h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have indeed purchased the latest, fourth book. It's a hefty 636 pages long. I will try and update the Entry to include it just as soon as I've finished. I am currently on page 374, and expect to be finished in the next week or so...

Just a note if you care- in america it's 734 pages long and very good.

It's probably longer 'coz the text size is bigger. From what I hear, the books have been significantly dumbed down in the US.

Really? They still seem really good to me. Do you have any examples? I guess I should read the UK version to know for sure.

There are no textual differences between the UK and US books. (Speaking as someone who's read both printings for the first three). The font size is slightly larger because the books are aimed at a younger population in the US than they are in the UK.

If you're going to get into gratuitous yank-bashing, it's good to at least get your facts straight first.

*grin*

I have no intention to bash Yanks.
Anyhoo, I finished the book. A review should be up at http://www.h2g2.com/A278129 real soon, and eventually end up in the Approved Entry.

Well, actually, there are some translation differences betweent the US and British editions (we get both here in Canada). Naturally I prefer the British, but there really isn't a lot of "dumbing down" in replacing "lift" with "elevator" or "lorry" with "truck" etc.
I did think replacing the term "philosopher's stone" with "sorceror's stone" in the original was a bit excessive and DID verge on the accused lowering of level.

But just that one word doesn't seem excessive.

I've updated the unapproved Entry at the address above.

I've updated the unapproved Entry at the address above. I have written a review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire at http://www.h2g2.com/A278129
The 'Future for Harry' bit should really be erased now.

Don't erase, just update. And then we can all speculate over what will happen in HP5. I am already twiddling my thumbs for it - sad I know, but I love the books.

I also remember some American Publisher woman saying that "we had to change a few words, for example, I believe you have a word such as urr..'nicker' or something, and of course, no-one knows what that is or anything..."
The British covers are much better, from what I've seen of the American ones...and changing "Philosopher" to "Sourceror" is just unbelievable...and they're calling the movie "the Sourceror's Stone" as well! Honestly!

Blue Sky

NOOO! A sorceror is totally different to a philosopher, and changing the name changes the whole meaning. Someone should tell the publisher that the title comes from alchemy and not wizardry!

What's the difference? I don't think there's that much of a difference... **Gets ready for blasting from uk people** To me it just seems as though it's a small difference...

Well, speaking as someone who sits sort of half-way between the two (the British and the US) I'd have to say that in my opinion the problem with the change is that it shows both a certain lack of faith in the capability of the reader and a failure to consider shared history as important. You see the Philosopher's Stone is a HISTORICAL fact... something that alchemists truely sought (with more-or-less the properties in the book). Changing the name of this stone because it is felt that it will confuse the readership (that seems to be the reason) is like saying... "No, George Washington doesn't sound right, not strong enough and it could get confused with that king guy. ... let's call the guy who leads the rebel army in 1776 'John Manly' ".
Interestingly this sort of "unclear on the concept" (or perhaps just not caring that there is a concept) seems to be endemic in the US. Even British TV shows for children are re-recorded with US voices and replacing any "hard" words, often resulting in loss of sense and sensibility. These people just have no respect for young people's ability to figure things out or to handle language that is unfamiliar.

On the other hand the person quoted in an earlier post is quite right... few people in the US are going to know what "nickers" are, and there are many other small differences of dialect that are prefectly reasonable to change. The criticism is that no thought seems to be given to whether such a change affect the meaning or removes a reference.

Well that saves me from explaining it!

Thank you I understand now. I had absolutely no idea there was such a historical thing as the search for the philosophers stone. I now see that that was probably not a good idea to change it. Thank you for enlightening me!

No problem m'lady!
There are many little allusions and references in the books to existant things etc. (many of the names and most of the spells are, as you've probably recognised, real words or based on latin words). Sometimes I think this is a fun part of the book, sometimes I thnk it's laziness on the part of the author Not, please note, that I don't think very highly of the books!
Anyway, thanks for putting up with my long-winded explanation!

No problem. I saw an interview with her and she said for many of the names of things she had a wiccan spellbook or some such like that. I think it's funny that she uses real words. Some books which totally make up a large vocabulary are confusing to read. I think the percentage of new words she used was just about right.

I agree. And having real words for the spells makes them a lot easier to remember.