Write an Article

Harry Potter Guide Article

Difference between American and British Versions of Harry Potter Series

Guide by tivier posted over a year ago
fan of it?
55 fans
save
Throughout the Harry Potter books, there are some variations between the Bloomsbury (British) and Scholastic (American) editions. Below the first section on "Philosopher's vs. Sorcerer's" is a section on other different terminologies used.

Philosopher's vs. Sorcerer's

When Scholastic was publishing Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in America, they decided to rename the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. They claimed that the American and British uses of the word philosopher were a bit different, so therefore sorcerer was a more appropriate word. Any true Harry Potter fan, American or British, Australian or Hungarian, I'm sure will agree with MuggleMix when we say that decision should not have been made the reasons are:
1) J.K. Rowling said so, therefore it must be true. She says that if she was in a better position, she would have disagreed at the time.
2) It belittles Americans, making it seem as if they do not understand what the word "philosopher" means. Americans are smarter than that.
3) Sorcerer is unspecific. The stone could have belonged to anybody with magical powers in the book. But the British name defines who the stone belongs to and gives the name an entirely different meaning. Sorcerer is a very different word to philosopher.
4) The stone is referred to as the "Philosopher's Stone" throughout J.K. Rowling's original version, never the "Sorcerer's Stone", so why should the most central object of the book be labelled something completely different in the book title, even if its just being published in a different place?
5) How is the word "philosopher" in Britain different from the word "sorcerer" in America?
6) Philosopher's Stone is actually a historical object that people used to search for, while the Sorcerer's Stone has no factual background in real life

Ah well...

Other Terminology

There are some other minor changes that occurred in case Americans got confused. Some ones, such as turning "mum" into "mom" and "trainers" into "sneakers", J.K. Rowling refused to let happen. However, she allowed some changes to be made that, if they were not made, would befuddle the reader:

UK: Skip
US: Dumpster
UK: Minister for Magic
US: Minister of Magic
UK: Sybill Trelawney
US: Sibyll Trelawney
UK: Car park
US: Parking lot
UK: shan't
US: won't
UK: sherbet lemon
US: lemon drop
UK: dustbin
US: trashcan
UK: roundabout
US: carousel
UK: jumper
US: sweater
UK: comprehensive
US: public school
UK: holidaying
US: vacationing
UK: crisps
US: chips
UK: football
US: soccer
UK: lavatory seat
US: toilet seat
UK: barking
US: off his rocker
UK: tinned soup
US: canned soup
UK: wellington bookts
US: rubber boots
UK: tank top
US: sweater vest
UK: nutter
US: maniac
UK: cupboard
US: closet
UK: torch
US: flashlight
UK: letter boxes
US: mailboxes
UK: sack
US: fire
UK: matron
US: nurse
UK: biscuits
US: cookies
UK: while
US: whilst
UK: leaned
US: leant
UK: schedules
US: timetables
UK: walnut
US: satsuma
UK: Augustus
US: Algernon
UK: review
US: revise
UK: shagpile carpet
US: shag carpet
UK: humph
US: hmpf
UK: pants
US: briefs
UK: silver
US: silvery
UK: pinny
US: apron
UK: Pekinese
US: Pekingese
UK: afterwards
US: afterward

(this article was posted by the original writers and can also be found on MuggleMix, my Harry Potter fansite, here
Share this article with others!

Around the Web

118 comments

Pages: 1 2 3
« Older  |  Newer »
user photo
ltlsky489 said:
I know that you didn't write the article but you might want to consider what you post because this article isn't all true. It states that the book never refers to the stone as the Sorcerer's Stone but if you go and look the book does indeed refer to the stone as such. Also I think that it is very nit picking to go through both versions to see the differences between them when it's logical to assume that the versions would have some differences in terms seeing that the two countries have two different versions of English.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I don't think anything should have been changed at all; it's a British book and it should stay that way - the Englishness is part of it's allure. I'm sure Americans wouldn't have been so confused that they didn't know what was going on if the "s" had been left on "afterwards", for example.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
skeloth said:
A satsuma is nothing like a walnut...
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
tivier said:
Seriously, ltlsky489, I really did write that article myself. I am Frederick Jogles, co-founder of MuggleMix.com (see http://www.mugglemix.com/aboutus.shtml). I made the article originally for my website and it can be found here: http://www.mugglemix.com/philosopherssoorc­ero­rs.­sht­ml. And about the bit about it never being referred to as the Sorceror's Stone, I'm sorry, I should have made that clearer. I meant that in J.K. Rowling's original version, it was never referred to as the Sorceror's Stone. I will change that. And yes, skeloth, a satsuma is NOTHING like a walnut :-)
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
mattman said:
I wish i'd read this sooner... i was about to ask if a satsuma is American for walnut but looks like i was beaten to it... twice.

