|
It used swarthy in a sentence in a manner befitting the use of the word swarthy. I am 100% ok with this.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Anyone else surprised that Krum is still playing World Cup level quidditch? Dude's almost 40.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Joose Caboose posted:Anyone else surprised that Krum is still playing World Cup level quidditch? Dude's almost 40. Peyton Manning is ~38 and he's not exactly in the lowest impact sport either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Peyton Manning is ~38 and he's not exactly in the lowest impact sport either. And that's without magical healing available.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Also wizards live longer, Dumbledore was about 150 when he died. edit: or 115, whatever, I dont know, JKR isn't exactly known for consistency. Xachariah fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Xachariah posted:Also wizards live longer, Dumbledore was about 150 when he died. I got the impression he was pulling a Rocky IV and coming out of retirement for 'one more chance at the gold' or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Ein cooler Typ posted:I wish they would just rename it Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone for future US releases Yes. Although maybe then they'd be afraid that they all think it's a new book. It's probably quite childish of me but I always frustrates me to no end when I see it called the "Sorceror's Stone". Because the Philosopher's Stone is an actual thing (or idea, at least), it's a historical reference! A question for american readers - do they change the name in the text as well or just in the title?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Laverna posted:A question for american readers - do they change the name in the text as well or just in the title? It is Sorcerer's Stone in the text, as well. Same for throughout the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:It is Sorcerer's Stone in the text, as well. Same for throughout the movie. Bummer. Did you notice that when you first read it? Did it make a difference? I know that when I read the first book I knew about the philosopher's stone so I would have been a bit confused by it having a different name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Laverna posted:Bummer. Personally, I was five when I read the US version of the book, and had never heard of the philosopher's stone. Honestly, it was a magical MacGuffin and the name really didn't matter all that much. I'm really just interested in how much someone got paid to read through the book and Americanize 20 or 30 words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Laverna posted:Bummer. I was 10 or 11 when I first read it, I don't think I was aware of the Philosopher's Stone before Harry Potter. And I bought the US version at a Book Fair on a whim, and then eventually got a hardcover copy of the UK version a bit later to go with the rest of the set. So it didn't effect me when I first read it, but once I found out that they had changed it for US markets, it did annoy me. JohnSherman posted:I'm really just interested in how much someone got paid to read through the book and Americanize 20 or 30 words. And they didn't just change Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone... apparently they also Americanized some words, like changing jumper to sweater, or trousers to pants. Thankfully, I think they only did that for the first book. thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:I was 10 or 11 when I first read it, I don't think I was aware of the Philosopher's Stone before Harry Potter. And I bought the US version at a Book Fair on a whim, and then eventually got a hardcover copy of the UK version a bit later to go with the rest of the set. So it didn't effect me when I first read it, but once I found out that they had changed it for US markets, it did annoy me. I remember the Goblet of Fire being released so I can't have been older than 8 when I read the first book. Honestly I have no idea how I knew about it, it was just an idea that was familiar to me at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
I was someone who read Sorcerer's Stone being aware of the concept of the philosopher's stone. Honestly it didn't seem like a big deal at the time. The fact that it was changed for American audiences is pretty silly, but at the time I was unaware of that and thought it was just changed to make it fit into the setting better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
What irks me more is that some places show Sorceror's Stone as the default, rather than the also known as.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
It doesn't make sense, it's not like UK children knew what the philosopher's stone is either. Or even what a philosopher is. It's not a common phrase and it's not taught at all. But it is a "real thing" so maybe they'll look it up and learn something. Maybe they'll be excited that there's a real historical link with between Harry Potter and... historical folklore. Seems like someone at the US publisher just wanted to change things to justify their own job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Xachariah posted:It doesn't make sense, it's not like UK children knew what the philosopher's stone is either. Or even what a philosopher is. It's not a common phrase and it's not taught at all. But it is a "real thing" so maybe they'll look it up and learn something. Maybe they'll be excited that there's a real historical link with between Harry Potter and... historical folklore. It's more that US audiences in 1997 equated Sorcerers with Magic and Philosophers with Socrates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
