Complete list of UK/US Differences for HBP
Mr.O.
Each distinct difference is listed only once, when it first occurs.
http://www.designit-digital.com/hp6.htm
W. F. Zimmerman
edits by American and English editors. Both copy editors seem to have
taken liberties that I find annoying.
For example, at 315 we find
US: was a small, stout, bespectacled man
UK: was a small, bespectacled man
Jeers to UK for that one. Why not leave "stout" in there? the "it's a
synonym for beer" argument doesn't hold water (as it were) b/c JKR is a
UK writer...
At 369 we find:
US Harry recognized Voldemort at once.
UK Harry recognized Riddle at once.
As I've pointed out before, the distinction may be important. Not sure
whether the UK or US c/e is at fault, but one of them is!
The US copy editor seems to think US readers are rather dense:
85 US everybody's in mortal danger UK everybody's in mortal peril
112 US Madam Malkin, the owner, said UK Madam Malkin said
nys...@cs.com
> Interesting. It's clear that the manuscript was given separate copy
> edits by American and English editors. Both copy editors seem to
> have taken liberties that I find annoying.
It does not seem likely that we are dealing with the UK Editor "taking
liberties". What happened, evidently, was that a last-minute
*substantive* edit was made by JKR, and these changes never made it
into the US edition.
> For example, at 315 we find
>
> US: was a small, stout, bespectacled man
> UK: was a small, bespectacled man
>
> Jeers to UK for that one. Why not leave "stout" in there?
No reason ... unless JKR made the change, and she simply decided that
Worple was not all that stout. (I'm thinking Worple might be a
candidate for the DADA position next year).
> the "it's a
> synonym for beer" argument doesn't hold water (as it were) b/c JKR
> is a UK writer...
Exactly. Only JKR would have made the change. That was not the editor
taking liberties.
> At 369 we find:
>
> US Harry recognized Voldemort at once.
> UK Harry recognized Riddle at once.
>
> As I've pointed out before, the distinction may be important. Not
> sure whether the UK or US c/e is at fault, but one of them is!
JKR made this change.
Note also the difference at 587. The UK language is obviously more
correct, so we can see why the change was made ... it just never made
it to the US edition.
Note, especially, signigicant substantive chagnes at 153, 508, 591-92,
612, 616. I'm not sure the purpose. Note that the change at 153 adds
yet one more clue that Malfoy already knew Harry was present when he
decided to start blabbing his evil plans.
W. F. Zimmerman
for your confidence other than your admirable skills of inductive
reasoning?
Phil
"W. F. Zimmerman" <w...@wfzimmerman.com> wrote in message
news:1126707110.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting. It's clear that the manuscript was given separate copy
> edits by American and English editors. Both copy editors seem to have
> taken liberties that I find annoying.
>
> For example, at 315 we find
>
> US: was a small, stout, bespectacled man
> UK: was a small, bespectacled man
>
> Jeers to UK for that one. Why not leave "stout" in there? the "it's a
> synonym for beer" argument doesn't hold water (as it were) b/c JKR is a
> UK writer...
I think you've missed the fact that the UK edition was the ORIGINAL one
written by JKR. The "stout" was put in by the editor who seems to think the
readers need to be kept reminded every few pages.....
Phil
>I hope you're right that JKR made these changes, but is there any basis
> for your confidence other than your admirable skills of inductive
> reasoning?
>
adjust the UK book (the original, remember) to tally with the altered US one
?
Paul Lints
> W. F. Zimmerman wrote:
>
>>At 369 we find:
>>
>>US Harry recognized Voldemort at once.
>>UK Harry recognized Riddle at once.
>>
>>As I've pointed out before, the distinction may be important. Not
>>sure whether the UK or US c/e is at fault, but one of them is!
>
>
> JKR made this change.
>
> Note also the difference at 587. The UK language is obviously more
> correct, so we can see why the change was made ... it just never made
> it to the US edition.
>
Why is either more correct? Tom Riddle was known as Tom Riddle by his
teachers while at Hogwarts, but he had already started using the
pseudonym Voldemort.
--
Paul W. Lints Jr. UIN: 25030144
Valid email: pwlints@*DELETEME*csupomona.edu
nys...@cs.com
No. "Stout" was not put in by the American editor. The American
editor, unless he was insane, simply would not do this. No
"reminders" are involved -- this is the first place, to my knowledge,
that Worple is ever described. The American Editor would not take it
upon himself to make Worple "stout".
If the word appears in the American edition, it can only be because the
word appeared in the draft he received from JKR. Therefore, the above
poster is correct to assume that the word was *later* removed from the
UK draft. But he errs, I think, in assuming that such a change would
have been made by the UK editor without JKR's authorization and
approval.
nys...@cs.com
> nys...@cs.com wrote:
> > W. F. Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> >>At 369 we find:
> >>
> >>US Harry recognized Voldemort at once.
> >>UK Harry recognized Riddle at once.
> >>
> >>As I've pointed out before, the distinction may be important. Not
> >>sure whether the UK or US c/e is at fault, but one of them is!
> >
> > JKR made this change.
> >
> > Note also the difference at 587. The UK language is obviously
> > more correct, so we can see why the change was made ... it just
> > never made it to the US edition.
>
> Why is either more correct? Tom Riddle was known as Tom Riddle by
> his teachers while at Hogwarts, but he had already started using
> the pseudonym Voldemort.
I did not say the difference at 369 was more correct, but merely that
it was the sort of change that only JKR would make. I said the
difference at 587 was more correct.
At 587 (US), when D says "There is a pair, I take it", Malfoy answers
"In Borgin and Burkes," which is imprecise because only one of the pair
is at the store. The UK edition corrects this to "The other's at
Borgin and Burkes."
Use the link provided by Mr. O.
nys...@cs.com
Deduction, mainly, based on the nature of the differences. JKR surely
has enough clout at this stage that editors cannot simply muck around
with her text and make substantive changes at random without her
approval.
I originally made similar arguments, in another thread, relative to the
major change on 591-92, insisting that the extra words in the US
edition must have been originally written by Rowling, but that she must
have later decided to remove them ... a decision that somehow never
reached the US edition.
Since then rumors (still officially unconfirmed I think) have been
posted here to the effect that at least one foreign translator has been
told not to translate the extra words of 591-92 in the US edition, and
that these words would be removed from future US editions. I guess
we'll know for sure when the translations come out.
nys...@cs.com
> >basis for your confidence other than your admirable skills of
> >inductive reasoning?
>
> I don't want to sound offensive at all, but why do you think JKR
> needs to adjust the UK book (the original, remember) to tally with
> the altered US one?
He was not saying that at all. He apparently suspects that neither is
the "original" in the sense that both editions contain improper
meddling by editors with the draft that JKR provided them.
The truth, I think, is that there have been no unauthorized changes of
any significance to the UK edition nor to the US edition (except,
perhaps, those resulting from error). However, the US edition is
indeed the "original" in the sense that, in certain cases, it preserves
the text of an earlier draft by JKR. This, however, makes the US
edition less authoritative, not moreso, since it has been superceded.
gjw
wrote:
>Here is the list of differences for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
>Each distinct difference is listed only once, when it first occurs.
>
>http://www.designit-digital.com/hp6.htm
About the change to "he had a toothache" from "he had toothache"...
Was that a corrected typo, or do the British actually say "he had
toothache"??
Richard Eney
<nys...@cs.com> wrote:
<snip>
>If the word appears in the American edition, it can only be because the
>word appeared in the draft he received from JKR. Therefore, the above
>poster is correct to assume that the word was *later* removed from the
>UK draft. But he errs, I think, in assuming that such a change would
>have been made by the UK editor without JKR's authorization and
>approval.
I'm not privy to JKR's editorial conferences, and it seems that she
works fairly closely with both her editors. However, it is extremely
rare for an author to have final say over every detail. Other authors
whose books sell extremely well nevertheless frequently have to fight
for specific usages to remain as they wrote them. Often they have to
use all their "clout" to keep one important word and let some others
be changed arbitrarily by an editor who feels a need to make some change,
any change, to prove they are editing.
It is so expensive, even in the electronic age, to make changes after
review copies are printed that even really obvious typographical
errors may be left in a book as long as they don't destroy the plot.
The typesetters apparently scan the text in from a printed manuscript
instead of using the author's electronic text; that method adds many
small typographical errors which are then left uncorrected. It's
really easy to see which ones are caused that way.
So-called spelling check programs used ignorantly add more errors,
changing correct words that weren't in the program to incorrect words,
while ignoring places where the typographical error produced a real
word that is in the program but just happens to be the wrong one.
=Tamar
nys...@cs.com
> I'm not privy to JKR's editorial conferences, and it seems that she
> works fairly closely with both her editors. However, it is
> extremely rare for an author to have final say over every detail.
It is extremely rare for any author to have JKR's bargaining power. In
any event, the sort of changes I was referring to are not the sort that
would have been made by editors, even if they did have the clout.
> Other authors
> whose books sell extremely well nevertheless frequently have to
> fight for specific usages to remain as they wrote them. Often they
> have to use all their "clout" to keep one important word and let
> some others be changed arbitrarily by an editor who feels a need to
> make some change, any change, to prove they are editing.
Indeed. Some of the changes that obviously *were* made by the American
editor, for purposes of Americanization, etc., were the sort that were
not worth fighting over. But I was not talking about those kinds of
changes.
> It is so expensive, even in the electronic age, to make changes
> after review copies are printed that even really obvious
> typographical errors may be left in a book as long as they don't
> destroy the plot.
Indeed. A number of differences on the list obviously originated as
typographical errors. However, many of the differences I have in mind
clearly go beyond that.
> The typesetters apparently scan the text in from a printed
> manuscript instead of using the author's electronic text; that
> method adds many small typographical errors which are then left
> uncorrected. It's really easy to see which ones are caused that
> way. So-called spelling check programs used ignorantly add more
> errors, changing correct words that weren't in the program to
> incorrect words, while ignoring places where the typographical
> error produced a real word that is in the program but just happens
> to be the wrong one.
This is true. However, it does not relate to most of the differences
actually mentioned in this thread.
W. F. Zimmerman
me on several points.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Phil wrote:
>> "W. F. Zimmerman wrote:
>>> For example, at 315 we find
>>> US: was a small, stout, bespectacled man
>>> UK: was a small, bespectacled man
>> I think you've missed the fact that the UK edition was the ORIGINAL
>> one written by JKR.
> "Stout" was not put in by the American editor. The American editor,
> unless he was insane, simply would not do this. This is the first place,
> to my knowledge, that Worple is ever described. The American Editor
> would not take it upon himself to make Worple "stout".
Maybe he put "stout" in to complete this antithesis...
Worple Sanguini
small tall
stout emaciated
bespectacled shadowed eyes
man vampire
enthusiastic rather bored
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Mr.O. wrote:
>> Here is the list of differences for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood
> Prince.
>> Each distinct difference is listed only once, when it first occurs.