I agree that the book shouldn't have been changed as well, i mean i'm English and i know what all the American terms mean so why should Americans not know what the English ones mean???

Also does the second part of the article still just refer to the 1st book or is that for the whole series?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I'm an American and I understand the English (We call them British) words just fine. Now, an 10 yrld would probably have no idea what some of them meant.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I have to say - these differences (most of them, at any rate) really, really bother me. American books published in other countries remain as they are, as they should, because they are American (this is based on what I've observed)! These are British books about British people, and even if some words are puzzling, it's only through media such as books that people become familiar with differences in speaking etc across the world. I'm sure a little culture wouldn't kill anyone, and nor would anyone have an actual problem with it.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
jtim2 said:
While I agree that there was no need to change the title, as others have mentioned, we use a different type of english than the Brits do, and in our version, saying football instead of soccer conjures up a different image than was intended. The same with the british meanings for the terms 'tank top' to mean a sweater vest, 'roundabout' to mean a merry-go-round, and 'torch' to mean a flash light. And then there are some terms that just wouldn't make any sense to Americans, like 'skip', 'car park' and especially 'wellington bookts'. So while the title of a book shouldnt be changed unless absolutely necessary, the langage needs to changed just so that readers over here will understand the book.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Lesha324 said:
I am a Elementary Education Major, studying to specialize in juvenile literature. First, I would like to say I love Harry Potter and my family owns it in Russian, American English and right now I am reading/buying it in British English. I am studying abroad in Scotland for the semester. Yes we both speak English, but it is different. The sentence structure is slightly different and the words used are different. It gets confusing, even for me and I have lived here for 2 1/2 months now. Remember these books are written for Children, not adults. They don't know the words used in British English and are still learning how to read. Also, there is different spelling of words. Part of what makes these books great is it strengthens their ability to read complex book. I am enjoying reading it in the original version. I don't think it means Americans are stupid, things are just different here instead of America, there is nothing wrong with that. We are a different country, just like Spanish is different in the different countries it is spoken in.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Not even in Mexico did they changed Philosopher for Sorcerer. But, Yes, I have to agree with Lesha324 the books are made for children.
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
I know why they changed it. If I was 10 an I saw a book called philosophers stone I wouldnt get it cause it seems boring. But sinse its sorcerors stone it sounds more fun and magical
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
i understand why they changed it.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
I can understand why they changed some of the words (I think you confused "timetables" and "schedules." We say "schedules" here in America and my American version of HP also says "schedules"). Skip and Dumpster; Football and Soccer; sack and fire; tank top and sweater vest, for example, are completely different things in Britain than in America.

