while there were sometimes a few words I didn't know, I could either figure them out from context or look it up or just skip it.

The American edits got much lighter as the series went on. Somewhere along the way, the Weasleys started calling their mother Mum instead of Mom. I really see no reason at all for them to have made that change in the first place. In the first book, the thing that Molly knits for all the kids for Christmas is a sweater. In at least the last two, it's a jumper. There was book somewhere in the middle (Goblet of Fire, I think) where it kept switching back and forth, which was rather more confusing. Once it mentioned someone wearing a sweater, I got a very odd image when, practically in the next paragraph, there was an elderly wizard wearing a jumper.

I don't feel badly about the changes because I think they had the intended effect. They established and broadened the American market.

It was all about sales. The Harry Potter franchise could've sold decent Philip Pullman numbers (possibly) without the changes, but catering to the American market was the intent, and then they got lucky on top of that.

As JKR got more power and say, and the series sold itself then the Americanisms were less necessary.

As a writer, I don't want to cede control of the language to anybody. But I don't begrudge a publisher finessing the market to have the biggest publishing phenomenon of my lifetime.

Were the book compromised? Undoubtedly. Certainly its Englishness, its flavor, but not really the narrative. Besides anybody that cared about it that much could've gotten the British edition anyway.

Were the compromises necessary to turn it into a publishing juggernaut? I think they were for the first book to break in the US.

It was all about sales.

Oh, I understand this, David. But, as a teacher, I don't have to rank this as the most valuable thing about a text.

I like the books, and I enjoy the phenomenon that the marketing machine built up - but you know, I've been enjoying kids' books since I was a kid without the benefit of marketing teams. I'd still have enjoyed the books whether or not they cracked the American market, spawned a string of movies and a merchandising empire. And I do think that given how painfully little exposure American children get to any cultures outside their own continent, it's a damned shame that the HP books continued to coddle this parochialism in order to bolster sales.

As a reader and as an educator I'm allowed to think that buckling to the lowest common denominator, assuming American children are too stupid to grasp that the English-speaking world extends beyond their own shores, and that they should stay that way, sucks donkey cock.

As for most of the others, I read a lot of British books as a kid, and while there were sometimes a few words I didn't know, I could either figure them out from context or look it up or just skip it.

This was totally me. I don't fully understand the language differences as a barrier to sales for that reason. And when you look at the edits, they seem pretty minor (except for the philosopher/sorcerer thing.)

I will admit that there's a line in DH, when Hermione is readying them all to hunt horcruxes, she says to Ron about waiting for his pants to come out of the wash where he gets all mortified, and it wasn't until the second read that I thought pants=underpants!

Honestly, the only British vocab words I can see causing real confusion are the clothing ones, because they're not unfamiliar words, they're familiar ones being used to mean something else. (Jumpers and pants ARE articles of American clothing, just not the ones JKR's characters are talking about, so I don't think it would occur to most people that they're misreading them.)

Philosopher's Stone --> Sorcerer's Stone, OTOH, is just plain stupid. Oh noes, kids might not recognize "Philosopher's Stone" as a reference to the real history of alchemy! THE HORROR!!!! Save us, alliteration!

Philosopher's Stone --> Sorcerer's Stone, OTOH, is just plain stupid. Oh noes, kids might not recognize "Philosopher's Stone" as a reference to the real history of alchemy! THE HORROR!!!! Save us, alliteration!

Eh. Philosophy's a turn-off word. (Like poetry, alas.) I fully believe American kids wouldn't have bought it. Because American book-shopping habits are, unfortunately, abysmal. And well-charted.

You have to remember, that decision was made way before there was any buzz on the book. It wasn't even doing that well in England, yet. The publisher was expecting to sell a few thousand copies, and wash their hands of it. Yet someone there put the added time and effort in to "translate" (for lack of a better word) a book no one really believed too deeply in, and in the competitive U.S. children's book market, it probably made all the difference.

I'm with Fay. It isn't like British culture is that exotic from an American POV. We speak basically the same language. Much American culture is derived from British culture. Yes, a glossary would be helpful. Even a footnote the first time a word is used.

Maybe I'm trying to cultivate my eccentricity. And even though I had little problem in dealing with glossaries when I was a kid, I also was a very strange child when it came to reading.

But I'm convinced that half of America's problems in the world today are the result of complete ignorance of foreign cultures. Americans need to realize that the rest of the world isn't, and doesn't necessarily want to be, just like us. Maybe jumper vs. sweater isn't that big a difference in the grand scheme of things, but it does matter.