geeves posted:It's more that US audiences in 1997 equated Sorcerers with Magic and Philosophers with Socrates. And British audiences didn't in equal measure?  The decision is really indefensible; if you take away all the bullshit spin it boils down to "we need to make your book stupider for American audiences because American audiences are stupider", and as a patriotic American that seriously offends me. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
geeves posted:It's more that US audiences in 1997 equated Sorcerers with Magic and Philosophers with Socrates. Haha yeeeeah, in the UK in 1997 philosophers were well known for using magic. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:And British audiences didn't in equal measure? I should have mentioned that Scholastic thought poorly of American kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:And British audiences didn't in equal measure? I think it might have had more to do with Scholastic having no control over what the book was called in the UK but being of the opinion that putting "Philosopher" in your children's book title is less immediately attractive to kids than "Sorcerer". They may even be right, but obviously Harry Potter isn't a good test - the first book could be called Harry Potter and the Boring Nonsense and people would still read it now given that the series as a whole has become so wildly popular. Given that I think it's a little silly for the US version to retain "Sorcerer" at this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Nice sorcerer av, Jazerus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
They probably just wanted to get something magicy in the title.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Chamber of Magic Prisoner of Wizard Jail Cup of Fire Magical Order of the Phoenix Mixed Race Prince Oh christ what do we do with Deathly Hallows oh god
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:Magical Order of the Firebird ftfy
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:Chamber of Magic Hidden Room of Magic. Escaped Convict of Wizard Prison. Trophy of Magic Flames. Club of the Mythical Firebird. Magical Notebook of the Half Human Wizard. Magical Objects of Deadly Powers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
geeves posted:I should have mentioned that Scholastic thought poorly of American kids. Rowling had to go by her first two initials because Scholastic thought boys wouldn't read a book by a "...girl" (because apparently girls don't read). Yeah, they weren't too bright back then and thankfully HP blowing the gently caress up made them re-think their ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
The "conventional" wisdom is that girls read both boys' and girls' books, while boys don't read girls' books. I don't know how true that was, but it's probably not true now after Harry Potter and the Hunger Games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:Yeah, they weren't too bright back then and thankfully HP blowing the gently caress up made them re-think their ways. I'm sure Harry Potter blowing up had nothing to do with the way the book was marketed. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:Rowling had to go by her first two initials because Scholastic thought boys wouldn't read a book by a "...girl" (because apparently girls don't read). Yeah, they weren't too bright back then and thankfully HP blowing the gently caress up made them re-think their ways. K.A.Applegate too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
did Scholastic make her use her initials? Wasn't it J.K Rowling in the first UK edition too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Hey, take a look at the new Bloomsbury covers for the UK editions: http://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/gallery/2014/jul/30/new-harry-potter-covers-revealed In which Harry is a 13-year old anime character for the entire series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Hey, take a look at the new Bloomsbury covers for the UK editions: Looks more like Secrets of Droon than anime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Hey, take a look at the new Bloomsbury covers for the UK editions: Harry looks like a girl on those book covers. I always wondered if the Potter series would have been just as popular if Harry had been a girl rather than a boy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Harry also seems to not age at all on those covers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Harry also seems to not age at all on those covers. I rather like the art and coloring except for that rather jaring problem. It looks fine on the year one and even the year two cover, but tiny 11 year old Harry in Deathly Hallows is weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
I also like how they made sure to put a giant spoiler on the covers of both Chamber and Prisoner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:I also like how they made sure to put a giant spoiler on the covers of both Chamber and Prisoner. Everyone's already read the books.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
zachol posted:Everyone's already read the books. Good thing there haven't been any new people born since they came out!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
zachol posted:Everyone's already read the books. Not to mention there was a semi-spoiler on PoA's original UK/Canadian cover anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:50
|
|
