Re: Translations from UK to US

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:30:44 -0400, Thom-Madura
<thommadura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sabremeister Brian wrote:
Snip

If you look at the situation - it is just as plausible and more
likely that Levine - along with JKR's approval decided that the
Original British Title and some of the Language was inadequate
for
the American Market and had to be upgraded and corrected

Or that the language was too complex for the American market, and had
to be changed and corrected

- since
the original British editing did not take into account the
potential release in the US.

- since the original version, was deemed good enough to be released
everywhere throughout the English-speaking world, and in a few
countries that don't have English as a first language (such as India)

THAT would imply that the changes
made were to IMPROVE the language of the books

Which would imply that the changes were made to make them more
accessible to American readers, which is not the same as dumbing down,
and not the same as improving.

- and use a more
marketable title. Whatever is said - it worked - the books
became
best sellers here - and one can not assume that would have been
the case if the FIRST book had not caught on.

I doubt the change in the title was important, but we can't know.


Since nothing JKR or Levine has said over the years disputes the
above, it is the more likely scenario. Obviously, had they
decided
that the original version of ok - they would not have made the
changes. And - NO - while that COULD be taken as an insult to
the British
Audience of the Books - I have never gone there.

Wanna bet? Your constant absolutist position, re-inforced by shouting
and random capitalisation, but not backed up by anything more than the
same lone fact constantly re-stated, of insisting that because the
books were re-edited for a US-only edition, that somehow makes US
readers *better* than the rest of the world. You do actually come
across as a stereotypical American, despite your protestations. *That*
is what I am feeling milidly insulted by, and yes, you have gone
there.



No - I have no gone to the extent of saying directly what the British
idiots(And that does not include all Brits in this group) have regularly
posted as insults to the intelligence of the American children reading
the books. I have made it clear that there was NO effort by the editors
and author to simplify (THe Brits have regularly used the words dumbed
down and less intelligent and others) the books. And yes - if you feel
mildly insulted by my suggestions - you must then know how outraged I am
at not the suggestion - but the outrageous actual statements that many
Brits have posted in this group over the years.

The books were never meant to educate anyone about arcane British words
and phrases - as well as incorrect spelling and usage. THe books have
been translated into over 60 (That I know of) languages - and with the
exception of one (Not including the UK) - none of the original British
Colloquial phrases - using your word - have managed to survive. In fact
- in order to fit the anagram in the Chamber - Voldemort's itslef has
been changed in lots of version. Titles have been changed regularly -
the first books in France uses the title Levine suggested for the
American Version - and I have not heard your outrage about that. None of
these other translations have the significant sales of the US version -
in fact - no other version sells as well as the US version. That Levine
and JKR decided to make change for the American market is a no-brainer.

The fact is - with the exception of the first book(where we do not know
everything - but we do know that it includes a line not in the UK
edition about Dean Thomas) - the US editions are NOT translated from the
UK edition. They are both produced simultaneously from the JKR master
proof. Some words are edited for the UK - and other words are edited for
the US edition. The fact is we don't even know if the words in the US or
the UK edition are the ones from the Proof when a difference exists. It
is possible that a third word was changed by BOTH editors or JKR.

As far as the release of the Books - that has nothing to do with the
language - that is a contractual issue. JKR gave Bloomsbury all English
rights - except the US - when she first signed the publishing agreement.
That is normal since - at the time - Bloomsbury did not have a
publishing arm in the US. So it does not reflect on the language itself.

However - you are wrong about the American Language. It is not based on
the Language you now speak in your country. The two languages diverged
nearly 400 years ago - and both languages are quite different from the
ENGLISH that was spoken back them (Some giveth and some taketh away).
There are lots of words and phrases that didn't even exist back then
because progress has happened in that time. Noting that English did not
originate in England - it is of Flemish origins - it is not owned by
the Brits - and we do not have to bow down to the Brits as to the
correct usage. IF you are upset that JKR made the decision to give our
market its own version - NOT BETTER - NOT WORSE - just different much in
the same way the French Version is different - I really do not care. It
wasn't your decision - and it seem she managed to make a great deal of
money doing it.

If you look back in the archives - you will find that I have defended my
country's people from insidious and baseless attacks on numerous and
regular occasions. And I will continue to do so - regardless of how you
feel.

As to your last paragraph... join the club. It's apparent a lot of
negativity is rampant all over about the US and a lot of it is
unjust. Many have points but offer no solutions or help to fix the
problem. Instead, they just bash more. It's really amazing how the
war started a lot of that (if not most of it) ESPECIALLY with the
British, who not only colonized this country and put it's laws into
effect here (with gun ownership being a civil right) but who
throughout history have been the benefactor, siding with the US
because it knew it's military was #1 and would protect them. As is
with a lot of other allies right?

It's very saddening. There was an old record called "The
Americans" and it was a guy with music playing in the background...
and it was about how the US is actually the most giving country in the
world. Throughout history, it's given more aide to more countries
than most other countries have. . . . to wherever it's needed. In
addition to government monies (which taxpayers contribute to), there
are many charitable organizations set up world wide that originate in
the US like the Red Cross and the Children's Fund and United Way.
Other programs like Doctors without Borders and Operation Smile... and
so much more. Yet we are continually criticized and spit on.

The US probably has more immigrants than anyone (not sure on the
numbers but all are welcome here) and what's the motivation to that?
It causes more problems than it's worth sometimes and we get the
flack, but the motivation is to help people who need it. then there's
all the Aid concerts ....

In the overall scheme of things, I daresay the US has helped every
country on it's board and people forget that. I am NOT saying other
countries haven't helped the US. During hurricane Katrina, that's the
first time I saw huge amounts of aid coming in... but if you start
looking over stats and history, you'll see how lopsided it is.

We are all human beings (soft music in the background) and should just
get along and stop pointing fingers. If you don't know of a solution
for these problems, then don't slam it! Why are you passing on
hatred? To what end? What's it going to solve! If you think
something is bad, try to fix it! But alas, most people will just
spread hate without being proactive. Pretty much every nay-sayer here
I'd imagine.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Translations from UK to US
    ... : No - I have no gone to the extent of saying directly what the British: idiotshave regularly: posted as insults to the intelligence of the American children reading: the books. ... I have made it clear that there was NO effort by the editors: and author to simplify the books. ... Titles have been changed regularly -: the first books in France uses the title Levine suggested for the: American Version - and I have not heard your outrage about that. ... So it does not reflect on the language itself. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Translations from UK to US
    ... the original British editing did not take into account the ... and in a few countries that don't have English as a first language ... Whatever is said - it worked - the books became ... Noting that English did not originate in England - it is of Flemish origins - it is not owned by the Brits - and we do not have to bow down to the Brits as to the correct usage. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Is UK on verge of Brithop boom?
    ... the music will be distinctly British and "not ... >just derivative of an American thing", ... Maybe it's the fact that US rappers encounter virtually no ... same language as their audience. ...
    (rec.music.hip-hop)
  • Re: Adult editions?
    ... I can't see the point of the differentiation myself but then I feel the same way about the differentiation between the British issues and the American issues. ... In still other cases - the british word is idiomatic - and does not appear in American and even some British dictionaries - for example - they used the word DUMPSTER in the US when the British term did not appear as a possibility in American Dictionaries. ... a british term for a dumpster that doesn't even appear in every British Language dictionary is not of such central importance as to be the kingpin of the British Language. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Translations from UK to US
    ... British comedy is good here and a lot of kids see it. ... notice a LOT of American TV there! ... books too. ... - Not the same Language - similar but no cigar ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
Loading