Except that you want the title to convey information. Obviously, nobody at all knew what the “Sorcerer’s Stone” was before the book came out, but some folks would have recognized “Philosopher’s Stone”. If you’re using the argument that it was explained in the text anyway, you might as well call the book Harry Potter and the Thingamajig.
[Homer]
“Why do I need to take English? I’m never going to England!”
[/Homer]
Cool. I knew of the difference between the books in Britain and America, but I was wondering if the same difference had carried over into the film version. Now I know! Thanks for bringing it up, zoo.
How annoying for the actors, to have to replay all of those scenes not only for line delivery, but also for the differences between the two scripts! Yuck.
As far as the change itself goes, I was a bit annoyed that the publishers changed it for us dunderheads in America. When I first read the book to my girls, I said to myself, “That’s the Philosopher’s Stone! Why are they calling it the Sorceror’s Stone?” It seems a bit silly, since the only difference it makes is that the Sorceror’s Stone doesn’t mean anything at all, while at least the Philosopher’s Stone has some real meaning (and a place in history) for those who know about it.
sigh Ah well, another example of things being dumbed down for us dum Americans.
I don’t think it was many scenes. They didn’t actually name the Stone very often in the movie.
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Marketing, I’m sure, had more to do with it than anything else.
And I don’t see how the change makes it “dumber” than the originals. I imagine the folks that work these things out asked their kids what a “philosophers stone” was, and if they didn’t know, decided it was ok to change it.
Meh.
Still a good read.
What about artistic integrity? If the author writes something the way he or she intends to write it, why should an editor change it just to make it more marketable?
In Rowling’s case, she apparently did some research (if Captain Amazing’s remark about an actual Flamel is correct), so the edtiors removed a layer of depth. Having gone through a “sword and sorcery phase” in high school, I’d heard of the Philosopher’s Stone. Nicholas Flamel being a 14th century French alchemist would hav ebeen a great “nugget” to dig up had I looked into more deeply. By changing the name of the stone, this nugget is more deeply hidden.
Of course Rowing surely had to agree to the change, so she’s guilty of adulterating her own work. That’s her right, but from what I heard (she’s a single mother who was on the dole) she mightn’t have had much of a choice.
In interviews, Rowling says that as a first-time author new to the world of publishing, she was too intimidated not to agree. She now says she regrets having allowed the publishers to make any changes.
Well, like I said, I’m of mixed feelings on this (but arguing the point of view that isn’t getting much play on this thread).
Here in the Chicago area there are tens of thousands of people for whom English is a second (or third, or fourth, or…) language and they’re still struggling with the American variant. It does make the book a little more accessible.
And, despite claims to the contrary, American Standard and English Standard ARE two different dialects. They don’t differ as much as, say, Scots English and Boston English but they do differ, and it goes beyond just exchaning boot and trunk, torch and flashlight, lift and elevator, truck and lorry. And the fact we can’t agree on common spellings for many words. The fact that the two dialects are still mutually inteligible does not disqualify them from being dialects.
I remember as a young child struggling with the Narnia series, Mary Poppins, the Water Babies, and other novels from “over there”. Yes, it was worth the effort in the long run but much before the age of ten those books were a difficult read. Harry Potter is being attempted by first graders in some cases - a situation where helping them out isn’t a bad idea. Now, I can see an argument for encouraging teen and adult fans to read the original British English version.
Is that violating the artist’s vision? Well, in this case, we can ask the author herself. But that’s like asking if it’s somehow heresy to translate Shakespeare into another language. No, it’s not quite the same as the original, but if you didn’t a lot fewer people would be exposed to Shakespeare, and that would be a loss. The question is… are the differences in English dialects between Britain and the US great enough to justify “translating” the book? And if so - why not Australian and Canadian versions?
Broomstick: I see your point, but I don’t think that British English and American English are far enough apart to warrant “translation”. I discovered Poe when I was eight years old (in a quotation in a commic book, of all places), and the English of the early 19th Century differs from modern American English in syntax and context. There were words that have been replaced by newer ones. But I read Poe anyway. I could always look a word up in a dictionary or ask an adult (who would often tell me to look it up in a dictionary).
In a classroom the teacher is there to interpret words that the children don’t know, and unfamiliar words and ideas are useful in a learning situation. By reading such a popular book in a classroom, children are engrossed in the story and learn without even knowing it. Why “short change” them by (admittedly) minor translation? As you said, it was worth the effort in the long run to read the books you did. On a long run, I think it’s better to start running early.
