British English vocab question

The Britishise kid's books all the time. 

I read the Babysitter's Club to the kids I sat for it was all chips and kerbs. 

I don't think it was because American kids wouldn't know what a philosopher is, but rather that kids would prefer to read about a sorcerer. 

I think it's embarassing when they Americanize a novel. Like we're so stupid that we won't understand what a British word means. They did that with the first Harry Potter book. They used sorcerer rather than philosopher in America because they didn't think we'd know what a philosopher is.

I agree.  But in the case of Harry Potter, it wasn't so much the philosopher/sorcerer thing as changing jumper to sweater and Mum to Mom.  It was such a nice change in the later books when they finally started to sound like British kids!  I think British books should be left as they are, and if people are confused, so what?  It's a good way to learn about cultural differences. 

The Britishise kid's books all the time. 

I read the Babysitter's Club to the kids I sat for it was all chips and kerbs. 

I don't think it was because American kids wouldn't know what a philosopher is, but rather that kids would prefer to read about a sorcerer. 

In fact, the "philosopher's stone" was sought by alchemists (not sorcerers) in the Middle Ages and later. It was the name of a sought-after (but never found) supposed magic substance which would transmute "base metals" such as iron, lead, etc, into precious ones such as gold or silver. So the reader would not really need to know what a philosopher was, would they?

J K Rowling said:

"Arthur Levine, my American editor, and I decided that words should be altered only where we felt they would be incomprehensible, even in context, to an American reader... The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. In England, we discussed several alternative titles and Sorcerer's Stone was my idea."

Ok, no they wouldn't.  My point was this taken from, I am sure, the same wikipedia page. 

The book was retitled to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for publication in the United States. The main reason for this retitle was that the U.S. publishers thought that a child would not want to read a book that sounded as though it was associated with philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone#Retitle

I read the Babysitter's Club to the kids I sat for it was all chips and kerbs. 

I read the Babysitter's Club books when I was younger and I never noticed that they were particularly 'Britishised' - I learned all about the US school system and all kinds of American things from those books... although have now just remembered that I bought a lot of my collection in the US, so only a few of my books were the British versions .

I only know because I was reading the exact same books to kids I sat for in the US and family friends kids here in the UK.  The Ghost at Dawn's House. Wooooooooo.  Scary. 

I agree that some American children's books are Briticised.

I've also noticed that Americans' comments when interviewed in British newspapers are sometimes Briticised. There will be some subtle turn of phrase or British expression used (like "primary school" instead of "elementary school") that makes it sound like a British person talking instead of an American.

I agree that some American children's books are Briticised.

I've also noticed that Americans' comments when interviewed in British newspapers are sometimes Briticised. There will be some subtle turn of phrase or British expression used (like "primary school" instead of "elementary school") that makes it sound like a British person talking instead of an American.

Is it that the newspaper is Briticising or that the American speaking is changing their words so that the audience can understand better? I think it would be unethical for the newspaper to alter a direct quote. Have you seen the same person quoted using different words in a US paper vs. a British one?

When quoting, the Guardian tends to provide "translations" in square brackets rather than editing what was said, which I think is the best compromise.

Regarding localisation of books, if I were an author of airport novels, bodice rippers, chicklit, etc, I would listen carefully to my publisher's editors on the other side of the ocean, whichever that happened to be, and in general take their advice. I would say to myself, "Those folks know their craft, and they know much better than I do what will sell, and that, after all, is the objective.". If, on the other hand, I had pretensions to be a writer of literature, I might very well dig my heels in. Personally I think that the word "literature" can only be applied to the output of J K Rowling very loosely indeed.

It's a funny thing though. I think I have read every single one of Ed McBain's 87th Precinct police novels, and the very Americanness of them is part of the pleasure, but I had to shut with a snap the only one of Patricia Cornwell's novels about her Kay Scarpetta character that I have tried to read.

I think some of it depends on the effect the author is trying to achieve - by "translating" the book you are downplaying the fact that the characters are from somewhere else, so that could help the reader identify more with the characters and the universal themes within the story.

