[azerty]

Actually, I don't think most Americans would know what trainers are, but that kind of thing should be obvious from the context. At least they left in things like Dumbledore's scar/map of the Underground, etc. And Little Whinging of course. (All the whinging pohms know what whinging is, but what about the average Seppo?)

Yeah, as for the names thing, it's mostly to make them more pronounceable, or to give them the right overtones I guess. Snape is like Snake, so the Italian translator went with Piton. McGranitt is hard as rock, and who know about Albus Silente, since Dumbledor is Welsh or old English for Bumblebee. But Hogwarts, Sirius, Draco, Hagrid etc are all the same... except Muggles are called Babbani.

Here in Sweden, where I am living for the moment, the names are unchanged. But while the movie filmed the scenes where philosopher's stone is mentioned twice, so that the US version would be different from the rest of the planet, the Italian Marauder's map scenes showed Snape's name even though the characters were saying Piton. Every Italian knows Dumbledore's and Snape's real names anyway, so there wasn't much point in changing them, in the end.

As for Philosophers Stone, versus Sorcerers Stone, if you accept that the Wizard world is real, (and always has been), then it is better to use Philosophers stone. It would mean that Flamel wasn't just some French nutter, etc. And Platform 9 3/4 is supposedly right above where Boadicea is buried (leader of the British tribes against the Romans, 60 BC), and so on. Having some of the magic connect with history (or legend) all just adds another intersting dimension to the stories.

Oh yeah, Fudge is still fudge, And Harry, the Weasleys, and Hermione are all the same...

[Chefelf]

But that brings up the point: Why change from Philosopher's to Sorcerer's? It seems like if that's the only change you're going to make to the American version then why even bother?

[Madam Corvax]

I have heard - sorry about that but that IS what I've heard - that is was changed because somebody thought that Americans might have no idea what a philosopher's stone means....

Sorry, Chefelf, but you asked.

And I vowed I was never going to read these books in translations, so I don't and I am sure it spares me a tantrum or two, because usually translations change the meaning of the book - you bascially read a translator's idea of the book, not the original story. I know it since I translate quite a lot myself, and people who rely on translations just don't know that they throw themselves on the mercy of other people's intellect and wit.

We even stopped going to the cinema to watch the films based on HP books, because sadly, they are dubbed in Polish (normally films are subtitled, but since it is for children, they have to dub it) and I just can't stand it.

The advantage of reading the book in original is that I was able to get it the very first day it got published.. even the neck of the woods where I live had it on sale the very day...

I can only say that I am so very sorry I missed this thread in the first place. Rhubs confirms most of my own reflections on the book.

Luna - super cool (I wish I were like her and be able to wear radisher for earrings)

Snape - best character and I love Alan Rickman, too.

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah, the decision to make the changes was made by an American publisher, not the English one. The English publishers naturally didn't have the US rights. I get what you're saying, Chef, but if the Sorceror's Stone does exactly what the Pholosopher's Stone was supposed to do, then why change the name? It'd be just as crazy as talking about a Fountain of Youth and setting it in Florida and naming Ponce de Leon, but calling the thing the "Pool of Making You Young."

I'd say the decision to change the langauge was nothing more than your typical second-guessing that makes American companies more successful at spewing out crap than any other in the world: assume the consumer is stupid and then play to that, and never ever ever let up.

I'm still amazed that after weakly changing the title of the first book the publishers didn't stick with the idea, that they seem to have come to their senses: after all why not call the second "The Room of Secrets;" the third "The Magic Jailhouse;" the fourth "The Cup of Fire;" the fifth "The Secret Society;" and finally this last one, "Sambo."

Anyway, I think that if Harry is a Horcrux, and needs to die finally to kill Voldemort once and for all, then that's the moment this series really jumped the shark. If Voldemort hasn't genuinely been trying to kill Harry all along (and he has), then this series has suddenly become pretty stupid. All that said, this book wasn't too bad, and a damn sight better than the last one, but I miss the simpler stories of the first three, and to a lesser extent the fourth, when the individual books had their own stories to tell. These last three been chapters of a single three-part tale, which has made neither of them stand out. And the big ending to book six is really just a repeat of the big ending to five, isn't it? Can we agree that in book five, NOTHING happened?