>> http://www.designit-digital.com/hp6.htm
I was disappointed that there was no hp1.htm to hp5.htm as well.
> About the change to "he had a toothache" from "he had toothache"...
> Was that a corrected typo, or do the British actually say "he had
> toothache"??
Yes we do; it's not an indefinite ache, but the one you have.
Mr.O.
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
wrote in message news:bffpds.57896956184433@raxacoricofallapatoria...
> GJW wrote:
>
>> Mr.O. wrote:
>
>>> Here is the list of differences for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood
>> Prince.
>
>>> Each distinct difference is listed only once, when it first occurs.
>
>>> http://www.designit-digital.com/hp6.htm
>
> I was disappointed that there was no hp1.htm to hp5.htm as well.
The rest of my lists have been archived by hp-lexicon.org
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/differences-ps.html
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/differences-cs.html
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/pa/differences-pa.html
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/gf/differences-gf.html
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/op/differences-op.html
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>> Mr.O. wrote:
>>> Here is the list of differences for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood
>>> Prince.
>>> Each distinct difference is listed only once, when it first occurs.
>>> http://www.designit-digital.com/hp6.htm
>> I was disappointed that there was no hp1.htm to hp5.htm as well.
> The rest of my lists have been archived by hp-lexicon.org
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/differences-ps.html
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/differences-cs.html
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/pa/differences-pa.html
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/gf/differences-gf.html
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/op/differences-op.html
Thanks, I'll check those out.
Oh, I didn't realise it was your list, I thought you were just
talking about it. Did you realise that the HTML is tremendously
bloated, with every byte separated by a null? Like that, there
are a lot of browsers that won't display your work properly.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Eric Bohlman
wrote in news:bffpds.57896956184441@raxacoricofallapatoria:
>>>> http://www.designit-digital.com/hp6.htm
> Oh, I didn't realise it was your list, I thought you were just
> talking about it. Did you realise that the HTML is tremendously
> bloated, with every byte separated by a null? Like that, there
> are a lot of browsers that won't display your work properly.
The page is encoded in UTF-16 (specifically the little-endian variety of
UTF-16), which is a well-supported encoding; problems only arise if the
server doesn't correctly identify the encoding when serving up the page
(designit-digital's server *does* correctly identify it as UTF-16).
A few comments on the differences themselves:
* Many of the differences involve minor changes in word order (e.g.
"Harry smiled back vaguely" in US, "Harry smiled vaguely back" in UK). I
very strongly suspect that these simply reflect differences in the two
editors' personal ideas of euphony (the arrangement of words that "sounds
good").
* "Black hooter-type objects" would have had most American boys over the
age of 9 giggling uncontrollably. The change to "horn-type" was almost
certainly done to avoid unintentional humor, not offense.
* "Try getting off with McLaggen" would, in most American teenagers'
vocabulary, read as "try reaching orgasm with McLaggen." The
translation, though, may not stand the test of time, as "hook up with" is
increasingly coming to mean "have casual sex with" in American high-
school circles.
* In the two scenes of Slughorn's memories, the American editor seems to
keep wobbling between "Riddle" and "Voldemort" with no rhyme or reason,
whereas the British editor seems to stick to "Riddle." I think the
latter makes more sense, as after all Tom would have been known to
Slughorn (the most important person in those scenes) as "Riddle" rather
than "Voldemort." I've got a sneaking suspicion that the American editor
was simply trying to avoid sounding repetitious; such avoidance is often
misguided and weakens writing instead of strengthening it (the classic
example involves a phobia about using "said" more than twice in a row).
* "Award for Special Services" in the US edition is simply a mistake; it
was "Special Award for Services" in the US edition of CoS, and in any
case the two phrases aren't interchangeable.
Eric Bohlman
news:Xns96D3D0243C4F3...@130.133.1.4:
> * "Try getting off with McLaggen" would, in most American teenagers'
> vocabulary, read as "try reaching orgasm with McLaggen." The
> translation, though, may not stand the test of time, as "hook up with"
> is increasingly coming to mean "have casual sex with" in American
> high- school circles.
I need to amplify on that a bit: the emerging American meaning of "hooking
up" specifically implies the *lack* of a "serious" or exclusive
relationship between the parties involved; it does *not* encompass
traditional notions of "dating" or "going steady" but rather refers to an
alternative to them. Thus there's a good chance that future readers will
wind up with exactly the opposite impression from what JKR intended.
An interesting aspect of the whole "dating" vs. "hooking up" distinction is
that straight teenagers appear to be adopting the relationship patterns
characteristic of young gay men in the 1970s, whereas gay teenagers appear
to be adopting the patterns of straight youth in the 1960s. It's often the
case that what look like big differences in group mores are actually just
interference patterns generated by two slightly out-of-phase trends.
nys...@cs.com
> * In the two scenes of Slughorn's memories, the American editor seems to
> keep wobbling between "Riddle" and "Voldemort" with no rhyme or reason,
> whereas the British editor seems to stick to "Riddle." I think the
> latter makes more sense, as after all Tom would have been known to
> Slughorn (the most important person in those scenes) as "Riddle" rather
> than "Voldemort." I've got a sneaking suspicion that the American editor
> was simply trying to avoid sounding repetitious; such avoidance is often
> misguided and weakens writing instead of strengthening it (the classic
> example involves a phobia about using "said" more than twice in a row).
Since you think the consistent use of "Riddle" is better, why do you
refuse to consider the possibility that this was an improvement on the
UK end? Normally, editors do try to improve the text, not screw it up,
and if an edit makes no sense, the editor is unlikely to insist on it
over JKR's objection.
There is plenty of evidence of UK revisions that somehow failed to be
incorporated in the US edition. Why not assume this is one of them?
JKR may even have initiated the change, after a final review of the
manuscript.
Still, if you are determined to blame the American editor, a more
plausible reason might be a desire to remind forgetful or out-of-touch
readers that Riddle and Voldemort are the same person. Even that seems
silly at this stage, but the motive you ascribe surely makes no sense.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> The rest of my lists have been archived by hp-lexicon.org
These give your full name. Do you mind if it's used on AFHP?
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html
I was startled to see that Rowling has corrected "nearly four hundred
years" to "nearly five hundred years" when N.H.Nick describes how long
it's been since he last ate. This now fits in with his 500th Deathday
Party in the following book, solidifying the 1992-based dating scheme.
Does anyone know where the full text of the master list of edits can
be found, which includes 'boring' spelling and punctuation fixes?
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Eric Bohlman
news:1126923026.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Since you think the consistent use of "Riddle" is better, why do you
> refuse to consider the possibility that this was an improvement on the
> UK end? Normally, editors do try to improve the text, not screw it
> up, and if an edit makes no sense, the editor is unlikely to insist on
> it over JKR's objection.
I'm not sure why you think I'm refusing to consider it. Since I don't know
how the original manuscript read, I'm assuming that both editors made
choices, and I think the UK editor made better choices in this case.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>> Did you realise that the HTML is tremendously bloated, with every byte
>> separated by a null? Like that, there are a lot of browsers that won't
>> display your work properly.
> The page is encoded in UTF-16 (specifically the little-endian variety of
> UTF-16), which is a well-supported encoding; problems only arise if the
> server doesn't correctly identify the encoding when serving up the page
> (designit-digital's server *does* correctly identify it as UTF-16).
It did begin with a weird couple of bytes before the 0<0h0t0m0l0>0,
was that an incorrect identification code?
> A few comments on the differences themselves:
> Many of the differences involve minor changes in word order (e.g. "Harry
> smiled back vaguely" in US, "Harry smiled vaguely back" in UK). I very
> strongly suspect that these simply reflect differences in the two editors'
> personal ideas of euphony (the arrangement of words that "sounds good").
Yes.
> "Black hooter-type objects" would have had most American boys over the
> age of 9 giggling uncontrollably. The change to "horn-type" was almost
> certainly done to avoid unintentional humor, not offense.
I think it's preferable to let adolescent boys have their giggles, and
then let them learn that language & customs vary around the world, rather
than have American children ignorantly languish in a cultural ghetto.
> "Try getting off with McLaggen" would, in most American teenagers'
> vocabulary, read as "try reaching orgasm with McLaggen." The
> translation, though, may not stand the test of time, as "hook up with"
> is increasingly coming to mean "have casual sex with" in American high-
> school circles.
I'm sure that readers not thrown by the Latin incantations would soon come
to understand what was happening from the context of the story.
> In the two scenes of Slughorn's memories, the American editor seems to
> keep wobbling between "Riddle" and "Voldemort" with no rhyme or reason,
> whereas the British editor seems to stick to "Riddle." I think the
> latter makes more sense, as after all Tom would have been known to
> Slughorn (the most important person in those scenes) as "Riddle" rather
> than "Voldemort."
I'll have to check the context of that for myself.
> I've got a sneaking suspicion that the American editor was simply trying
> to avoid sounding repetitious; such avoidance is often misguided and
> weakens writing instead of strengthening it (the classic example
> involves a phobia about using "said" more than twice in a row).
Well, repetition does imply reference, for example the way I used the
word "context" in my previous reply to echo the one before that, (note
the way I didn't write "reply" twice, except for now to make a point).
> "Award for Special Services" in the US edition is simply a mistake; it
> was "Special Award for Services" in the US edition of CoS, and in any
> case the two phrases aren't interchangeable.
There are mistakes on both sides: one I recall from book 1 was Harry
carrying Hedwig on his lap; in the US edition she was in a cage.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
nys...@cs.com
> nys...@cs.com wrote in
> news:1126923026.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Since you think the consistent use of "Riddle" is better, why do
> > you refuse to consider the possibility that this was an
> > improvement on the UK end? Normally, editors do try to improve
> > the text, not screw it up, and if an edit makes no sense, the
> > editor is unlikely to insist on it over JKR's objection.
>
> I'm not sure why you think I'm refusing to consider it.
I just reread what you wrote, and it still seems to me that you are
assuming the American editor received a copy that made consistent use
of Riddle, and changed it so the use was inconsistent. You proceeded
to speculate on rather unlikely reasons why the American editor might
have done this -- speculations that to me seemed unnecessary if youhad
considered far more plausible alternative possibilities.
Mr.O.
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
No, I don't mind if my name is used. Since it's misspelled in some instances
on hp-lexicon.org, I'll point out that my last name is spelled Olson.
A list of "spelling and punctuation fixes" would be very repetetive and
doesn't really relate to the work of J.K. Rowling, unless it changes the
context of the line. While I don't recall any such instances off-hand, I do
recall that when I listened to the Jim Dale reading of the US version, he
added a full stop in place of a pause (in essence adding his own period) and
changed the meaning of what was written. I can't recall the specifics,
though. Sorry.
Eric Bohlman
wrote in news:bffpds.57896956184455@raxacoricofallapatoria:
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>> The page is encoded in UTF-16 (specifically the little-endian variety
>> of UTF-16), which is a well-supported encoding; problems only arise
>> if the server doesn't correctly identify the encoding when serving up
>> the page (designit-digital's server *does* correctly identify it as
>> UTF-16).