But some of them are similar or are similar enough that there really wasn't a reason to change them. I mean, honestly, if the book had said "car park" instead of "parking lot" it wouldn't have taken much for us Americans to figure out what was being talked about.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
for little kids it might have been 2 confusing for them.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I'm Canadian (practicly the same as American) and I never had any trouble reading this series...and I read it in British version. Now, I'm thirteen but little kids shouldn't be reading these books anyhow, exspecially in the last book where Ron says "friggin" a lot.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Also, bri-Marie some of those things ARE the same. Football is soccor in America. And Sack IS like getting fired. When you get the "sack" your fired from your job.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Yes, I know England's football is our soccer. Not every American child knows that, though. A little kid isn't going to see the word "football" and think "soccer." They're going to see "football" and think "football." Same with sack. It's a slang term that's pretty much gone out of use. A little kid isn't necessarily going see "he was sacked" and go "Oh, he got fired."
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I'm English and I don't call satsumas walnuts. We also call a Sidewalk a Pavement.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
it dont mader!
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
mdedrick said:
I'm Canadian and here we use American terminology for most things. I read the first book when I was in grade 2 (and here we get the UK version) and I got it all. Should it really be dumbed down for people older than I was? Maybe I didn't know what trainers were, but it wouldn't take long to figure it out.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
laugh
i use the word "nutter" all the time xD
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
snusnu13 said:
I hate when people say that "oh we speak a different English, we need a different version" it's a bunch of bull. I'm Australian and I can tell you we don't use some of the British words but yet we have the British additions, we don't use "trainers" or "wellington boots" but yet I got them. Also we call football soccer in Australia and that isn't changed. I think that some Americans are ignorant and not willing to learn about a different culture besides their own and need some of the British words changed.

If I ever get my novel published it will be Australian English, and if it gets published in America, it's keeping the Australian English, or it's not getting published there. Americans, if you want to know a word, google it!
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
You got "trainers" and "wellington boots" (as did the Americans) because JK refused to let those be changed.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
snusnu13 said:
Because Australians aren't as ignorant as some Americans when it comes to culture, that's why they weren't changed. And as shown above in the article, like "wellington boots" are changed in the US version. If Americans books aren't changed, why should we change books for Americans?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
If you'd read the article, it expressely states that some things JK REFUSED to let be changed. Mum and trainers were some of the things listed. Wellington boot was NOT changed in the American version -- that's an error.

It's an ignorant comment to say that books shouldn't be changed to accomodate other cultures different grammar, spelling, and word choices. We don't speak the same English you do. Why shouldn't the books be changed to accomodate our differences? It's not ignorance. Just like it's not ignorance when books in China are edited to accomodate the different versions of Chinese. There are differences. Get over it.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
surprise
how is a satsuma like a walnut???
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I agree that cultural differences in language could be taken into account in the narration only. However, when text is in quotation marks (i.e. a character is speaking) no changes should have been made. When you change a character's speech pattern, you affect how those characters are portrayed to the reader. Changing Seamus' 'Mam' to 'Mom', necessarily detracts from his Irish charm.

If the publishers were so worried about children not understanding some of the words, why not just include a UK to US dictionary at the front. One page dedicated to a list like the one above with the UK words in one column and the US words in another column would have eliminated any misunderstanding and introduced American children to some much needed foreign culture.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
MCF2000 said:
whats a satsuma??
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
big smile
they should at least should have made it the Alchemist's Stone because Nicholas Flemel is both a philospher and and alchemist. The Canadian version has both.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
OK, everyone knows that Americans are the most ignorant and dumbest people in the world, but it is for reasons like this! Changing little words in the Harry Potter books, I realize that there are certain words that we say that the Americans do not, but that is also true of countries like Canada and Australia and as previously stated here the books weren't changed for them and they seemed to cope just fine! I know that the early books are for young children and yes a lot of American children might not understand certain words, but they could either ask their parents, google it or just figure it out. Like "car park" hmm lets think...could a car park possibly be somewhere we we PARK CARS..? See its not hard is it, I think if other English speaking countries can work them out so can they, it is this attitude that Americans have that they are apart form everyone else and things should be specially changed for them, like someone else said American books would never be changed for the English versions so why do we need to change it for them? Just get over yourselves and learn about different cultures. Or if it is really too difficult and they couldn't possibly figure it out then they should just have done exactly what Tallyho62289 suggested and put a little UK to US dictionary in the front of the books.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Could you be any more ignorant and rude? It's been pointed out (a few times) that some of those words that were supposedly changed weren't (Mam and Mom stayed the same, for example). It's also been pointed out (by Americans, no less) that some of those changes were unnecessary.