[Madam Corvax]

Sorry, Civ, I don't agree. I'd say in book six nothing happened.

Book five really got me riveted and gripped (although I guessed who would get killed in the end)

Even if the story with the prophecy was a bit lame (could not really fathom why would this prophecy be so important) I loved the tale how Umbridge slowy took hold on the school and how kids led by Harry beat the system. And it left a big void in my heart, wanting to resolve things- will young Percy see the light and rejoin the family? Will Umbridge be punished? Will they officially clear Sirius Black of all charges posthumously? Will Harry finally make it up with Snape?

And then I started to read the book six and nothing, absolutely nothing was resolved - Percy still with the ministry, Umbridge quite happy in a ministerial position, Dumbledore-talk even more boring and criptic.

I think she loses her touch. The introduction of Horcruxes at the end of the sixth book is pretty lame to me. And the rest is just filler to the story.
And as you say, the ending is a repeating for book six.

Also - Seems to me like Ms Rowling does not allow anybody in the books to be happy for more than 5 minutes. The ending about Harry and Ginny... Rhubarb was so right about it...

This post has been edited by Madam Corvax: 01 September 2005 - 02:56 PM

[Chefelf]

I have heard - sorry about that but that IS what I've heard - that is was changed because somebody thought that Americans might have no idea what a philosopher's stone means....

Sorry, Chefelf, but you asked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I understand. And they're probably right because I definitely didn't know what the hell the Philosopher's Stone was. Actually, I'm a little upset that it's a real thing because I think it would be cooler to have things in this universe be a little more isolated from our own. We don't really see much of this nature in the other books.

Yeah, the decision to make the changes was made by an American publisher, not the English one.  The English publishers naturally didn't have the US rights.  I get what you're saying, Chef, but if the Sorceror's Stone does exactly what the Pholosopher's Stone was supposed to do, then why change the name?  It'd be just as crazy as talking about a Fountain of Youth and setting it in Florida and naming Ponce de Leon, but calling the thing the "Pool of Making You Young."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very well put, civ.

My whole thing is that if you present a kid with a book called, "The Goblet of Fire" and they don't know what a goblet is, you just tell them and then they know. You haven't had to dumb it down for him at all. I think everyone is done a disservice when things are dumbed down for a particular audience. Particularly when you're talking about children who are usually 400% smarter than adults give them credit for. J.K. Rowling apparently knows this better than most.

Also, I'm sick of this whole, "Americans are dumb" explanation for everything. Grasping the concept of a "Philosopher's Stone" is no different than grasping the concept of a "Sorcerer's Stone". If anything I prefer the latter because it creates something new (admittedly stolen from legend).

There is some pretty good information on the change here.

I have to agree with Arthur Levine on one point: from a marketing standpoint (In America anyway) the word sorcerer (chosen by Rowling herself) is a much better selling point than the word philosopher to most children in this country.

Sorry, Civ, I don't agree. I'd say in book six nothing happened.

Book five really got me riveted and gripped (although I guessed who would get killed in the end)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Overall I'm not a huge fon of prophecies in general (see my extensive rants about the Star Wars prequels for more details). But I thought it was pretty neat in this case.

I don't know. I just had so much fun reading these books that I couldn't help but love them.

I think I'm in a unique position in that I read Books 1-6 all in a row, with no space between, over the course of 2 months. That's 3341 pages of Harry Potter with very little digestion time. I've also seen all three movies twice each in that time span.

I've been hearing about the books and movies from my family and friends for the past eight years. Everyone! My dad saw the first movie the day it was released. I think I am the last person I know, online or off, to read these books.

I've heard praises and criticisms from many over the past eight years. Jen even wrote an article about Order of the Phoenix two years ago that I didn't understand then. While I agree with what she was saying there I still found that book to be great.

I think without that time to talk about the books and think about the next book really makes the end result different. The most time I had to think about the next book was a day.