>
> It did begin with a weird couple of bytes before the 0<0h0t0m0l0>0,
> was that an incorrect identification code?
In any document encoded in UTF-16, the first two bytes are always a "byte
order mark" which indicates whether the encoding is big-endian or little-
endian. However, that's not how the server tells the browser that what's
being served is UTF-16 rather than UTF-8 or ISO8859-1 or what have you;
that's done by the Content-type: header in the HTTP response (specifically,
the optional "charset=" part).
Phil
> Phil wrote:
>
>>"W. F. Zimmerman" <w...@wfzimmerman.com> wrote in message
>>news:1126707110.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Interesting. It's clear that the manuscript was given separate
>>>copy edits by American and English editors. Both copy editors
>>>seem to have taken liberties that I find annoying.
>>>
>>>For example, at 315 we find
>>>
>>>US: was a small, stout, bespectacled man
>>>UK: was a small, bespectacled man
>>>
>>>Jeers to UK for that one. Why not leave "stout" in there?
>>>the "it's a synonym for beer" argument doesn't hold water (as it
>>>were) b/c JKR is a UK writer...
>>
>>I think you've missed the fact that the UK edition was the ORIGINAL
>>one written by JKR. The "stout" was put in by the editor who seems
>>to think the readers need to be kept reminded every few pages.....
>
>
> No. "Stout" was not put in by the American editor. The American
> editor, unless he was insane, simply would not do this.
Considering that the American editor decided to change "The Philosophers
Stone" to "The Sorcerors Stone" why on earth do you think he (she I
think - JKR prefers females, and MOTHERS like herself to edit - but I
believe that came after the American choice - clearly irritated by the
number of changes - LUDICROUS changes like book title) wouldn't just put
"stout" in ?
Phil
After U-571 when the yanks decided it was THEM that did the Enigma
decoding deed rather than the British who actually did it - in you know,
REALITY, now the American edition of Harry Potter by some faceless
editor is now the original edition of JKR's work.....whats next ? They
were written by some New York film star rather than JKR ? The school is
actually "Hogwarts, Nebraska" ?"
Phil
> In article <1126745228....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <nys...@cs.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>If the word appears in the American edition, it can only be because the
>>word appeared in the draft he received from JKR. Therefore, the above
>>poster is correct to assume that the word was *later* removed from the
>>UK draft. But he errs, I think, in assuming that such a change would
>>have been made by the UK editor without JKR's authorization and
>>approval.
>
>
> I'm not privy to JKR's editorial conferences, and it seems that she
> works fairly closely with both her editors.
She has a few more than 2. Her books saved a Japanes publishers from
bankruptcy. I know she demands these days after early problems with
too-interfering American editors that she wanted (and got) female
editors who were mothers like herself. As far as I'm aware all the
editors, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese etc are all women
and stick as close as their language can to the original text. I'd love
to know how many felt the need to alter the bloody title, however.....
nys...@cs.com
> > He was not saying that at all. He apparently suspects that neither is
> > the "original" in the sense that both editions contain improper
> > meddling by editors with the draft that JKR provided them.
> >
> > The truth, I think, is that there have been no unauthorized changes of
> > any significance to the UK edition nor to the US edition (except,
> > perhaps, those resulting from error). However, the US edition is
> > indeed the "original" in the sense that, in certain cases, it preserves
> > the text of an earlier draft by JKR. This, however, makes the US
> > edition less authoritative, not moreso, since it has been superceded.
> >
> The US edition is the original....jeeeezus wept.
No. I said that the US edition was the "original" (which I
deliberately placed in quotes) in one extremely limited sense: that,
with respect to *some* passages, it preserves the text of an earlier
draft by JKR, which JKR later revised.
This, of course, does not mean that the US edition is more
Authoritative or more correct. Quite the opposite in fact - the UK
edition is more authoritative because it includes JKR's latest
revisions, which the US editor somehow failed to incorporate (perhaps
it was too late). Of course, I already said that.
Of course, it is not inconceivable that, in specific instances, the US
edition could be correct, and the UK edition in error. That has
happened in specific instances in the past. But as a general
statement, I certainly agree that the UK edition is more authoritative.
> After U-571 when the yanks decided it was THEM that did the Enigma
> decoding deed rather than the British who actually did it - in you know,
> REALITY, now the American edition of Harry Potter by some faceless
> editor is now the original edition of JKR's work.....whats next ? They
> were written by some New York film star rather than JKR ? The school is
> actually "Hogwarts, Nebraska" ?"
Perhaps you should make an effort to understand what you read before
you go on a rant in protest.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>> Nystulc wrote:
>>> Since you think the consistent use of "Riddle" is better, why do
>>> you refuse to consider the possibility that this was an
>>> improvement on the UK end? Normally, editors do try to improve
>>> the text, not screw it up, and if an edit makes no sense, the
>>> editor is unlikely to insist on it over JKR's objection.
>> I'm not sure why you think I'm refusing to consider it.
> I just reread what you wrote, and it still seems to me that you are
> assuming the American editor received a copy that made consistent use
> of Riddle, and changed it so the use was inconsistent. You proceeded
> to speculate on rather unlikely reasons why the American editor might
> have done this -- speculations that to me seemed unnecessary if youhad
> considered far more plausible alternative possibilities.
How about the inconsistency of Hagrid's treacle fudge/toffee? In my copy
of book 2 (Bloomsbury paperback 40th edition) it's described thus...
Chapter 7 page 88: "He was the ~on'y~ man for the job," said Hagrid,
offering them a plate of TREACLE FUDGE, while Ron coughed squelchily
into his basin.
Chapter 7 page 89: Harry would have pointed out that trouble didn't
come much worse than having slugs pouring out of your mouth, but he
couldn't; Hagrid's TREACLE TOFFEE had cemented his jaws together.
Chapter 7 page 90: "Don' think he did," said Hagrid, his eyes
twinkling. "An' then I told him I'd never read one o' his books an'
he decided ter go. TREACLE TOFFEE, Ron?" he added as Ron reappeared.
Chapter 7 page 91: It was nearly lunch time and as Harry had only
had one bit of TREACLE FUDGE since dawn, he was keen to go back to
school to eat.
Chapter 12 page 159: The rest of Harry's Christmas presents were far
more satisfactory. Hagrid had sent him a large tin of TREACLE FUDGE,
which Harry decided to soften by the fire before eating
Chapter 15 page 201: Worried he might wake everyone at the castle
with his deep, booming barks, they hastily fed him TREACLE FUDGE
from a tin on the mantelpiece, which glued his teeth together.
In the American edition, it says 'treacle fudge' all the way through;
but to my British ears, fudge is not as sticky as toffee is.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Considering that the American editor <snip> she I think - JKR prefers
> females, and MOTHERS like herself to edit
His name is Arthur A. Levine.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>>> The rest of my lists have been archived by hp-lexicon.org
>> These give your full name. Do you mind if it's used on AFHP?
> No, I don't mind if my name is used. Since it's misspelled in some
> instances on hp-lexicon.org, I'll point out that my last name is spelled
> Olson.
Oh dear - you should get HPL to correct it.
>> Does anyone know where the full text of the master list of edits can
>> be found, which includes 'boring' spelling and punctuation fixes?
> A list of "spelling and punctuation fixes" would be very repetetive and
> doesn't really relate to the work of J.K. Rowling, unless it changes the
> context of the line. While I don't recall any such instances off-hand, I
> do recall that when I listened to the Jim Dale reading of the US
> version, he added a full stop in place of a pause (in essence adding his
> own period) and changed the meaning of what was written. I can't recall
> the specifics, though. Sorry.
Okay. I've started looking through your lists, and couldn't find the
first '(st)r(a)ight away' schism in book 2 page 233 (302 US). Widening
my search engine found the item on page 223, a little typo there it
would seem. As you warned, there were many other occurrences.
Also, Harry thinking of Voldemort at first is book 3 page 117, not page
155; you tripped up over your US/UK page numbering (see RH column).
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>>> The page is encoded in UTF-16 (specifically the little-endian variety
>>> of UTF-16), which is a well-supported encoding; problems only arise
>>> if the server doesn't correctly identify the encoding when serving up
>>> the page (designit-digital's server *does* correctly identify it as
>>> UTF-16).
>> It did begin with a weird couple of bytes before the 0<0h0t0m0l0>0,
>> was that an incorrect identification code?
> In any document encoded in UTF-16, the first two bytes are always a "byte
> order mark" which indicates whether the encoding is big-endian or little-
> endian. However, that's not how the server tells the browser that what's
> being served is UTF-16 rather than UTF-8 or ISO8859-1 or what have you;
> that's done by the Content-type: header in the HTTP response
> (specifically, the optional "charset=" part).
Ah. Well, whatever it was, it went wrong.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
nys...@cs.com
> How about the inconsistency of Hagrid's treacle fudge/toffee?
> In the American edition, it says 'treacle fudge' all the way through;
> but to my British ears, fudge is not as sticky as toffee is.
I'm not sure what you are asking. In this case, since the usage is
more consistent in the American edition, I would assign the origin of
this change to the American editor.
The editor may have thought of it as an Americanization (whether
correctly or not). To my American ears, "fudge" and "toffee" are not
synonyms, and a home-made confection made of treacle would probably be
characterized as "fudge" rather than "toffee". Most Americans think of
toffee as a store-bought candy, but "fudge" has a home-made connotation
-- even store-bought "fudge" tends to come in the shape of a plain
square, in immitation of the home-made variety.
Hence, I can see two possible motives for change on the American end:
consistency of usage, and Americanization. Consistent with my logic,
then, it is quite plausible that this originated with the American
editor (BTW, I don't think it is an improvement).
It is difficult to imagine, however, a circumstance where the American
editor would receive a manuscript with consistent usage, and would
alter the language to make it inconsistent. In contrast, that instance
we were discussing involved consistent usage only on the *British* end,
with no plausible motive for the American editor to make things
inconsistent.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
Yeah, I wasn't really asking that.
My problem is that I prefer the word "toffee" in this context; but the
UK text says "fudge" twice as often for the identical confection, while
the US text always says "fudge" - if Rowling really intended the UK text
to say "toffee", why did she keep writing "fudge"?
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
nys...@cs.com
I still don't understand the "problem". Where is the "problem"? You
prefer the word "toffee". So, I imagine, you prefer the UK edition,
which provides the word at least twice. Unless you hate inconsistency.
But why would you? "Fudge" and "Toffee" are not defined so as to be
mutually exclusive, and by using both words, IMHO, JKR gives a good
idea of what she has in mind: a solid but sticky homemade confection
made using boiled molasses ("treacle").
stark
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>
>> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>
>> "Black hooter-type objects" would have had most American boys over the
>> age of 9 giggling uncontrollably. The change to "horn-type" was almost
>> certainly done to avoid unintentional humor, not offense.