The American people didn't chose to have Harry Potter changed around. The publishing company decided that all on their own, with no input from anyone. I find it funny that people call us ignorant when they are the ones blatantly ignoring anything Americans are saying about it.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
sgeg180 said:
I don't think that the American version should have been changed at all especially if our books are not changed for other cultures.
However Brit Girl I think it is absolutely ridiculous to bash on America as a whole. Don't get me wrong we have our idots but who doesn't. I know there are ignorant and dumb people there too. America as well as many places in the world have a mix of cultures. So how about your ignorant self grows up and embraces some American culture. Maybe then you will see we are not all dumb patriotic narcissists who are full of themselves. Not one person I know has this attitude that we are "apart form everyone else and things should be specially changed for them"
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
For you information sgeg180 I have embraced American culture, I have family there and have been going there ever since I was a baby and I also spent a year studying there so I think I know about American culture. I am not saying every single American has that attitude. But as a nation America tends to be very ignorant as they don't really know anything that goes on outside their country, and almost all of the Americans I met while living there agreed that they have a very limited view of the world.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
You know, you keep using the word 'ignorant' to explain why certain things were changed. I do not think the word mean what you think it means.

Ignorant: adjective.
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

The editors at Bloomsbury deciding to change words in Harry Potter does not make the entire (or even a large part) of Americans ignorant. It does not make Americans unaware, uneducated, or unsophisticated. All it means is that the editors at Bloomsbury underestimated American children. But the editors at Bloomsbury do not make up any significant percent of Americans, so it's beyond ridiculous to denounce America (or a large part of it) for what they chose to do.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
snusnu13 said:
Bloomsbury didn't even publish the American version, it was Scholastic that did! On the whole, I agree with Brit-girl but she is going overboard with the America bashing.

She is right, as a whole America is a very ignorant nation. Y'know I heard somewhere that 55% of stuff on our Australian TV stations is from Australia. Bit over half. In America, 90% of their stuff on TV is from America, that is ignorant. However the American people as a whole didn't choose this, Americans are brainwashed in thinking that they are the kings of the world.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
sgeg180 said:
So what your driving at Brit girl is that Americans are not educated on certain areas of their lives namely the rest of the world. We have our world news however it is an American station and I know that not everything reported on the news is true. We need to sort out the the truth from the crap and have to think for ourselves. Best off looking on the internet. So yes i can agree that for the most part we are ignorant in that sense again I'm not a Patriot I'm a realist. And snusnu yes we are ignorant in that same sense. You too have your American Bashing saying we think we are kings of the world. By no means do I or anyone I know feel like we are kings. Not that I have not met people who have thoughts of something like that. There are a number of hicks rednecks and blatantly dumb people here who may say so but I've got to say the number of levelheaded people strongly outweigh them. I've heard people say that this is the "American attitude" this and the fact that we feel we are entitled to everything. Typically only some of the very rich are the pompous snobs that act like they are entitled.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
^^I've met more Americans who want out of this country, or who think America is pretty bad off, than I have Americans who think America is the greatest. The ratio is something like 10:1. And, as sgeg said, it's generally the hicks and extremely rich who think America is the greatest. (Which has nothing to do with America itself, but more to do with the fact that they're generally the most privileged.)

The whole "America is brainwashed and think they are the absolute best" is a stereotype. If you believe that, then I don't think you have any room to call anyone else ignorant.

Further more, the amount of foreign television that comes in depends on what cable package a person has. A the old-style basic cable package hardly gets any shows at all -- American or otherwise. The newer-style basic package gets most American shows and a few shows from the UK (depending on what channel picks up the show). The old-style best cable gets a ton of shows -- from Mexico, the UK, and America. The newer-style best cable package can get even more. It's about money, not ignorance.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I'm from Malaysia (a country in South-East Asia), and I love Harry Potter. Personally, I think that you shouldn't even be fighting about this. No, I don't know all about both your countries, but why don't you guys just buy the version of the book that you want, and be done with it? The American version is made so that children can understand it better, right? Well, I doubt any of you are children, so just get over it.

".. we are only strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided."

Get over it. Harry Potter is one the most amazing thing ever, so don't fight about it. It's like getting mad at a book for being translated to French, so that French people can understand it better.

