the other day when I rented what I thought was “harry potter & the sorcerers stone” was in fact “harry potter and the philosophers stone.” the movie was the same except the opening title displayed “philosophers” instead of “sorcerers” stone and the actors throughout the film called it the “philosophers stone.”
can you explain this?
Yes. It was originally written as “Philosopher’s”, but it was retitled “Sorcerer’s” for the American market, since the British publishers didn’t think Yankees would know what the “Philosopher’s Stone” was.
So you must have rented the British version.
thank you! that was bugging me.
You’re welcome. 
The trouble with the explanation above is that most British people don’t know what the Philosopher’s Stone is, either. In fact, most of them probably aren’t even sure what a philosopher is, stone or no stone. I’d say that it was retitled “Sorceror’s” simply to give it wider appeal, whatever the market. “Sorceror” invokes images of spells, dragons, witchcraft and other cool stuff. “Philosopher” invokes images of… I dunno, dusty academics with furrowed brows?
So in Britain, where the book was an out-of-the-blue hit, the author’s title stuck. In America, where the publishers knew in advance that they had a probable winner on their hands, they applied their marketing genius/evil to it and changed the title.
There are numerous differences between the British and US versions of the book due to the differences in language. They run to different page and word length because of it. I know people who collect both sets.
quick examples:
Football in the British version becomes Soccer in the US
Torch to Brits is Flashlight to Americans
Boot…trunk
I recall she also had trouble with some of her puns in translation, spellotape for one.
Thylacine: That’s why I ordered the British version from amazon (UK). I should get it next week.
J.K. Rowling has said in interviews that they changed it solely because they didn’t think Americans would know what the Philosopher’s Stone was. However, I think Usram may have a point, if the Brits don’t all know either.
FYI-The Philospher’s Stone is not an invention of Rowling. It a mythical thing dating back at least as far as King Arthur, and was the ultimate goal of Alchemy. It does exactly what Rowling says it does, i.e. enable the user to create the “elixer of life,” which allows the user to extend their life indefinitely. It appears in many folk tales of the Celtic/Irish/Anglo variety, which is why the publisher might expect Brits to be familiar with the concept, but not Yanks.
This is not the only change made to the US version. As others have said, a lot of the narrative and dialogue was “translated” from the UK vernacular to more of a US vibe. The best example I can think of off the top of my head was changing “the bakers’ opposite” to “the bakery across the street.” Things like that.
Now I’m wondering which version I saw. I KNOW I read the “Philosopher’s Stone”, but the movie…I think it was the same. Is it possible that the Canadians received the same version as the Brits?
With the philosopher’s stone, the aspiring alchemist can also turn base metals into gold.
Supposedly, the secret of the Philosopher’s Stone fell into the hands of Nicholas Flamel, a 14th century French bookseller/alchemist, who got a book, “The Book of Abraham the Jew” that told him how to make one. If you go to the Biblioteque National in Paris, I’m pretty sure it has some of his works, including “The Summary of Philosophy” and “The Hiroglyphic Figures”.
Oh yeah. The Gold Thing. Heh.
Also, I think part of the myth was that once the alchemist had discovered the secret, the journey was supposed to have enlightened them beyond the desire for wealth/immortality.
Since this is about a book, I’ll move it to Cafe Society.
Off to Cafe Society.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator
I believe that Canada did get the “Philosopher’s Stone” version.
Whether people in the US or UK or elsewhere knew what the Philosopher’s Stone was before they read the book is actually quite pointless because it is explained in the book itself - you don’t need prior knowledge. JK Rowling’s response sounds like a red herring because changing it to Sorcerer’s Stone would not enlighten those who had never heard of the Philospher’s Stone while confusing those who had.
Therefore, I’d suspect it was done purely for marketing reasons.
For what it’s worth, it was called the Philospher’s Stone in the Australian version - maybe they just thought we were better-read than the people of another country that will remain nameless.
Here’s my British/American text comparison. Check out the sorting scene in chapter 7 and the Quidditch match in chapter 11.
I had heard the UK and US versions were different.
Have somewhat mixed feelings about this. Between books, movies, and BBC on PBS, I’m conversant enough with the British dialect to be able to follow British cultural products fairly easily (the exception being very recent slang, since it takes a couple years for that to cross the big puddle) But a lot of Americans go “huh?” because they haven’t been exposed to it - after all, a lot of Americans have no ties to the UK at all, being descended from different nationalities entirely. (I have a friend who was born in Poland, speaks Standard American fluently, but has a terrible time with other dialects, including the very “proper” British English. She’s a big Harry Potter fan, though)
It at least acknowledges that “British English” and “American English” have diverged into two distinct dialects. And it would make the book a much easier read for American children. Since there are some pretty young kids attempting the read, that isn’t all bad.
It wasn’t the first book to do this (cookbooks, for instance, come in American and British editions, or alternatively will mention things like an “aubergine” in England is called an “eggplant” in America), but probably the most widely sold.
Changing “philospher” to “sorcerer” was definitely a marketing ploy. Sorcerers sell better than philosophers in this country.
Ironically, I had heard of the “philosopher’s stone” prior to Harry Potter, so it threw me that they kept calling this thing which was obviously a philosopher’s stone a “sorcerer’s stone”, but then I’m hardly the average American, so I just put up with it.
I think it’s going much too far to say that hte Harry Potter books are an example of the diverging of American and British speech into two different dialects. Let’s just consider for now the dialects in question – Standard British and Standard American – which is what most books are written in. Even if two dozen vocabulary changes were made, I think this is a fairly small difference from a linguistic point of view.
Frankly, I think the editors did American children a huge disservice. Growing up, I read all kinds of stuff, including British stuff like Enid Blyton and P. G. Wodehouse. A child who is reading is constantly running into words he or she is unfamiliar with. It’s expected. An unfamiliar word or usage is hardly the kind of thing that is going to discourage a kid from going on with a cracking story.
I’d wonderd about it too, bein’ an apparently forgotten 'Merican.
On the other hand, I suppose Sorcerer runs off the toungue better than philodopher, in this context.
Yes the Candian version of the Movie is the same as the British. It is the Philosophers stone, and if I can recall when reading the book to my son, the book is also the British version. I remember having to explain boot and torch.
Personally I think children should be exposed to different words than what they are used to. It helps them to learn more than what they usually would. For example it may spark an interest in learing more about England etc.
I assume the Canadian DVD is NTSC format? I’ll have to look for it next time I’m in Vancouver.