>
> I think it's preferable to let adolescent boys have their giggles, and
> then let them learn that language & customs vary around the world, rather
> than have American children ignorantly languish in a cultural ghetto.
See, it's comments like this that annoy me. You're trying to argue that
children should be more culturally aware, yet you imply that America doesn't
have any culture. From everything I've seen, the average Brittish person
knows as little about the culture of the US Midwest as the average American
knows of the culture of Scotland. Yet, I've never heard anyone say that
scottish children should be exposed to more stories of the (real) Midwest to
save them from languishing in a cultural ghetto. It's fine if few people in
Europe have a clue that the Mid-Atlantic has a distinct culture, but its a
travesty if American children aren't exposed to obscure differences between
their dialect and a British dialect?
If you want people to be exposed to more culture, then this has got to be
one of the most pointless ways of possibly doing it. Not only is it
completely ineffective, it encourages the "They talk funny" stereotype which
people stupidly use to justify the idiotic idea that there is _any_ major
difference between people who live in American and those who live in
Britain.
The reason for this change is that it *does not convey the story to the
reader correctly* if that reader commonly uses a standard American dialect.
Its no different than using horribly complex sentences or obscure metaphors.
Editors are paid to do many things, and one of them is to make changes in
order to convey the author's intended message to the reader. Leaving the
text as "Black hooter-type objects" will not do that.
And it certainly wouldn't make a single bit of difference in anyone's
understanding of the British culture.
--
stark
Helena Bowles
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1127289164....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In the UK "fudge" and "toffee" can both be homemade or store-bought and
they are recognisably different sweets. Toffee is solid, sticky and very
chewy, fudge is soft, easy to bite and not noticeably chewy. Apart from
being made from some kind of sugar-syrup (golden syrup, treacle or molasses)
and butter they are quite distinct both as products and culturally. JKR
really shouldn't have used them as synonyms.
HELENA
>
Phil
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
> Chapter 12 page 159: The rest of Harry's Christmas presents were far
> more satisfactory. Hagrid had sent him a large tin of TREACLE FUDGE,
> which Harry decided to soften by the fire before eating
>
> Chapter 15 page 201: Worried he might wake everyone at the castle
> with his deep, booming barks, they hastily fed him TREACLE FUDGE
> from a tin on the mantelpiece, which glued his teeth together.
>
> In the American edition, it says 'treacle fudge' all the way through;
> but to my British ears, fudge is not as sticky as toffee is.
>
>
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
>
Not t.f.
I actually love fudge. But it is VERY soft. Or it is in GB - I find it hard
to credit "treacle fudge" being even MENTIONED in a UK edition. We all know
T.T. (lost count of the times I'd been in the same boat as Harry with such
toffee....) but fudge ? No.
Phil
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
Phil
"stark" <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kveYe.16438$nq.11695@lakeread05...
Absolutely correct - however, I'd say that it's less British lack of tact in
having a fit of the sniggers on the subject of American lack of culture,
which is highly unfair, and more a case of many American editors, executives
and what have you who are the ones who seem to have the low opinion of
American culture mentality. I mean it wasn't us who changed the first books
name from Philosopher to Sorceror for a reason which we have heard was
American kids couldn't handle what "philosopher" meant and would understand
"Sorceror" easier - or change a James Bond film's title from "Licence
revoked" to - "Licence to kill" because they said they wouldn't understand
what "revoked" meant. I mean - really. Come on. It's thing like this that
give us the fits of sniggers. Don't blame us.
Phil
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
Phil
isn't even remotely similar.
One is soft (fudge) the other hard (toffee) - varying degrees of hard, of
course - depending on toffee. But even the softest toffee is ten times as
hard as the hardest fudge.
Mmmmm....fudge.....aaaarrrrgggggggg.......
Eric Bohlman
news:4331b80a$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
> In the UK "fudge" and "toffee" can both be homemade or
> store-bought and
> they are recognisably different sweets. Toffee is solid, sticky and
> very chewy, fudge is soft, easy to bite and not noticeably chewy.
> Apart from being made from some kind of sugar-syrup (golden syrup,
> treacle or molasses) and butter they are quite distinct both as
> products and culturally. JKR really shouldn't have used them as
> synonyms. HELENA
Note that in the US, what the British call "toffee" is called "taffy,"
whereas "toffee" refers to a crunchy type of candy (such as is found in
Heath bars).
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
Toffee and fudge are different, and one property that differs for them
is their stickiness. If the US edition said fudge fudge fudge fudge fudge
fudge (which it does), and the UK edition said toffee toffee toffee toffee
toffee toffee then I wouldn't mind at all; you guys often reallocate food
names (or keep them the same while we change them).
I could have accepted the annoying but slight inconsistency if Rowling had
written toffee toffee toffee fudge toffee toffee; but instead she wrote
fudge fudge toffee toffee fudge fudge, as though the right word was the
interloper. This leaves me puzzling as to what she meant, that's all.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>>> "Black hooter-type objects" would have had most American boys over the
>>> age of 9 giggling uncontrollably. The change to "horn-type" was almost
>>> certainly done to avoid unintentional humor, not offense.
>> I think it's preferable to let adolescent boys have their giggles, and
>> then let them learn that language & customs vary around the world,
>> rather than have American children ignorantly languish in a cultural
>> ghetto.
> See, it's comments like this that annoy me. You're trying to argue that
> children should be more culturally aware, yet you imply that America
> doesn't have any culture.
You may see such an implication, but I assure you it's not meant. I know
that America is drawn from many cultures, but that doesn't stop some of
its studio execs and literary editors trying to strangle that diversity.
> From everything I've seen, the average Brittish person knows as little
> about the culture of the US Midwest as the average American knows of the
> culture of Scotland.
Speak for yourself; we see a great deal of US culture (as your media
presents it to be), it's not altered at our end to 'protect' Scottish
children from differences in the culture. For example, TV sitcoms may
not be true representations of real life; but when an American sitcom
is successful, we see it over here - when a British sitcom is successful
it's remade for American television, usually ruining it by bowdlerising
everything that made the show so funny in the first place.
> Yet, I've never heard anyone say that scottish children should be
> exposed to more stories of the (real) Midwest to save them from
> languishing in a cultural ghetto.
It's not that children should be exposed to MORE stories; it's that when
they ARE so exposed, stories shouldn't be censored to 'protect' them.
> The reason for this change is that it *does not convey the story to the
> reader correctly* if that reader commonly uses a standard American
> dialect.
That's rubbish; our children manage American ~and~ Australian dialects
very easily since they're exposed to them without censorship; while as
others have pointed out, children in countries worldwide read HP books
in English as a foreign language, rather than wait for translations.
> Leaving the text as "Black hooter-type objects" will not make a single
> bit of difference in anyone's understanding of the British culture.
That's not the point: changing words to what the reader expects deprives
them of being surprised that words can have varying meanings; a possibly
dangerous state of affairs for when they're confronted in later life.
What actually saddens me is that for a country which prides itself on free
speech, it seems so very active in controlling words and images that its
citizens perceive; and then when any outsider suggests that this is wrong,
they're lambasted by such victims for trying to defend them.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
nys...@cs.com
> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > I still don't understand the "problem". Where is the "problem"? You
> > prefer the word "toffee". So, I imagine, you prefer the UK edition,
> > which provides the word at least twice. Unless you hate inconsistency.
> > But why would you? "Fudge" and "Toffee" are not defined so as to be
> > mutually exclusive, and by using both words, IMHO, JKR gives a good
> > idea of what she has in mind: a solid but sticky homemade confection
> > made using boiled molasses ("treacle").
>
> In the UK "fudge" and "toffee" can both be homemade or store-bought and
> they are recognisably different sweets. Toffee is solid, sticky and very
> chewy, fudge is soft, easy to bite and not noticeably chewy.
For this reason, "toffee" often comes in small-sized pieces that one
can pop whole into one's mouth and chew at one's leasure (or,
alternatively, in narrow pulled strings that one can bite off more
easily), whereas "fudge" often comes in larger pieces where one can
easily bite off a portion at a time.
I imagine Hagrid's stuff coming in decent sized chunks, and I likewise
imagine that Hagrid's jaws are such that he has no difficulty biting
off pieces of it, and that Hagrid thinks of it as "fudge". It is clear
that Hagrid's idea of "soft, and easy to bite" is rather different from
that of most people.
> Apart from
> being made from some kind of sugar-syrup (golden syrup, treacle or molasses)
> and butter they are quite distinct both as products and culturally.
Well, you have just conceded they are both made of the same
ingredients. Do you deny that some fudge is more chewy than other
fudge? That some toffee is less chewy than other toffee? There is a
continuum between them. Where precisely do you draw the line? Do you
really find it so hard to imagine a confection that some might call
"fudge" and others might call "toffee"? Usually you don't have to make
these decisions, because the candy marketing department makes it for
you.
> JKR really shouldn't have used them as synonyms.
You are being a bit pedantic. Even in the real world, there can be no
absolute bright-as-day dividing line between "fudge" and "toffee". But
this is a fantasy confection, that, no doubt, does not respond
precisely to anything you have ever eaten. Who are you to say that it
should be called "toffee" and not "fudge"?
I'm sure it was a bit of a surprise for Harry, when he bit into
Hagrid's "fudge", that it glued his jaws together. To complain,
therefore, that Rowling (or Hagrid) should not have called it "fudge",
because real "fudge" isn't supposed to glue your jaws shut, is rather
to miss the joke about Hagrid's cooking.
Of course, once the reader already knows that this "fudge" has the
power to glue jaws shut, and is made from treacle, it is a bit silly to
complain about Rowling being "inconsistent" and referring to it as
"treacle toffee".
In any event, you don't seem to be arguing that she *didn't* call it
"fudge" (and therefore that this resulted from unreasonable
interference by *both* editors). You seem to be agreeing that she did
indeed call it fudge (whether she should have or not).
nys...@cs.com
> Note that in the US, what the British call "toffee" is called "taffy,"
> whereas "toffee" refers to a crunchy type of candy (such as is found in
> Heath bars).
I would not say so. I am American, and I see "toffee" marketed as
small, individually wrapped bite-sized chews, whereas I often see
"taffy" marketted in a pulled and stringy form (like "homestyle"
toffee).
I would consider "Heath bar crunch" as a rather extreme extension of
the word "toffee"; that is not its core meaning at all; it is called
that only because of its flavor and ingredients. Even in the US,
toffee is usually associated with candy that is chewy, not crunchy.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
Thanks, Helena. Can you suggest a best way out?
Why might Rowling have written it that way, or was it an editor's fault?
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>> Chapter 12 page 159: The rest of Harry's Christmas presents were far
>> more satisfactory. Hagrid had sent him a large tin of TREACLE FUDGE,
>> which Harry decided to soften by the fire before eating
>> Chapter 15 page 201: Worried he might wake everyone at the castle
>> with his deep, booming barks, they hastily fed him TREACLE FUDGE
>> from a tin on the mantelpiece, which glued his teeth together.
