> ...he made some interesting points about local differences and translations.

Interesting points, yes; reasons for changing the books around, no. If reference was made to an "Essex girl" in a book I was reading, I'd either figure it out by context, look it up, or be content in my ignorance. I wouldn't throw the book away and run screaming into the night, fearful that my poor American soul might feel threatened enough to develop an inferiority complex and respond to it by developing a bitter resentment toward the publishing company that exposed me to such a depraved debauchery of international language, thereafter prompting me to quake with fear when nearing bookstores and, when browsing the shelves, check the publisher before checking so much as the title of a prospective purchase.

Dave's exactly right about why books are dumbed down when they're published in different countries. And "dumbing down" is exactly what it is. I'm just thankful that practice isn't feasible in film: imagine "Howard's End" dubbed for American accents. "Dubbing" books is no less vile and arguably more. You only lose when you alter an artist's or writer's work for mass consumption. You never gain. It's particularly bad when adapting British work for America -- the British typically have a finer appreciation for nuance and subtlety than Americans do, who are typically the opposite. An American editor with an itchy hand is liable to blow through all that nuance and subtlety with all the care of a ill-kept weed whacker.

Exposure to a little culture is exactly what American audiences need. Exposure to a lot of culture is what they need more. Living in a humongous country, big enough to house more subcultures than we can count, it's too easy to lose sight of the fact that there's more to the world. Mata-Utu, for example.

We own the Harry Potter books. Leen's read them. I haven't gotten around to it, but I intend to. I'm hoping to find a way to get the British editions of the books and read those instead.