Americans for calling the first book Philosopher's Stone

Mods: Feel free to close and/or move this thread as needed. I did a search and found nothing like it.

Well, obvously it's too late to change the name of the novel, but I feel this needs to be out there anyway. As an American, I always thought it was weird that Scholastic changed the title of the first book to Sorcerer's Stone. When I found out it was because Americans supposdly weren't going to know the reference, i was a bit insulted. I knew what a philosopher was, and that the alcemists were considered them. Later on I learned the Philosopher's Stone was what the alcemists were trying to achieve.

So, while we can't offically change the book title, we Americans don't have to call it the Sorcerer's Stone when we discuss it. We know it's the Philosopher's Stone, and that's what it should be called.

As for those now shaking their heads thinking "She's nuts", feel free to ignore my ramblings and move on.

Also, since this has seemenly become a discussion on the differences between the book versions, how there are bad/good, and why they were made, you can leave your thoughts on that too. They will be most welcomed. :D

i didnt know the reference or definition w/e but then again i am only 13 but i agree that they shouldn't of changed the name i still would of read the book n e wayz

I knew all about the philosopher's stone from reading about alchemy. Before I learned the British edition was titled differently, I wondered why the book was called Sorcerer's Stone when it was clearly about the same element I had studied.

OK well I know for sure that the book upstairs in my drawer has Sorcerer's Stone written on the cover and not Philosopher's Stone. I will call it Sorcerer's as long as the books sold in America has that written on the cover. Plus who are you to tell me to call a book a certain name?

Well personally, I always use "SS/PS" when I'm writing a post about it...just because the full names of the books are too long...bit lazy I know lol. I like the same the Philosopher's Stone a bit more because it makes it sound more interesting and the name is more appealing (to me anyways). I think however, that people should be free to call the book however they please, but to also take in mind that Jo chose the "Philosopher's Stone" and not the "Sorcer's Stone". I'm not really an American, I'm half Mexican and Italian, but since I have lived in the USA ever since I was a baby, and I've recieved all my academic education here, I am also insulted about how people would think Americans wouldn't understand what a philosopher is...people in other parts of the world are no smarter than people from the USA.

I think I actually agree with you on this one, but you can't forget that there are a lot of Americans out there who aren't Potter-maniacs (like most of the people on this forum). There are still many people who don't know that it was originally called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, nor the fact that "Philosopher" is the proper term.

I think I would actually take this topic a step further and ask that they stop taking the 'brit' out of Harry Potter. I find it insulting, as an American, that they think we can't handle certain words (mum, git, etc...). Now, having said that, I would actually like to keep the American covers. I love Mary Grandpre's work, I think it's fabulous. Each cover really captures the entirety of the book in all its glory.

So, in (my) perfect world, I would have Harry Potter the way JK originally wrote it surrounded by Grandpre's art. If only... ;)

Inigo Imago

I understand that I or we can't tell anyone what to call anything, I was just peeved that an American publishing company thought that Americans wern't learned enough to either know or figure out what a Philosopher's Stone was. After all, people can look stuff up, and the Philosopher's Stone isn't only a Harry Potter thing. And if people don't care they get it or just don't care, let them. Don't change it for the few that don't care.

Like i said, do what you will. If you don't like my rant, move on. As for me and siblings, we call it Philosopher's Stone. I do write SS/PS for clarity sometimes, and SS if i'm quoting the US edition (which is the book i have) so people don't get confused.

It's just a peeve i wanted to get out there.

I think I actually agree with you on this one, but you can't forget that there are a lot of Americans out there who aren't Potter-maniacs (like most of the people on this forum). There are still many people who don't know that it was originally called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, nor the fact that "Philosopher" is the proper term.

I think I would actually take this topic a step further and ask that they stop taking the 'brit' out of Harry Potter. I find it insulting, as an American, that they think we can't handle certain words (mum, git, etc...). Now, having said that, I would actually like to keep the American covers. I love Mary Grandpre's work, I think it's fabulous. Each cover really captures the entirety of the book in all its glory.

So, in (my) perfect world, I would have Harry Potter the way JK originally wrote it surrounded by Grandpre's art. If only... ;)

Inigo Imago
I agree. Americans already have a bad general reputation for being intolerant of other nationalities. I think it would be great if we just got the UK edition--if we're immersing ourselves in a world that's based in Britain, we should be able to have access to all the vernacular.

I also use SS/PS when I am posting, because I am lazy. I don't really think it matters. She agreed for the name change, so it is official.

I agree with you. I have also read the British version and it wasn't that confusing or more difficult. There were few parts I needed to think to figure out word meanings and one word I had no clue what it meant but mostly there wasn't any problem. I really feel bad for the actors in the first movie because I guess the had to shoot two versions of any scene that mentions the SS/PS.
However I think I can understand why the publishers did that since the books are officially childrens books and I do think children may be confused but why couldn't they just add a little defition thing in the book?

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I hate that they change so much for the "Americanized" versions of the books. I want to get my hands on all the UK versions, simply so that I can have all the correct vernacular and, well, everything! You really seem to miss something when you re-word how something is intended to be read.