>> In the American edition, it says 'treacle fudge' all the way through;
>> but to my British ears, fudge is not as sticky as toffee is.
> To be honest, I'd never heard of treacle fudge before. Treacle toffee,
> yes. Not t.f. I actually love fudge. But it is VERY soft. Or it is in GB
> - I find it hard to credit "treacle fudge" being even MENTIONED in a UK
> edition. We all know T.T. (lost count of the times I'd been in the same
> boat as Harry with such toffee....) but fudge ? No.
So why did she write it?
Is this a case where Scottish usage is different from the English?
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>>> Considering that the American editor <snip> she I think - JKR prefers
>>> females, and MOTHERS like herself to edit
>> His name is Arthur A. Levine.
> he must have got in before she brought down the curtain on males then.
He was brought in several years after Rowling decided upon a male hero.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> I mean it wasn't us who changed the first books name from Philosopher to
> Sorceror for a reason which we have heard was American kids couldn't
> handle what "philosopher" meant and would understand "Sorceror" easier -
> or change a James Bond film's title from "Licence revoked" to - "Licence
> to kill" because they said they wouldn't understand what "revoked" meant.
Or changed "The Madness of George III" to "The Madness of King George",
since US execs feared their audience wouldn't know George III was a mad
king, and would instead think that the movie was a second sequel.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Helena Bowles
"Phil" <elast...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gKbXe.76438$2n6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> nys...@cs.com wrote:
> > Phil wrote:
> >
> >
> > The truth, I think, is that there have been no unauthorized changes of
> > any significance to the UK edition nor to the US edition (except,
> > perhaps, those resulting from error). However, the US edition is
> > indeed the "original" in the sense that, in certain cases, it preserves
> > the text of an earlier draft by JKR. This, however, makes the US
> > edition less authoritative, not moreso, since it has been superceded.
> >
> The US edition is the original....jeeeezus wept.
> decoding deed rather than the British who actually did it - in you know,
> REALITY, now the American edition of Harry Potter by some faceless
> editor is now the original edition of JKR's work.....whats next ? They
> were written by some New York film star rather than JKR ? The school is
> actually "Hogwarts, Nebraska" ?"
What happened to the mooted Battle of Britain film that was going to
show us how the Yanks won that,.too? Hollywood history is always funny...
HELENA (not putting down the contribution of Eagle Squadron to the BoB)
Helena Bowles
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1127350719.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> imagine that Hagrid's jaws are such that he has no difficulty biting
> off pieces of it, and that Hagrid thinks of it as "fudge". It is clear
> that Hagrid's idea of "soft, and easy to bite" is rather different from
> that of most people.
>
> > Apart from
> > being made from some kind of sugar-syrup (golden syrup, treacle or
molasses)
> > and butter they are quite distinct both as products and culturally.
>
> Well, you have just conceded they are both made of the same
> ingredients. Do you deny that some fudge is more chewy than other
> fudge? That some toffee is less chewy than other toffee? There is a
> continuum between them. Where precisely do you draw the line? Do you
> really find it so hard to imagine a confection that some might call
> "fudge" and others might call "toffee"? Usually you don't have to make
> these decisions, because the candy marketing department makes it for
> you.
>
> > JKR really shouldn't have used them as synonyms.
>
> You are being a bit pedantic. Even in the real world, there can be no
> absolute bright-as-day dividing line between "fudge" and "toffee". But
> this is a fantasy confection, that, no doubt, does not respond
> precisely to anything you have ever eaten. Who are you to say that it
> should be called "toffee" and not "fudge"?
Of course there's a difference. Fudge and toffee are prepared in two
distinct and different ways and are two different products that share a
common ingredient. Saying that makes them the same is like saying chocolate
and boiled sweets are the same because they are both based on sugar. Toffee
is hard to bite, chewy to the point where it glues your jaws together, fudge
is soft and "doughy" in texture and hardly chewy at all. Good stuff "melts
in the mouth". "Treacle toffee" is a recognised variation of toffee that is
darker in colour and stronger in flavour than standard toffee. Treacle fudge
doesn't exist.
>
> I'm sure it was a bit of a surprise for Harry, when he bit into
> Hagrid's "fudge", that it glued his jaws together. To complain,
> therefore, that Rowling (or Hagrid) should not have called it "fudge",
> because real "fudge" isn't supposed to glue your jaws shut, is rather
> to miss the joke about Hagrid's cooking.
Not really, unless JKR had used "fudge" consistently in which case it
would have been a reasonable joke.
>
> Of course, once the reader already knows that this "fudge" has the
> power to glue jaws shut, and is made from treacle, it is a bit silly to
> complain about Rowling being "inconsistent" and referring to it as
> "treacle toffee".
There is no such thing as "treacle fudge". Treacle toffee is a
well-recognised sweet. She should have stuck to *one* term, either toffee
and it would be a "straight" reference or "treacle fudge" which would be an
invention of Hagrid's own and your idea about his cooking would work.
>
> In any event, you don't seem to be arguing that she *didn't* call it
> "fudge" (and therefore that this resulted from unreasonable
> interference by *both* editors). You seem to be agreeing that she did
> indeed call it fudge (whether she should have or not).
I'm not arguing *anything* about who edited what.
HELENA
>
Helena Bowles
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
Maybe her cookery is as good as her maths and calendar work! <g>
HELENA
> Free Margaret Blaine now!
>
Helena Bowles
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
> Nystulc wrote:
>
> > Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>
> >> My problem is that I prefer the word "toffee" in this context; but
> >> the UK text says "fudge" twice as often for the identical
> >> confection, while the US text always says "fudge" - if Rowling
> >> really intended the UK text to say "toffee", why did she keep
> >> writing "fudge"?
>
> > I still don't understand the "problem". Where is the "problem"? You
> > prefer the word "toffee". So, I imagine, you prefer the UK edition,
> > which provides the word at least twice. Unless you hate inconsistency.
> > But why would you? "Fudge" and "Toffee" are not defined so as to be
> > mutually exclusive,
Yes they are! Well, in the UK anyway. They are mafe by different
processes and have consistenty different properties.
and by using both words, IMHO, JKR gives a good
> > idea of what she has in mind: a solid but sticky homemade confection
> > made using boiled molasses ("treacle").
>
> Toffee and fudge are different, and one property that differs for them
> is their stickiness. If the US edition said fudge fudge fudge fudge fudge
> fudge (which it does), and the UK edition said toffee toffee toffee toffee
> toffee toffee then I wouldn't mind at all; you guys often reallocate food
> names (or keep them the same while we change them).
Yes! Exactly!
>
>HELENA
nys...@cs.com
> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1127350719.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Helena Bowles wrote:
> > > JKR really shouldn't have used them as synonyms.
> >
> > You are being a bit pedantic. Even in the real world, there can
> > be no absolute bright-as-day dividing line between "fudge"
> > and "toffee". But this is a fantasy confection, that, no doubt,
> > does not respond precisely to anything you have ever eaten. Who
> > are you to say that it should be called "toffee" and not "fudge"?
>
> Of course there's a difference.
I agree completely. You are not accusing me of saying otherwise, are
you? All I said was that "there can be no absolute bright-as-say
dividing line" between the two categories.
> Fudge and toffee are prepared in two distinct and different ways
> and are two different products that share a common ingredient.
Since you don't know how Hagrid's fudge was prepared, I don't see your
point.
> Saying that makes them the same is like saying chocolate
> and boiled sweets are the same because they are both based on
> sugar.
I agree completely, which is why I would never say such a thing. I did
not in fact say such a thing. Are you suggested I have said such a
thing? But your analogy makes my point perfectly, since a "chocolate
sweet" and a "boiled sweet" are not mutually exclusive terms.
> Toffee is hard to bite, chewy to the point where it glues your jaws
> together, fudge is soft and "doughy" in texture and hardly chewy at
> all. Good stuff "melts in the mouth".
If these are intended as "definitions" I don't think much of them.
Most varieties of "toffee" that I have eaten are chewy, but they do not
glue my jaws together. Most varieties of "fudge" I have eaten do
indeed separate easily, but they are not doughy.
> "Treacle toffee" is a
> recognised variation of toffee that is darker in colour and
> stronger in flavour than standard toffee. Treacle fudge doesn't
> exist.
It does indeed exist. I reasonably refers to any variety of fudge that
uses molasses (aka treacle), rather than sugar, as a sweatening
ingredient. The more the molasses is boiled down, the more chewy the
consistency is likely to be. It is a matter of degree.
> There is no such thing as "treacle fudge". Treacle toffee is a
> well-recognised sweet.
What are you talking about? Hagrid was serving Harry his home cooking,
not a "well recognized sweet".
> She should have stuck to *one* term, either
> toffee and it would be a "straight" reference or "treacle fudge"
> which would be an invention of Hagrid's own and your idea about his
> cooking would work.
Well. We'll have to disagree on this one. But, to my mind, if
Hagrid's "treacle fudge" can glue jaws together, then it is perfectly
reasonable to *also* call it "treacle toffee". It has at least one
very toffee-like quality.
Helena Bowles
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1127376111.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Helena Bowles wrote:
> > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > news:1127350719.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > Helena Bowles wrote:
> > > > JKR really shouldn't have used them as synonyms.
> > >
> > > You are being a bit pedantic. Even in the real world, there can
> > > be no absolute bright-as-day dividing line between "fudge"
> > > and "toffee". But this is a fantasy confection, that, no doubt,
> > > does not respond precisely to anything you have ever eaten. Who
> > > are you to say that it should be called "toffee" and not "fudge"?
> >
> > Of course there's a difference.
>
> I agree completely. You are not accusing me of saying otherwise, are
> you? All I said was that "there can be no absolute bright-as-say
> dividing line" between the two categories.
And that was what I was disagreeing with. The two sweets are not at
either end of a spectrum or gradient. They are two *different*,
discontinuous items that cannot be confused.
>
> > Fudge and toffee are prepared in two distinct and different ways
> > and are two different products that share a common ingredient.
>
> Since you don't know how Hagrid's fudge was prepared, I don't see your
> point.
Well, that's the argument isn't it? Both fudge and toffee were used as
terms and given the two words are not synonyms and we are not told anywhere
that wizarding toffee/fudge is/are a different recipe it is valid to ask why
both terms are employed and what was actually intended. Of course we may not
be able to find an answer.
>
> > Saying that makes them the same is like saying chocolate
> > and boiled sweets are the same because they are both based on
> > sugar.
>
> I agree completely, which is why I would never say such a thing. I did
> not in fact say such a thing. Are you suggested I have said such a
> thing? But your analogy makes my point perfectly, since a "chocolate
> sweet" and a "boiled sweet" are not mutually exclusive terms.
Er... yes they are! In the UK, anyway (she adds hastily). A boiled
sweet is a hard, clear, crunchy solid made basically of boiled sugar and
flavours. Chocolate is a soft solid that melts at body temperature made of
varying degrees of cocoa solids, sugar, milk and adjuncts.