But it's pretty rude to say Americans, or American in the whole, is ignorant. You wouldn't like it if someone called you and/or your country ignorant.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
gry said:
I agree with ScalettEmber. don't fight. I'm from Indonesia and I find both versions just fine. I know it's kind of annoying when they change words and stuff and make the characters sound different or make the story seem different, but let people read what they want! yes, I know some Americans think that America is the best, but why shouldn't they be proud of their own country? it's national pride! whatever anyone wants to read is their choice. it's not for us to decide. people aren't our marionettes and we can't control them into reading the version that we want them to. get over it. you don't have to read the American version if you don't want to.
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
monkey
US versions have better illustrations. Don't take offense, cause I'm from the UK. Harry looks like the emote to the right.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
SamanthaT said:
Personaly, I don't think that the words should have been changed, it was written as it was written and it should have stayed that way! I read plenty of American books, House of Night etc. and they keep the American spelling/word and I understand perfectly!! However, why people are bringing ignorance into it is beyond me... changing to suit the language has nothing to do with how stupid a country is (not that America as a country is ignorant anyway!!!).
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
I'm from the UK and I say won't instead of shan't, toilet seat instead of lavatory seat, I say both biscuits and cookies. Did you know that in Australia they call Wellington Boots Gum Boots?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
kroxs said:
i think that saying that Americans think that they are the kings of the world is wrong. i'm sure you have pride in your country and so do we, but that doesn't mean we think we are better than anyone else. only people who are over privileged think that they should be. you dont see us bashing your country
and i think its fine that they changed the words i dont see a problem so what that they changed some stuff (some of it unnecessarily) it really isnt that important
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Personally I agree the majority of Americans are dumb. however some of the ways you are saying it are really offensive... Brit_Girl89 especially. Some of the things could have been left but a lot of them wre right to have been changed. I didn't know some of them. Does that make me dumb? I don't think so considering I'm most like Hermione.

posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Worthwhile changes

US: Dumpster
US: Parking lot
US: lemon drop
US: carousel
US: sweater
US: public school
US: vacationing
US: chips
US: soccer
US: toilet seat
US: canned soup
US: rubber boots
US: sweater vest
US: closet
US: flashlight
US: nurse
US: cookies
US: shag carpet
US: hmpf
US: apron
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
AnnieLou said:
I don't think that they should have changed the words at all. It's a British book about British people so why would they use American English? And are American's really so stupid that they'd be confused by an 's' on the end of afterwards? I think that the publisher of these books underestimated people's intelligence, we have to work out what the American's are talking about when we watch their films and read their books and we all manage okay, why shouldn't the Americans?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
@snusnu13: You're making it sound like all the Americans were too lazy and said: "Heck, we don't care about culture, we want it OUR way." But, really, it was decided for us. The company, Scholastic, must've had some reason or another for it (most likely the thought that it was a children's book and wouldn't want to cause widespread confusion).

What you're saying is that Americans are ignorant and don't want to learn new phrases or words. That is not true. I know quite a few people--including myself--who enjoy knowing other culture's phrases and words. We are not "ignorant" for having a book with a few translations.

I know that if I were nine years old and read Harry Potter I wouldn't have a clue what a "roundabout" or "trainers" were, because we were never taught that.

When I grew older I found to open my mind a bit more and research these things. There isn't a very big way to understand what words are. And when someone's nine they don't automatically know to "google" words. I know I'd probably ask my parents or look in a dictionary, and both of those probably wouldn't help.

I'm just trying to say that there are justified reasons, even if some could've been understood and not changed. I see your reasoning and understand it, but I'm thinking in the younger child's point of view. If I were that younger child I probably would be utterly confused and give up on the book. J.K. Rowling did a good compromise; it lets the younger children to read.

I probably want to collect the British version eventually, but for now I'm fine with the American version. It's not that big of a deal, really. It's still the same book. The meaning's the same.

So what's the point of calling countries "ignorant" when you can just enjoy the story? After all, I'm sure Jo made the series FOR all of us, not so we could be controversial over it, right?

@AnnieLou: A lot of people act like it's the Americans' fault. It's just Scholastic's, if anyone. It's not like they had a nationwide vote. It was just a decision. J.K.R. AGREED to it. And even if she does regret it it's done. It's not for the "stupid intelligence" of America. It's a children's book. As I said above. It's for CHILDREN. If you were a younger child would you know what it meant? Unless I'm considered "stupid" I wouldn't know. I'd probably ask someone, who also wouldn't know.