This certainly has affected my views on the perception of quality over the six Star Wars movies. When you add 2-3 year waits along with fans talking amongst themselves it seems to really affect everyone's perception... and make for some pretty bitter arguing.

To me Harry Potter, so far, has just been one, lengthy 3000+ page story. I'll be interested to see how I feel about the next book now that I'm in the terrible position of everyone else in having to wait 2-3 years for it.

[Madam Corvax]

Ha ha, now you'll so for yourself how it is to wait for resolutions. I read that article of Jen right after HP V was pulished and agreed with every word. And Jen was basically right that book 5 did not bode well for book 6.

I'll reserve my final judgement of the whole series till I read the final chapter, but after the book 6 I am not counting the months till it's out, like I did before.

[Chefelf]

Yeah, Harry was pretty bitchy in the fifth book. It was pretty realistic if you accept that he was 15 and all the crap that had happened to him. It just wasn't that enjoyable when he was flipping out at everyone.

Still... he had to put up with a LOT of crap.

[civilian_number_two]

Sorry, Civ, I don't agree. I'd say in book six nothing happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everything you go on to name is just an unanswered question. So what happened in Book 5 is that Rowling opened a lot of questions for book 6. And you're disappointed that book 6 didn't answer them? Hey, I'm disappointed that book 5 didn't answer them! Remember when the books each told their own stories? My complaints about 6 are the same, that she just opened a lot of questions for the next book to resolve. But at least it had something happen that meant something to someone, namely we learned something about Voldemort's backstory. Of course, that on its own is another bunch of unanswered questions.

I predict that when Rowling releases the last book, all of the kids who followed the series from the start will read it, pause, and then shrug. The last two books have not been all so great in setting me up with any expectations.

[civilian_number_two]

Also, I'm sick of this whole, "Americans are dumb" explanation for everything. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I absolutely agree. The problem is, it's always American corporations making the argument. Those changes were dictated by an American publisher, even if they did ask Rowling's advice. But yes yes yes, it does not have to be like that. Anyone here who's been to college will appreciate this analogy: In high school, they gave you a Victorian novel and you read a few chapters a week for two months and then maybe you wrote an essay about it. Two months later you went to college and they gave you a Victorian novel and asked you to have it read by next class, so tou could discuss it and move on to the other eight novels you were covering that term. And every kid in the room was able to do it.

People will rise to the occasion, they are a lot smarter and more capable than companies are giving them credit for, and American entertainment, something we all spend a lot of time and money on, is getting dumber and dumber. It's all out of this insane craze to overmarket everything to the lowest imaginable denominator. And it's like these guys (and gals, of course) are trying to one-up one another in second-guessing the stupidity of audiences. Looking back, Cheech and Chong seem like Mensa candidates compared with Deuce Bigelow. I could go on about it but I won't because it gets me going when I do. But yeah, poverty makes people work hard, and success makes them cynical. The Harry Potter books are dumbing down, and I'm not blaming America for that. Rowling got lazy and decided to break her last novel up into three over-lond books, knowing that the money was in the bank no matter what she wrote. I am however blaming an American publishing company for the cowardly decision to clean up the language of these as well as the Narnia books.

[Madam Corvax]

They did clean up the Narnia books? Sorry, but that's a bit preposterous. CS. Lewis, is, like, classic. Oh well, in 19th century they were cleaning up Shakespeare to make it readable for regency adolescent girls...

About the change of name - it actually never occured to me that "Sorcerer" would be easier to market than "philosopher" but I think Chefelf has a point there. It is possible that the name might mean nothing to people of different culture, and let's face it, we ARE of different cultures.

Over here, anyone who was half awake during history lessons in secondary school knows what a philosopher stone means, because all that alchemy stuff is inherently part of European history. But it might not be so obvious in America where you probably don't study European medieval history so much. I remember I was once really shocked when a spoke to a Chinese guy who had no idea who Sherlock Holmes is... but it was me who was stupid, assuming people are the same all over the world.