In the UK we would never say "chocolate sweet" - just chocolate,
whereas a "boiled sweet" is another distinct recognised *type* of sweet.
>
> > Toffee is hard to bite, chewy to the point where it glues your jaws
> > together, fudge is soft and "doughy" in texture and hardly chewy at
> > all. Good stuff "melts in the mouth".
>
> If these are intended as "definitions" I don't think much of them.
> Most varieties of "toffee" that I have eaten are chewy, but they do not
> glue my jaws together. Most varieties of "fudge" I have eaten do
> indeed separate easily, but they are not doughy.
No, descriptions of properties. Good toffee will glue your jaws
together firmly. Poorer qualities will merely make your teeth stick slightly
on each chew. Fudge is a soft melt-in-the mouth concoction that does not
have the sticky quality of toffee.
>
> > "Treacle toffee" is a
> > recognised variation of toffee that is darker in colour and
> > stronger in flavour than standard toffee. Treacle fudge doesn't
> > exist.
>
> It does indeed exist. I reasonably refers to any variety of fudge that
> uses molasses (aka treacle), rather than sugar, as a sweatening
> ingredient. The more the molasses is boiled down, the more chewy the
> consistency is likely to be. It is a matter of degree.
In all my years of cooking (including homemade sweets for two gannets)
I have never even *heard* of "treacle fudge" or come across a recipe using
treacle or Molasses for fudge. It sounds rather unpleasant as fudge doesn't
really have the depth of flavour necessary to carry the strong flavours.
>
> > There is no such thing as "treacle fudge". Treacle toffee is a
> > well-recognised sweet.
>
> What are you talking about? Hagrid was serving Harry his home cooking,
> not a "well recognized sweet".
A well recognised sweet that can be made at home! Like toffee or coconut
ice which can be either bought *or* cooked at home to produce a recognisably
distinct product. "Sweets" is not a term that solely refers to shop-bought
industrially made items. It just means sugar-based products usually served
in small amounts. Just as "biscuits" can be bought from a shop or made at
home and under the subheading of "biscuit" are several varieties available
commercially for which home recipes have long existed eg Digestive biscuits.
Usually these are traditional recipes that factories have taken to producing
under the traditional name. The sweet or biscuit made at home will be
recognisably the same product as the industrially produced one (but usually
tastier..)
>
> > She should have stuck to *one* term, either
> > toffee and it would be a "straight" reference or "treacle fudge"
> > which would be an invention of Hagrid's own and your idea about his
> > cooking would work.
>
> Well. We'll have to disagree on this one. But, to my mind, if
> Hagrid's "treacle fudge" can glue jaws together, then it is perfectly
> reasonable to *also* call it "treacle toffee". It has at least one
> very toffee-like quality.
I'd be happy with treacle toffee. The description in the books is far
more like toffee than fudge.
HELENA
>
David Picton
gjw wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:13:05 GMT, "Mr.O." <edwa...@hotmaiI.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Here is the list of differences for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
> >Each distinct difference is listed only once, when it first occurs.
> >
> >http://www.designit-digital.com/hp6.htm
>
>
>
> About the change to "he had a toothache" from "he had toothache"...
> Was that a corrected typo, or do the British actually say "he had
> toothache"??
It's perfectly normal to say "I had toothache" in Britain. It's just a
minor
Pondian difference like aging vs ageing, color vs. colour. Don't worry
about it.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> I'm sure it was a bit of a surprise for Harry, when he bit into
> Hagrid's "fudge", that it glued his jaws together. To complain,
> therefore, that Rowling (or Hagrid) should not have called it "fudge",
> because real "fudge" isn't supposed to glue your jaws shut, is rather
> to miss the joke about Hagrid's cooking.
> Of course, once the reader already knows that this "fudge" has the
> power to glue jaws shut, and is made from treacle, it is a bit silly
> to complain about Rowling being "inconsistent" and referring to it as
> "treacle toffee".
I like your thinking, but sadly the later UK text doesn't bear this out.
Book 2 ch.7 p.88: "He was the ~on'y~ man for the job," said Hagrid,
offering them a plate of treacle fudge, while Ron coughed squelchily
into his basin.
Before eating any of it, Harry assumes it's fudge from its appearance.
Book 2 ch.7 p.89: Harry would have pointed out that trouble didn't
come much worse than having slugs pouring out of your mouth, but he
couldn't; Hagrid's treacle toffee had cemented his jaws together.
Harry calls it toffee when he discovers its stickiness.
Book 2 ch.7 p.90: "Don' think he did," said Hagrid, his eyes
twinkling. "An' then I told him I'd never read one o' his books an'
he decided ter go. Treacle toffee, Ron?" he added as Ron reappeared.
Hagrid casually refers to his own confection as toffee.
Book 2 ch.7 p.91: It was nearly lunch time and as Harry had only
had one bit of treacle fudge since dawn, he was keen to go back to
school to eat.
Harry goes back to calling it fudge; not toffee though he now knows it
is sticky, and not toffee though he now knows what Hagrid calls it.
Book 2 ch.12 p.159: The rest of Harry's Christmas presents were far
more satisfactory. Hagrid had sent him a large tin of treacle fudge,
which Harry decided to soften by the fire before eating
Later on, Harry still calls it fudge, even though he has to soften it.
Book 2 ch.15 p.201: Worried he might wake everyone at the castle
with his deep, booming barks, they hastily fed him treacle fudge
from a tin on the mantelpiece, which glued his teeth together.
Harry again calls it fudge, even though its primary function is now
to silence the huge dog by cementing its jaws.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>> Toffee and fudge are different, and one property that differs for them
>> is their stickiness. If the US edition said fudge fudge fudge fudge
>> fudge fudge (which it does), and the UK edition said toffee toffee
>> toffee toffee toffee toffee then I wouldn't mind at all; you guys often
>> reallocate food names (or keep them the same while we change them).
> Yes! Exactly!
Thanks, but the UK edition says fudge toffee toffee fudge fudge fudge
and I'm still stuck.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
nys...@cs.com
> > > >
> > > > You are being a bit pedantic. Even in the real world, there
> > > > can be no absolute bright-as-day dividing line between "fudge"
> > > > and "toffee". But this is a fantasy confection, that, no
> > > > doubt, does not respond precisely to anything you have ever
> > > > eaten. Who are you to say that it should be called "toffee"
> > > > and not "fudge"?
> > >
> > > Of course there's a difference.
> >
> > I agree completely. You are not accusing me of saying otherwise,
> > are you? All I said was that "there can be no absolute bright-as-
>
> And that was what I was disagreeing with. The two sweets are
> not at either end of a spectrum or gradient. They are two
> *different*, discontinuous items that cannot be confused.
Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I accept
that your definition of both terms are so narrow that you imagine them
as mutually exclusive. However, you are just going to have to be
philosophical and accept that language is by nature flexible, and
others will use often use words in ways that do not meet your narrow
requirements. Rowling, obviously, does not consider them mutually
exclusive, so her usage should be sufficient to inform you that the
material she is discussing is neither exactly like your idea of "fudge"
nor exactly like your idea of "toffee".
> > > Fudge and toffee are prepared in two distinct and different ways
> > > and are two different products that share a common ingredient.
> >
> > Since you don't know how Hagrid's fudge was prepared, I don't see
> > your point.
>
> Well, that's the argument isn't it? Both fudge and toffee were
> used as terms and given the two words are not synonyms and we are
> not told anywhere that wizarding toffee/fudge is/are a different
> recipe it is valid to ask why both terms are employed and what was
> actually intended. Of course we may not be able to find an answer.
Since you admit that "we" do not know the answer, why not further admit
that "we" are in no position to tell JKR that her usage of the word
"fudge" to describe Hagrid's confection is incorrect.
JKR tells us as more than we need to know. It is made of treacle, it
has the ability to glue jaws shut, it apparently comes in decent-sized
pieces, and is sufficiently similar to both "fudge" and "toffee" that
JKR, who is not as pedantic as yourself, does not hesitate to use
either term.
> > > Saying that makes them the same is like saying chocolate
> > > and boiled sweets are the same because they are both based on
> > > sugar.
> >
> > I agree completely, which is why I would never say such a thing.
> > I did not in fact say such a thing. Are you suggested I have
> > said such a thing? But your analogy makes my point perfectly,
> > since a "chocolate sweet" and a "boiled sweet" are not mutually
> > exclusive terms.
>
> Er... yes they are!
Er ... no they are not! I begin to see your problem. You are the sort
of person who imagines that the terms and marketing categories that you
are familiar with from your local candy store are the only usages
permissible anywhere in the entire world.
I have a big surprise for you: a "boiled sweet", even in the UK, can
refer, quite reasonably, to any "sweet" that is "boiled" ... such as
treacle toffee or treacle fudge.
> In the UK, anyway (she adds hastily). A boiled
> sweet is a hard, clear, crunchy solid made basically of boiled
> sugar and flavours.
I've seen such sweets come in chocolate flavor. In any event, boiled
sweets are not limited to the narrow category you describe. Both fudge
and toffee are a "sweet" that's been "boiled" (and the extent of the
boiling often makes the difference between them). You need to wake up
to the fact that the rest of the world is not going to limit itself to
your narrow preconceptions of language (which have evidently been
determined by the marketing terms employed by the companies carried at
your local candy store).
> Chocolate is a soft solid that melts at body temperature made of
> varying degrees of cocoa solids, sugar, milk and adjuncts.
>
> In the UK we would never say "chocolate sweet" - just chocolate,
Hmm. I wonder what a google search of the pharse "chocolate sweet"
would turn up. You simply assume that the usages you are used to are
the only ones allowed. Come off it! Even dictionary defintions are
not engraved in stone (and you have not even bothered to cite a
dictionary in support of the narrow definitions you are touting).
Igenlode Wordsmith
On 23 Sep 2005 nys...@cs.com wrote:
> Helena Bowles wrote:
[snip]
> > The two sweets are not at either end of a spectrum or gradient.
> > They are two *different*, discontinuous items that cannot be
> > confused.
>
> Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I accept
> that your definition of both terms are so narrow that you imagine them
> as mutually exclusive.
If you make toffee and/or fudge from a recipe book, you'll know that
there is in fact a rigidly-defined dividing point of temperature at
which the sugar 'denatures' (or whatever it's called, technically
speaking ;-) and becomes toffee. It's a simple question of chemical
reaction.
If you over-boil your fudge, it *will* turn into toffee. It will turn
more or less instantaneously into toffee, in my experience :-(
It will not simply be harder fudge, alas, it will be spoilt.
[snip]
> I have a big surprise for you: a "boiled sweet", even in the UK, can
> refer, quite reasonably, to any "sweet" that is "boiled" ... such as
> treacle toffee or treacle fudge.
