Um, because when you start teaching Chemistry, you start with the history of the subject (and how it applies in daily life and so on)? Where else would you cover alchemy? We also learned later about Phlogiston in Chemistry, and heard about Ether in Physics class.
Granted, I’m not sure I heard about it in 7th or 8 grade science class, or whether I read about it in the Deutsche Museum (natural science and technology museum - they have a replica of an alchemist’s lab before the entrance to the modern Chemistry section), or whether I read about it in the Was-ist-Was books (a series of books aimed at 9-11 year old children, explaining one particular subject in question form). I was interested and picked up things here and there.
I was eleven when I first read Harry Potter. I found it before the craze really hit America. I remember just walking through the kid’s section of the library and seeing the word “Sorcerer” out of the corner of my eye. Being a kid big into fantasy at the time, I immediately checked it out. I doubt I would have done that for “Philosopher.” I was a smart kid and was reading way above my grade level, but Philosopher doesn’t have the pizazz that Sorcerer does.
I don’t think they changed the title because they thought kids were dumb. I think they realized that Sorcerer is more attention grabbing, especially to lonely eleven year old boys who want to be wizards.
In our one-room Kansas schoolhouse (K through Dissertation), our textbook explains Creationism, and then, after the chapter on Hollow-Earth UFOs, the marvels of Alchemy.
I’m a product of the American public school system, and I remember alchemy coming up in various science classes, although IIRC not before middle school. But I’d heard of the Philosopher’s Stone outside school well before that, because (as I said upthread) it is mentioned in other fantasy novels and games.
That said, I’m sure quite a few 8-12 year old American kids don’t know or don’t remember what a Philosopher’s Stone is supposed to be. I just don’t think that matters. Pre-HP I doubt the concept was an everyday topic of discussion for British or Canadian children, and yet the book did very well under its original title in those countries. That’s what I meant by saying they publishers had fixed something that wasn’t broken. They didn’t have to guess how children would react to the term “Philosopher’s Stone”, by the time the American edition came out the UK edition had been selling very well under that title for about a year.
*I didn’t say I was offended, I said I was annoyed. I find it annoying that, rather than go with the traditional name for the legendary substance said to turn lead into gold and bestow immortality, the term preferred by the author and that had already been accepted by legions of British children, the world’s biggest publisher of children’s books instead said “Oh, American kids won’t like that. They need something easier/cooler/more exciting” and changed the title.
This is admittedly not the greatest tragedy of our era, but that’s why I used the word “annoying” rather than something stronger. If I seem more irritated than that here it’s not because of the title change itself, it’s because people in this thread keep claiming that the Philosopher’s Stone title wouldn’t appeal to kids while ignoring the fact that a book with precisely that title became a smash hit with kids in the UK and Canada. (I can’t find online what title is used in Australia and New Zealand, although I’d assume it’s the original British one.)
The practices and equipment used by alchemists evolved into those used by chemists, even if the underlying philosophy was discarded. I can’t think of any science offhand the study of which doesn’t include at least some of the history of that science. I’ve been taught about the four humors in psychology and biology classes, I’ve learned about astrology in astronomy, and I’ve learned about classical philosophy in physics.
As TWDuke said, it’s part of the history. And it’s important to learn about that because you can use it to explain how discoveries were slowly made and thus explain the concept easily to the children. So alchemy serves to illustrate how over the centuries, scientists discovered what were elements and what were compounds, and only now today we know why changing lead into gold is not possible (or rather, is very very difficult because it would involve fusion; furthermore, you can then discuss in economy why suddenly increasing the gold supply would not result in more wealth), when at that time, observing how other materials could be changed into different substances, it would seem likely to work.
Similarly, we learned about Phlogiston because it serves to explain how evidence is interpreted into an easy, plausible hypothesis, but further evidence disproves it, so you have to adapt the hypothesis. And you can ask the children if they can think of an experiment to disprove Phlogiston.
All this also shows how the proper scientific method was developed over centuries for a good reason - it worked best, and how long it took to discard wrong ideas. Newton was not only working on gravity and math, he also still believed in the astrological influence of planets.
Why would you weep? You know it is perfectly possible to learn about the basics of Alchemy without touching the Philosopher’s Stone. Why would a well-educated person need to know about it?
As far as the main topic, I think this is one of the most overblown ways of saying “Look how stupid Americans are!” While the Philosopher’s stone is somewhat known in America, it is not nearly as known as it is in the UK. I would wager that when HP started, if you looked at the target audience in the US (we’ll say 10 to 18 year olds), less than 5% would have heard of the Philosopher’s stone. This says nothing about the education or intelligence of Americans; it just means that this particular myth is not often talked about in the US. I doubt many Japanes have neard of Persephone’s pomegranate either.
So then, you have a population that has never heard of a key part of the title. Many in the thread have said “They had never heard of the Sorcerers Stone either, so why change it”. That misses the point. While they were not familiar with either of the terms “Philosopher’s Stone” or “Sorcerer’s Stone”, they were very familiar with the terms “Philosopher” and “Sorcerer”. In their minds, “Philosopher” would bring up images of Plato or Aristotle. “Sorcerer” would bring up images of Merlin. Who do you think the Harry Potter’s world is closer to, Plato or Merlin?
I think changing the title was a very reasonable decision.
Well, at least we’ve boiled down the essence of the discussion, and I have no problem with what the publishers did. Like Mr. Cello it’s my belief (as I said above) that to kids sorcerers are sexier than philosophers. Since Rowling went along with it (and only later expressed her regrets), I have no problem with the change.
And on a side note, it’s not fair to say they had a long time to observe the book’s success in the UK…they bought the rights before it was even published there, and for all we know they made the decision and did the cover art before that first UK run of 500 copies.
I have no idea how to check if this is true, but I suspect that the term “philosopher’s stone” wasn’t any better known in the U.K. than in the U.S. at the time the book was published. Taking a poll on the SDMB wouldn’t prove anything, since the people here aren’t typical of anything. I’ve lived in both the U.S. and the U.K., and I didn’t notice any difference in the extent of knowledge of such things.
*I don’t believe it was often talked about in the UK either before the first HP book, but that it came up in other fantasy fiction and was covered briefly in science classes. In other words, pretty much the same as in the US. I remember learning about the Philosopher’s Stone in my 8th grade science class, so about the same age constanze thought it should come up in school. I can easily believe that by the time they’re adults many Americans have forgotten that they learned about the Philosopher’s Stone in school, but I don’t think my middle school was so unusual or advanced that we were covering things that never came up at the vast majority of other schools.
There are no philosophers in the book, but there are sorcerers. Thus, the title makes more sense to those who don’t catch the Philosopher’s Stone reference.
Mentioning the Philosopher’s Stone in the title is itself a spoiler to those who do get the reference.
Incidentally, the Philosopher’s Stone is mentioned several times in Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist…which happens to be one of the biggest selling books of all time. Its international sales figures surpass those of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the only individual HP title listed). The first English-language edition of this book came out in 1993, and I know I’d read it by 1996 – before the first Harry Potter book was published.
Another one of the biggest-selling books of all time is Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s World, a novel for young people about the history of philosophy that first appeared in English in 1995.
I will admit that my statement is purely based on anecdotal evidence, partly from threads like this where UK people come in and post things like “Don’t you wankers in the States know what the Sorcerer’s Stone is?”, and partly from my cousins, who lived in England for two years. I could very well be wrong, though.