Civ - I still like book 5 better than 6, but yes, it also resolved nothing, with one exception - killing of an inconvenient charancter. I love when authors do "a Diana Barry" on their characters, just kill off those who they have no idea what to do about.

And yes, I agree that Rowling minus multimillion bank account was smarter and sharper than today's version. Today she can get away with the lack of story and such, because people, and me among them, will buy the product anyway.

Actually, it sounds very familiar.

[azerty]

Unfortunately, the average American really IS pretty ignorant. (I won't go so far as to say dumb). If you live in America, it's a little harder to see, because you are inside the bubble and you can't see out. Once you are somewhere else, it becomes far more obvious just how uneducated Americans are when compared with most other countries. Sorry all you Americans, but there it is. The top end is quite high, but the middle and lower ends are abysmal. (How many people ignored a week's worth of warnings about the hurricane's relentless approach and are now either dead, or are suprised at the situation and are currently pissing and moaning about being stuck in a disaster zone?)

I just saw War of the Worlds (called Världarnas krig here) and that irritating teenager was about as American as it gets. That movie was very American; everybody freaking out thinking it must be terrorists (still terrified 4 years on), and when Cruise says "I think they are from somewhere else", the kid says "Where, like Europe?" The whole damn cinema busted a gut laughing at that one. You just don't get that kind of stupid shit anywhere else. I suppose in the states that wanker was just considered to be a 'normal' teenager...

In England, the first Harry Potter book is geared to 8 to 10 year olds. In California, the 8th graders were having a lot of trouble with it. What are we supposed to make of that?

[civilian_number_two]

Some of those 8th graders are going to go to colege and they are going to read MIDDLEMARCH and others may read ULYSSES. Still others will be able to predict the sums of infinite series in their heads. They can rise to the occasion; what your anecdote shows, I hope, is that the notion that American kids and the general public are intellectually unimaginative is a self-fulfilling prophecy. All US education and the corporate outlook needs is a slight shift in its attitude. The people can be as smart as they wanna be.

WAR OF THE WORLDS was shit, yeah.

[Jordan]

I don't like long drawn out sagas either. I often get lost with all the past references and events that took place earlier that shape the present. This is why the hobbit ruled. I read LOTR over a a two month period. I kept back tracking to remember all the damn names and maps and all that stuff.

Some parts of the book didn't feel like an enjoyable read, but a history lesson. You know when you read a history text, for a specific reason, and you just wade through the words ignoring references to outside sources like names and events that are not cruial to your search. That's how I felt while reading LOTR.

I don't read Potter books because I hated the films. I don't care about kids who can wield magic. So I can't comment on them. But perhaps she pulled a lucas and just kept telling a story till she decided to end it. Like a continous extrusion of events and etc.. Rather than write one big story with an ending. I guess what I'm trying to say, maybe she made it up as she went and forgot to answer questions she created in her previous books.??

[Jen]

Unfortunately, the average American really IS pretty ignorant.  (I won't go so far as to say dumb).  If you live in America, it's a little harder to see, because you are inside the bubble and you can't see out.  Once you are somewhere else, it becomes far more obvious just how uneducated Americans are when compared with most other countries.  Sorry all you Americans, but there it is.  The top end is quite high, but the middle and lower ends are abysmal.  (How many people ignored a week's worth of warnings about the hurricane's relentless approach and are now either dead, or are suprised at the situation and are currently pissing and moaning about being stuck in a disaster zone?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me, did you just reference a major disaster to prove your point that Americans are ignorant and uneducated? Ignoring for a fact that you're making a gross trivilization to say that the victims are "pissing and moaning" about being stuck in a disaster zone where there are corpses lying in the streets and the city's on fire and there's no food or water to drink,

AND ignoring the fact that it is extraordinarily -- offensively, even -- ignorant to assume that everyone who was there out of unreasoned choice -- what about the disabled? What about the people who couldn't afford to leave ? Are those people ignorant?

But even ignoring all that, to use human presence in a disaster zone as an example of American ignorance on par with changing the word "philosphers" to "sorcerers"
is in poor taste. And it's stupid.