In school you don't learn those things. It'd be difficult for a kid, I'm sure. Truthfully, I am happy they made some changes. Not that I'd NOT read it if there wasn't any changes, but it enables the younger children to enjoy it. Because that's what Harry Potter is for, right? For us to enjoy

@Konako_Akari/Brit_Girl89: Really? Saying Americans are dumb? That's so stereotypical. There are just as much dumb people in America as there are in other countries. America ISN'T dumb. Really, we have had our fair share of geniuses. Saying a country is dumb isn't accurate. There are millions, sometimes billions of people in countries. I don't believe someone is truly DUMB unless they don't try. If you have the nerve to call someone dumb you should rethink yourself. Do you know that person? They might have a brain disease. They might try their hardest in school but just can't seemed to understand Math or something. Saying America is dumb is the equivalent to saying Australia, or the Great Britain are is dumb (which it isn't.) Everywhere, I'm sure, has the not-so-smart people, but just because America got their own book copy doesn't mean it's DUMB. Jeez, how mature are we here if we are resulting to insulting countries on a harmless article.

I'm going to THANK the author for this information, instead of saying how "stupid" America is for getting their own copy of one of the best series in the world.

[So why are we arguing over spellings and phrases? Shouldn't we just enjoy the series and argue about who missed (character name) more good-naturedly?]

I am not trying to "fight" in this battle, but show what I believe. I am American and know SOME of the changes weren't necessary, but other's were. I know that I wouldn't understand what a jumper was at eight, nine or ten. I'd be like "Jumper? A trampoline?" Because jumper doesn't sound remotely like "sweater." Sure, context clues could help, but the changes were sometimes needed. However, this doesn't make America stupid. It just gives us understanding of the series.

So, as an American, not a "proud one is brainwashed to think we are the King of the World", thank you very much, I say that you shouldn't DARE to insult a country. I'm not going around insulting ANY country. You shouldn't insult countries or ethnicities. Embrace them, or ignore them. But DON'T insult them if you have never lived there for a period of ten years. Because you don't really know that country until then, do you?

People shouldn't judge countries, especially on something so trivial as BOOK CHANGES. Really? It's like this, if someone from Britain visited America no one would say: You are ignorant for saying 'trainers' instead of 'sneakers' (or vice versa). That wouldn't happen in either country. So why are we arguing about it in a BOOK?
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
What the bludger is a satsuma?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
In America, it's a fruit bearing tree (and a type of snail, apparently). In the UK, it's a walnut.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
In the UK and Ireland a satsuma is a small, easy-peeling citrus fruit, much like a mandarin orange. I have never, in any part of the world, heard a walnut being referred to as a satsuma. And I have no idea why 'walnut' would be changed to 'satsuma' in the US version. California is full of walnut groves so it's not as if Americans don't know what they are.

Having been born and brought up in Ireland and the UK and having lived in the US with my American husband for a number of years, I cannot understand the necessity for changing books from one version of English to another. As a child I read all the Little House books, Anne of Green Gables, Narnia, Famous Five, Nancy Drew and many more - all books from different English-speaking cultures. If I didn't understand a word I would figure it out, ask a parent or teacher, or look it up.

It's so much easier for children to research things these days. A couple of clicks and they have a world of knowledge at their fingertips. Shouldn't we be educating them about cultural differences and encouraging them to find things out for themselves?

It is wrong to brand an entire nation as ignorant, based on changing words in a book, or other forms of generalisation. However, I believe that it's also wrong to underestimate the intelligence and understanding of children, and to limit their learning by restricting their reading only to that of their local community or country. Let them learn through reading, so that they can go out into the world and interact with people from other cultures and countries, without feeling ignorant or uneducated. Learning about other cultures is an enriching and enhancing experience. The easiest and most enjoyable way for children to begin this cultural education, before they're old enough to put a rucksack on their backs and see the world for themselves, is through the magical power of literature. Let's not narrow their horizons.
posted over a year ago.