Of course Australians and Canadians don’t have the same issues as Americans. We cut ourselves off from “Mother England” over two centuries ago. People seem to move around between Australia, Canada and England with some frequency, so they have more in common.
I have an idea most Americans have never eaten spotted dick or even plum pudding. How many Americans know why the Phoenix in the Harry Potter books is named Fawkes? Would Americans know where to find the “corner chemist’s”? But by knowing that such things as different foods, Guy Fawkes, and different words for common things exist, we might be tempted to find out more about them; and finding out about things is what learning is all about.
I agree with Johnny L.A. The decision to pull the direct Philosopher’s Stone reference from American versions of the book and film cheapened it somewhat, especially for those of us who knew what the Philosopher’s Stone was in advance and recognized it as such in the book.
For those who didn’t know what the Stone was beforehand, it lessened the likelihood of them being encouraged to learn more about its historical significance. For those who already knew of it, it was frustrating to figure out why the name had changed. 
razzafrazzin’ submit button
As I was saying…
As an example, Susan Cooper’s Dark is Rising series. It was written for young adults and packed with references to British culture. When I read it as a kid, I was encouraged to learn more about the culture as a result of those books. The presence of things I didn’t already know about in the books were enriching to me, not intimidating.
There, NOW I’m done.
The name change was made solely to encourage Americans to purchase the book. Remember that this was before anyone had heard of Harry Potter, and the publishers did not know how enormously successful the books would become. The fear was that American parents and children seeing a book with the word “Philosopher” in the title would think that it had something to do with philosophy and avoid it.
Of course, in hindsight the name change seems pretty silly. The books still retain an enormous amount of Britishisms and British culture. I am currently reading it to an American and frequently have to explain various points that are distinctly British (Christmas crackers, for example).
I wouldn’t mind, it just seems incredibly unfair to me as British kids always, always, get the American versions of everything. Admittedly because US culture is so dominant they probably can understand most of it anyway, but still…
[hijack]
Americans don’t have christmas crackers?! :o
[/hijack]
oops wrong smilie…
I meant:
Americans don’t have christmas crackers? :eek:
That’s better.
Would it be better ot have said “The sorcerer’s stone, also known as the philosopher’s stone, has the properties of…”
Well, Christmas crackers are sold in the US, but they’re usually found in specialty grocery stores. Our local gourmet shop has them; granted, our local gourmet shop is the size of a regular supermarket, more or less, but they do have those at Christmas. I believe cutesy antique shops sell them during Christmas as well.
And I read the British stuff as a kid also. There were terms I was really uncertain of, and you couldn’t find them in a dictionary. I had to guess and use context clues, and more often than not I was right.
A more major problem than understanding the books first out (IMHO – the books are not far enough afield that they are unreadable for Americans) is the problem that explanations will be difficult to find for children who have never read the British dialect before. It’s simple enough to learn, but if they find an adult – say, a teacher or a parent – to ask them what a word means, they will likely have less luck than they would in American English. Whether a parent or teacher knows a word, they are likely to tell the child to “look it up”. Unless their dictionary is pretty good, the kid is still going to be confused.
Still: it’s not that big a deal. Heck, teaching kids a dialect (an easy one at that) in their childhood may make 'em brighter.
Americans not familiar with British culture would assume that Christmas crackers are crackers, i.e., biscuits, to be eaten. In the United States, “crackers” is not used to mean explosives. “Firecrackers” is the usual term for that kind of thing.
Thank you acsenray.
I don’t know if I mind or not.
When I was younger, I read a bunch of british books & just glossed over the words I didn’t understand. I was more interested in going onto the next book than to take the time to find out more about some small point that was not absolutely necessary to the story. Looking at Helena’s list, I am sure that I often had an entirely different picture than the one the author was trying to convey. (missing prepositions and different hyphenations are one thing - but “disused” apparently means something entirely different to someone British than it does to me and so I wouldn’t see the item the way they wish to see it.) Or the really huge edit in chapter 11, I’m guessing that British kids follow soccer, but do enough Americans do so that “Red Card” would have any meaning to them? (I know I had no idea, and probably wouldn’t have bothered to look it up.)
On the other hand, there are the very valid points made earlier in the thread.
Yesterday I ordered books 2, 3 and 4 from England. I want the “real deal”.