That's simply not the case! "Boiled sweet" in this country cannot refer to
toffee any more than it can refer to liquorice or spotted dick, even if
they are, technically, 'boiled' and 'sweets' (in different senses ;-)
It has nothing to do with marketing terms (since nobody ever uses the
phrase on sweet packets that I've seen, probably because it can't be
copyrighted); I'm afraid it's just a very general cultural term for all
sweets made of transparent boiled sugar, such as barley sugars, lemon
sherbets, acid drops... mmmm :-)
>
> > In the UK, anyway (she adds hastily). A boiled
> > sweet is a hard, clear, crunchy solid made basically of boiled
> > sugar and flavours.
>
> I've seen such sweets come in chocolate flavor.
Well, you can have boiled mints with chocolate insides, just as you can
have lemon drops with sherbet insides... but the only way to make a
chocolate-*flavoured* boiled sweet would be with artificial chocolate
flavouring. Once you add fat to the ingredients the sugar starts to
behave differently and you can't make boiled sweets out of it.
> > In the UK we would never say "chocolate sweet" - just chocolate,
>
> Hmm. I wonder what a google search of the phrase "chocolate sweet"
> would turn up.
Believe me, we don't. We really *don't*.
(At a guess, you might turn up some references to chocolate blancmange
etc, i.e. chocolate-flavoured sweet courses)
It's just a mistake by Rowling, that's all. It's not an important
point, and at a guess, she simply never really settled in her mind what
kind of confection she was talking about, and didn't notice. Either
that, or she knows about as much about home-made sweets as about
genetics! I'd agree that from the description of the side-effects, it
sounds more like toffee, but then given the nature of Hagrid's cooking,
it could equally well be some very vicious and abnormal fudge :-)
--
Igenlode Wordsmith Pirates of the Caribbean fanfiction:
- http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/Fiction/FineWoman.html
- http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/Fiction/ForMe.html
Helena Bowles
"Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:200509240316...@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org...
> It's a silly argument, but this is just so wrong...
>
> On 23 Sep 2005 nys...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > Helena Bowles wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > > The two sweets are not at either end of a spectrum or gradient.
> > > They are two *different*, discontinuous items that cannot be
> > > confused.
> >
> > Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I accept
> > that your definition of both terms are so narrow that you imagine them
> > as mutually exclusive.
>
> If you make toffee and/or fudge from a recipe book, you'll know that
> there is in fact a rigidly-defined dividing point of temperature at
> which the sugar 'denatures' (or whatever it's called, technically
> speaking ;-) and becomes toffee. It's a simple question of chemical
> reaction.
>
> If you over-boil your fudge, it *will* turn into toffee. It will turn
> more or less instantaneously into toffee, in my experience :-(
> It will not simply be harder fudge, alas, it will be spoilt.
Yes, in my experience what you get is not toffee (which requires
boiling at a certain heat, for a certain length of time) but an inedible
mess... actually easier to produce than either toffee or fudge (which is
cooked at a significantly lower temperature leading to different chemical
reactions leading to a different product).
I agree but if that is what was intended I think JKR could have made
more of a joke of it. Personally I just don't think she's a cook...
HELENA
nys...@cs.com
> "Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
> > Chapter 12 page 159: The rest of Harry's Christmas presents were far
> > more satisfactory. Hagrid had sent him a large tin of TREACLE FUDGE,
> > which Harry decided to soften by the fire before eating
> >
> > with his deep, booming barks, they hastily fed him TREACLE FUDGE
> > from a tin on the mantelpiece, which glued his teeth together.
> >
> > but to my British ears, fudge is not as sticky as toffee is.
> >
>
> Not t.f. I actually love fudge. But it is VERY soft. Or it is in GB - I find
> it hard to credit "treacle fudge" being even MENTIONED in a UK edition.
Americans would not say "treacle fudge" but "molasses fudge". If you
do a google search for "molasses fudge" you will get a wide variety of
recipes, which are enormously varied.
A google search for "treacle fudge" mostly turns up Harry Potter sites,
but I found at least one site that does not appear to be HP related in
any way. It provides recipes for both treacle fudge, and treacle
toffee, and is a UK-based website. According to the recipes, both the
fudge and toffee should be stored in airtight tins. The main
difference seems to be the higher cooking temperature for the toffee,
but there are other differences (the "fudge" contains milk):
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/glutenfree/treacle_fudge.html
nys...@cs.com
> Phil wrote:
> > To be honest, I'd never heard of treacle fudge before. Treacle toffee, yes.
> > Not t.f. I actually love fudge. But it is VERY soft. Or it is in GB - I find
> > it hard to credit "treacle fudge" being even MENTIONED in a UK edition.
>
> Americans would not say "treacle fudge" but "molasses fudge". If you
> do a google search for "molasses fudge" you will get a wide variety of
> recipes, which are enormously varied.
Perhaps I should add that "fudge" is in fact a word of American origin,
from some time in the nineteenth century, perhaps. The word is
apparently inspired by a failed attempt to make something else, perhaps
a "fudged" attempt to make caramel.
nys...@cs.com
> It's a silly argument, but this is just so wrong...
Indeed. So shocking that unreasonable people like myself and Rowling
insist on using words in ways that you are not used to. Just wrong!
Something must be done about it!
> If you make toffee and/or fudge from a recipe book, you'll know that
> there is in fact a rigidly-defined dividing point of temperature at
> which the sugar 'denatures' (or whatever it's called, technically
> speaking ;-) and becomes toffee. It's a simple question of chemical
> reaction. If you over-boil your fudge, it *will* turn into toffee. It
> will turn more or less instantaneously into toffee, in my experience :-(
> It will not simply be harder fudge, alas, it will be spoilt.
What you do not seem to understand is that this is not a factual
dispute about what happens to "fudge" when you overboil it. Everyone,
including Hagrid, seems to agree that Hagrid's "fudge" was, or at least
contained, "toffee". While we do not know his recipe (and I see no
reason to assume it was similar to yours), it is perhaps reasonable to
suppose this occurred because of overboiling.
The dispute concerns whether it is still acceptable to call it "fudge",
even though it "is toffee" or at least "contains toffee"; even though
it is likely cut into decent sized squares; even though it may well
contain other ingredients, like chopped walnuts or chocolate. JKR
clearly has a broader definition of "fudge" then you, and evidently
feels that it is still fudge, even though it is also toffee.
You have apparently elected to join those narrow-minded fools who
insist that a particular word "fudge" may only be used in ways you are
precisely used to. Since, "fudge" in its broadest sense refers to any
enterprise that does not turn out precisely as intended, but still is
found useful, your attempt to enforce a narrow definition of "fudge"
seems to me very funny.
> [snip]
>
> > I have a big surprise for you: a "boiled sweet", even in the UK, can
> > refer, quite reasonably, to any "sweet" that is "boiled" ... such as
> > treacle toffee or treacle fudge.
>
> That's simply not the case! "Boiled sweet" in this country cannot refer to
> toffee any more than it can refer to liquorice or spotted dick, even if
> they are, technically, 'boiled' and 'sweets' (in different senses ;-)
You have a strange idea of what is or is not possible. But, my dear
Horatio, I dare say there are more things on heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy. Believe it or not, not all inhabitants
of the UK are muggles like yourself. There exist a secret society of
persons with magical powers of which you never dreamed, like the
ability to combine a noun and an adjective for unanticipated,
insidious, and non-approved purposes; such as using the phrase "boiled
sweet" to mean (gasp) "a sweet that has been boiled".
> > Hmm. I wonder what a google search of the phrase "chocolate sweet"
> > would turn up.
>
> Believe me, we don't. We really *don't*.
I believe you when you say you have never heard it used that way. That
does not mean the combination is impossible, unacceptable, or
incorrect. Language is flexible. It can be used in creative ways,
including ways which you have never before encountered.
Lee
Phil wrote:
> Considering that the American editor decided
> to change "The Philosophers Stone" to "The
> Sorcerors Stone" why on earth do you think he
> wouldn't just put "stout" in ?
Well, I believe that change was done w/ her approval (though I doubt
she would approve it now. She's the record-selling JKR today). And it
wasn't done to ADD anything to the text, just to make it (supposedly)
more understandable to Americans. The addition of the word 'stout'
does nothing of the sort.
Ciao,
Lee
Lee
> I think it's preferable to let adolescent boys have their giggles, and
> then let them learn that language & customs vary around the world, rather
> than have American children ignorantly languish in a cultural ghetto.
[snip]
> I'm sure that readers not thrown by the Latin incantations would soon come
> to understand what was happening from the context of the story.
Well, I'm not an adolescent boy in need of a giggle, but I usually
prefer American English books. I wouldn't have much of a problem going
to a UK dictionary to look up a word I'm unfamiliar with. But when I
see a familiar word used in a context I don't understand, it interrupts
the flow of the story for me. I have to re-read the sentence a couple
of times b/c I think I just misread. THEN I realize it's British usage
thing. It's much more enjoyable for me to just read interrupted.
Ciao,
Lee
Lee
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
> not be true representations of real life; but when an American sitcom
> is successful, we see it over here - when a British sitcom is successful
> it's remade for American television, usually ruining it by bowdlerising
> everything that made the show so funny in the first place.
Not always. There are British sitcoms that air in the US, unaltered.
I don't have cable anymore, but I used to watch Fawlty Towers and Yes
Minister all the time when I did. And there is 1 British sitcom that I
know of that was made based on an American show.
Ciao,
Lee
Angrie.Woman
couple from HP related sites still, too.
A
Igenlode
> What you do not seem to understand
[snip]
> You have apparently elected to join those narrow-minded fools
<sigh>
Right, sorry, that's the last straw.
I've had enough of this group; I'm off sailing. I'm throwing my toys
out of the pram, and you can all squabble happily while I'm gone. I'm
far too sensitive, I'm sure, but Usenet is eating my life, I've got a
backed-up email discussion list a mile long and I find I'm too tired to
be _bothered_ with this sort of thing any more...
Keep an eye out for the square-rigger "Prince William" off the south
coast in a week or two; I'll be on board.
*Bye
--
Igenlode Wordsmith
The Gentleman's guide to Usenet - see http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/GENTLE.TXT
nys...@cs.com
> Keep an eye out for the square-rigger "Prince William" off the south
> coast in a week or two; I'll be on board.
Have fun.
Helena Bowles
"Igenlode" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005092602445...@riot.eu.org...
> On 25 Sep 2005 nys...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > What you do not seem to understand
> [snip]
>
> > You have apparently elected to join those narrow-minded fools
>
> <sigh>
>
> Right, sorry, that's the last straw.
>
> I've had enough of this group; I'm off sailing. I'm throwing my toys
> out of the pram, and you can all squabble happily while I'm gone. I'm
> far too sensitive, I'm sure, but Usenet is eating my life, I've got a
> backed-up email discussion list a mile long and I find I'm too tired to
> be _bothered_ with this sort of thing any more...
>
> Keep an eye out for the square-rigger "Prince William" off the south
> coast in a week or two; I'll be on board.
Cool!
Hope you're back sometime.
HELENA
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>> not be true representations of real life; but when an American sitcom
>> is successful, we see it over here - when a British sitcom is successful
>> it's remade for American television, usually ruining it by bowdlerising
>> everything that made the show so funny in the first place.