If you leave the book "untranslated" you are pointing out that the character comes from a different place, with a different culture, than the reader.  This might make the book more interesting, but might make the reader identify less with the characters and focus less on the universal themes of the book - perhaps less than the author would like- and more on local culture stuff.

In the case of Harry Potter, those books I've read have been US versions.  For me the stories are really about Harry's relationships with other people; the country that he lived in wasn't really important to me. If I read a British version, I might have felt differently, as the British terms would be a constant reminer that Harry i British.

The above assumes that the author's wishes are equally as important as the publisher's desire to make money 

Is it that the newspaper is Briticising or that the American speaking is changing their words so that the audience can understand better? I think it would be unethical for the newspaper to alter a direct quote. Have you seen the same person quoted using different words in a US paper vs. a British one?

I think that it's the journalist who is Briticising because of the way it's done.  I don't have any kind of comparison articles as proof.  I just don't think your average Hollywood celebrity (without any obvious British connections) would think to use the word "spelt" instead of "spelled" for the benefit of the reader.

I think some of it depends on the effect the author is trying to achieve - by "translating" the book you are downplaying the fact that the characters are from somewhere else, so that could help the reader identify more with the characters and the universal themes within the story.

If you leave the book "untranslated" you are pointing out that the character comes from a different place, with a different culture, than the reader.  This might make the book more interesting, but might make the reader identify less with the characters and focus less on the universal themes of the book - perhaps less than the author would like- and more on local culture stuff.

In the case of Harry Potter, those books I've read have been US versions.  For me the stories are really about Harry's relationships with other people; the country that he lived in wasn't really important to me. If I read a British version, I might have felt differently, as the British terms would be a constant reminer that Harry i British.

The above assumes that the author's wishes are equally as important as the publisher's desire to make money 

But what about letting the reader decide? I read books in French. I'm glad they don't change things to make it more "familiar." I mean, if you are reading books from a British author, isn't it just expected the character will likely be British, too? I mean, I see what you mean about identifying with characters, but maybe that is the precise appeal of reading literature from other places? The escape to new worlds?

But what about letting the reader decide? I read books in French. I'm glad they don't change things to make it more "familiar." I mean, if you are reading books from a British author, isn't it just expected the character will likely be British, too? I mean, I see what you mean about identifying with characters, but maybe that is the precise appeal of reading literature from other places? The escape to new worlds?

Britishising or Americanising books is a big pet peeve of mine - I hate that they do it because if I pick up a book written about a different culture, I want to learn about that different culture, even if it is just through a chick lit novel. My feeling is that if you don't understand something in it or come across unfamiliar words, then it is the perfect opportunity to do some research and find out more about the culture for yourself. As I mentioned earlier, most of my knowledge about the US education system and other aspects of life in the US came from reading unedited, US-edition books when I was a child.

I remember reading a US edition of one of Marian Keyes' books (Irish author, if you're not familiar with her) and it had the main character eating a Klondike bar in London's Hyde Park... WTF? You can't even buy Klondike bars in the UK  ! I don't have the UK version of the book, but I assume that the character was actually eating a 'choc ice' or something similar. So while a US reader may not be familiar with the term 'choc ice', it takes all of about 10 seconds to type it into Google and find out that it's similar to a Klondike bar  .

I also don't appreciate it when British (or American) authors set their books in a different country (e.g. American author setting their book in the UK or vice versa) and don't take the time to research that other culture. I have read a couple of books by British authors that had the characters living in the US but the authors obviously had little knowledge of US culture and would refer to purely British concepts that do not exist in the US. If you're going to make your character American, and living in America, you can't have them using British English words and phrases!

One thing which bugs me and shows up mostly in news stories is the changing of the spelling of proper names.  The now-gone group of buildings in New York is the World Trade Center.  The tall building at the end of Tottenham Court Road in London is Centrepoint. 

The writer wouldn't change, say, Kathy to Cathy, just because he feels that the latter spelling is more widely used or known is his own country. 

The tall building at the end of Tottenham Court Road in London is Centrepoint. 

Er, no, the 32 floor building at 101-103 New Oxford Street, built by Harry Hyams, is called "Centre Point". Maybe you're thinking of the housing charity? I do so agree about careless editing and lack of research.