> Not always. There are British sitcoms that air in the US, unaltered.
> I don't have cable anymore, but I used to watch Fawlty Towers and Yes
> Minister all the time when I did.
Yes, on cable. I was talking about mainstream network TV.
> And there is 1 British sitcom that I know of that was made based on an
> American show.
Ah, there's always one exception. What was it?
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Lee
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
> Yes, on cable. I was talking about mainstream network TV.
In the US, cable is the mainstream, as more than 7 out of 10 households
have it... In any event, even w/o cable, you can usually catch them on
public television.
> > And there is 1 British sitcom that I know of that was made based on an
> > American show.
>
> Ah, there's always one exception. What was it?
Coupling.
Ciao,
Lee
David
> Yes, on cable. I was talking about mainstream network TV.
Actually, many British sitcoms are aired on PBS stations, but of course
each PBS station sets its own schedule, so not all of them carry the
shows.
David
> > > And there is 1 British sitcom that I know of that was made based on an
> > > American show.
> >
> > Ah, there's always one exception. What was it?
>
> Coupling.
No, the British "Coupling" (which is very good) began in 2000, the U.S.
edition (which was miserably bad) in 2003. Unless you think the
British version was inspired by "Friends"? Doesn't seem like it to me.
Lee
>
> > I mean it wasn't us who changed the first books
> > name from Philosopher to Sorceror for a reason
> > which we have heard was American kids couldn't
> > handle what "philosopher" meant and would
> > understand "Sorceror" easier -
I believe this was more of a marketing decision than anything else. No
one was afraid that US kids wouldn't understand the word philosopher.
They were (correctly) concerned that most US kids wouldn't know the
legend of the philosopher's stone, and so not be interested in the book
(i.e., they would not equate the title to a magical story, and who
cares about philosophers?). The publisher felt that HPSS would be a
better selling title in the US than HPPS. Given the ensuing HPmaina,
it probably didn't matter. But the publishers didn't know that at the
time. And if the entire world did not go cookoo over HP, the
publishers would likely have been correct.
> > or change a James Bond film's title from "Licence
> > revoked" to - "Licence to kill" because they said
> > they wouldn't understand what "revoked" meant.
Again, a marketing decision. Most every US person over the age of 16
knows what the word 'revoke' means (being that it's a constant reality
for teenage drivers). But to me, License to Kill just sounds more hip,
more Bondesque, a movie for which I would more be more likely to shell
out opening day $$. I'm sure that (and not concern w/ my vocabulary)
was the production company's intention.
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>
> Or changed "The Madness of George III" to "The
> Madness of King George", since US execs feared
> their audience wouldn't know George III was a mad
> king, and would instead think that the movie was
> a second sequel.
Well, this is probably true. I'm not sure if the average american
would see the title "Madness of George III" and know the movie was
about a 17th century British King. My American revolution history
class was 20 years ago, English Lit was 15. Those were arguably the
last times I used the name 'George' in this context.
I don't know why changing titles is such a big deal to some people.
It's done all the time. Books are made into movies (even in the same
country), and the title is changed. Movies are translated into other
languages, and the title is changed. Movies are remade, and the title
is changed. Books (the SAME ONE), are re-published years later, and
the title is changed. Always because someone thinks the title change
will help sell the product. Who cares?
Ciao,
Lee
Lee
Yes, Coupling was inspired by Friends. Friends (Smash hit) begat
Coupling (smash hit), which begat Coupling, the US version
(ridiculously bad, and mercifully short).
Ciao,
Lee
Rik Shepherd
Lee wrote
>
> Coupling.
The British version of Coupling (2000 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0237123/)
was based on the American version of Coupling (2003
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338592/) ? That's pretty clever of someone :o)
David
> Yes, Coupling was inspired by Friends. Friends (Smash hit) begat
> Coupling (smash hit), which begat Coupling, the US version
> (ridiculously bad, and mercifully short).
I guess that's hard for me to see because I also thought that "Friends"
was a really bad show. A hit, yes, but still a piece of crap. But I
did like what I saw of the British "Coupling".
Lee
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/c/coupling_66601000.shtml
http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/tvpilot/6.html
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/coupling_the_complete_seasons_1_and_2/
And there was nothing clever about AmeriCoupling. That's why it was
cancelled after 4 episodes. Do you really think anyone would try to
base another show off of such a dismal failure?
Ciao,
Lee
Lee
doesn't (necessarily) have to be good. It just has to prove
profitable.
Ciao,
Lee
drusilla
"Lee" <vm4...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1127834628....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And, it doesn't copy every word of Fiends, beacuse is targeted to a Brithish
auddience. Otherwise, the public had said 'What?', and turn off the tv.
Though is about 6 friends, both have very different plots.
Dru... who misses Jeff ;_;
Mr.O.
"David" <dmcl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127835419....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So you didn't like the American version, but did like the UK version. I
think you just proved why there's a US version of Harry Potter.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Coupling was inspired by Friends.
Oh no it wasn't - people just say that because it has a main cast of
six, but the shows are very different, as its creator Steven Moffat
(with whom I've corresponded) would soon tell you.
In any case, that's ~not~ what we were talking about - it was that
successful American sitcoms are shown over here, so we benefit from
the diversity of the cultural experience; while if a British sitcom
is successful it's remade for American television, usually ruining
it by bowdlerising everything that made it funny in the first place.
As well as Coupling, (ruined then quickly cancelled by NBC); other
examples include BBC classics Steptoe & Son, Till Death Us Do Part,
Dear John, Men Behaving Badly, Absolutely Fabulous, and The Office.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Lee
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
> Lee wrote:
>
> > Coupling was inspired by Friends.
>
> Oh no it wasn't - people just say that because it has a main cast of
> six, but the shows are very different, as its creator Steven Moffat
> (with whom I've corresponded) would soon tell you.
Well, I've never conversed w/ the creators, so I cannot say what was on
their mind when they came up with the idea. I'm just going by what
newscasts and websites, including BBC, say. I agree, they are very
different, but everything I've read (excepting posts on internet sites
by people, not involved with the production in any way, who disagree)
says Coupling was inspired by Friends.
> In any case, that's ~not~ what we were talking about
Hey, you asked me...
> - it was that successful American sitcoms are shown over here,
> so we benefit from the diversity of the cultural experience;
> while if a British sitcom is successful it's remade for
> American television, usually ruining it by bowdlerising
> everything that made it funny in the first place.
And again, several British sitcoms are shown, unaltered, on American
TV.
> As well as Coupling, (ruined then quickly cancelled by NBC); other
> examples include BBC classics Steptoe & Son, Till Death Us Do Part,
> Dear John, Men Behaving Badly, Absolutely Fabulous, and The Office.
Okay, the older ones you mention have become American TV classics in
their own right. I certainly wouldn't called them 'ruined.' And I
doubt they woud have enjoyed same success in the US if they hadn't been
re-tooled. As far as Dear John goes, IIRC, it had a fairly short run
in the UK, so it couldn't have run, unaltered, for long anyway.
Absolutely Fabulous (UK version) is shown on Comedy Central. I don't
know of any remakes. If there are, I doubt they are as popular here as
the UK version, 'cause I've never heard of them. Ditto Men Behaving
Badly (shown, I think, on BBC America).
But you make it sound as if the BBC has some sort of committment to
cultural diversity that the big American networks do not have. I don't
agree. If the BBC could make more money by remaking US shows, there is
not a doubt in my mind that they would do it more often. But they
wouldn't (so it seems), so why do it? The big American networks
believe they would lose $$ if they aired unaltered British sitcoms (at
least on primetime). They are probably right. The market for British
sitcoms in America is definitely a niche market. Better (financially
speaking) for smaller networks to meet that need. So in my opinion, it
boils down to money. Every network does what it can to maximize their
profit. In that sense, all networks in UK and US are exactly the same.
Ciao,
Lee
Lee
accent. I'm saying it was the inspiration for Coupling.
Ciao,
Lee
drusilla
Like Joey? (Ok, Friends is not crap, but Joey...)
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> But you make it sound as if the BBC has some sort of committment to
> cultural diversity that the big American networks do not have.
I'm not saying that at all. We get shows, not just from America, but
from all over the world. We don't remake them into British versions.
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
> Lee wrote:
>> There are plenty of spinoffs based on piece of crap hit shows. It
>> doesn't (necessarily) have to be good. It just has to prove
>> profitable.
> Like Joey? (Ok, Friends is not crap, but Joey...)
Friends was a spinoff from Mad About You, in a way...
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Lee
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
> Lee wrote:
>
> > But you make it sound as if the BBC has some sort of committment to
> > cultural diversity that the big American networks do not have.
>
> I'm not saying that at all. We get shows, not just from America, but
> from all over the world. We don't remake them into British versions.
Ummm... this seems like a non-sequitur reply to me. What exactly are
you "not saying at all"??
In any event, shows from several countries are also available in the US
as well. Mostly on cable. Ummm... except maybe for Spanish programs.
Of the 13 or so (non-cable) channels I get, 2 channels are all Spanish
speaking. They show popular programs from several Spanish speaking
countries-- unaltered, I would assume.
Ciao,
Lee
Lee
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
> Drusilla wrote:
> > Like Joey? (Ok, Friends is not crap, but Joey...)
>
> Friends was a spinoff from Mad About You, in a way...
Not really. The tie in came several episodes after Friends had already
begun.
Ciao, Lee
gjw
Slitheen <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria> wrote:
>Lee wrote:
>
>> But you make it sound as if the BBC has some sort of committment to
>> cultural diversity that the big American networks do not have.
>
>I'm not saying that at all. We get shows, not just from America, but
>from all over the world. We don't remake them into British versions.
What about "Brighton Belles"? It was a British remake of the American
TV sitcom "The Golden Girls".
What about "Days Like These", a British remake of "That '70s Show"?
What about "Married for Life", a British remake of "Married…With
Children"?
What about "The Upper Hand", a British remake of the sitcom "Who's The
Boss?"
What about the 1970's quiz show "Sale of the Century"?
What about the British versions of "The Apprentice", "Fear Factor" and
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"?
Phil
"Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen" <bffpds@raxacoricofallapatoria>
> Lee wrote:
>
>> And there is 1 British sitcom that I know of that was made based on an
>> American show.
>
> Ah, there's always one exception. What was it?
>
literally zero intelligence for. Says something, I believe.
Phil
fact you KNOW they've got more people of talent in their country than here
(hard to believe but true I think) yet wont use them or give them a free
hand to come up with something of true quality.
I mean - Friends is supposed to be one of shows of greatest quality - if
this is so, then that will explain how atrocious brain dead crap "Fresh
Prince of BelAir" "Hanging with Mr Cooper" and all assorted faeces is
vomitted up from the US - in this case I'm sure Friends would seem highly
intelligent indeed. Which is like saying an amoeba is a giant because its
bigger than an atom.
But then I look at Matt Groenig and realize quality IS there if it's given
free reign.