There is a very special place in Niflheim for Madison Avenue types. I hope they know that. No, I take that back. I hope it comes as a surprise to them.

I agree with what was said here. I think they should have kept the original title on it. I guess they think we are morons or something. It also occurred to me that the name Sorcerer's Stone might have been why got some groups of people started in on the HP books being evil and all that. I mean would it have called as much attention to itself if it had the title Philosopher's Stone instead? I personally don't think so.:grumble:

I think I would actually take this topic a step further and ask that they stop taking the 'brit' out of Harry Potter. I find it insulting, as an American, that they think we can't handle certain words (mum, git, etc...).


I totally agree with you on that one. Taking the "brit" out of Potter changes the whole Potterverse in my opinion, making the books less genuine. The Potterverse is so typically British, -the atmosphere is fantastic. Americanising it is wrong and completely unnessesary. I advice everyone who know the English language to read the UK editions, that's the only way to get the right feel of the books. If I, a Norwegian, understand the british jargong, surely Americans can :) Lol, we Europeans have to deal with both British and American jargong and spelling, have you any idea how confusing that can be? :rotfl:

I agree. I think Americans are intelligent enough to understand what British slang means when they read the books. And if a young kid is reading it, his/her parent would more than likely know what the slang means and would be able to explain it to them.

I agree. I think Americans are intelligent enough to understand what British slang means when they read the books. And if a young kid is reading it, his/her parent would more than likely know what the slang means and would be able to explain it to them.
yes, or there could even be a small British/American dictionary in the back of the books for those who are completely lost :p

I think that Philosopher's Stone is what people should call the first book. That's the original title. However, I suppose Jo agreed to change it for the American version. So if Americans wants to call the first book Sorcerer's Stone that's fine by me:D

I agree, I like the sound of Philosopher's Stone better, and that is how I always think about it. But each person has their own opinion. I don't think they should have changed the book in the first place, but it is a little too late now.

Wait, actually wording in the story has been changed for us Americans? I thought it was just the title?

I think I would actually take this topic a step further and ask that they stop taking the 'brit' out of Harry Potter. I find it insulting, as an American, that they think we can't handle certain words (mum, git, etc...). Now, having said that, I would actually like to keep the American covers. I love Mary Grandpre's work, I think it's fabulous. Each cover really captures the entirety of the book in all its glory.

So, in (my) perfect world, I would have Harry Potter the way JK originally wrote it surrounded by Grandpre's art. If only... ;)

Inigo Imago

Here! Here! :clap:

You hit the nail on the head. I think the British English language is a lot more interesting than the Americanized version. The history of how the two languages developed as they did (even though America started as British colonies) is fascinating.

But I digress, I think the combination of British editions/US covers is brilliant. Grandpre's work is georgeous...I wish I had her talent. And they lend a feel to the books that I love. I have all seven lined up on a shelf in my apartment (amid the 300+ other books The Fiancé and I have) and the colors stand out, rich and vibrant. I'm a huge fan of the outer/inner cover color schemes as well, especially with HBP (green and deep purple is one of my favorite combos...except in Barney :lol:). I even bought a metallic bookmark with purple ribbons to coordinate...

I think that part of the reason that they changed the title was the fact that they were trying to market the first book to American children. While American adults may understand the original title, they probably felt that the revised title would have been more appealing. That said, I still don't agree with the title change. I would much prefer that we here in America got the same version that the Bristish get. The fact that they have to change the books for an american audience only furthers the perceptions that Americans arn't receptive to other cultures/languages.

I think that in the beginning the publishers thought that the book would sell better if they made changes that they felt would conform better to an American audience. Once the books became more popular than anyone could have anticipated, I think that they just kept on doing it. But I really think that it is silly (just my own personal opinion). Due to TV and the Internet, I think that most people are very familiar with the differences in British English and American English. I think most of us could figure it out or at least look it up! If I watch a British TV show, I don't have to have anyone sitting there with me to interpret for me. But I guess it is too late to change anything now. I do not own any of the British editions, but I think that when the final book comes out, I will order a full set of them. I would like to have both the American and English editions.

I think it should be Philosopher's Stone; Everyone else in the world calls it that. I even refer to it as Philosopher's Stone in conversations sometimes, and, although I can do a good british accent, I am most definitely from the US

Wait, actually wording in the story has been changed for us Americans? I thought it was just the title?
Some of the wording too I'm afraid. Well, maybe quite a bit of the wording as the American editions are always several pages longer than the British :/
A few examples from OotP and PoA:

US: "with the knowledge or consent of it's owner, had had a similar Enlarging Spell put upon it as the Weasley's old Ford Anglia;"
UK: "with the consent of it's owner, had been enlarge with a spell like the Weasley's old Ford Anglia had once been."

US:"she looked luminous, illuminated by an eerie red glow, then was lifted"
UK:"she looked luminous and glowed an eerie red, then she lifted"

US:"except that it said things like "Do it today or later you'll pay!" every time he opend a page"
UK: "except that every time he opened a page it said aloud things like: 'Do it today or later you'll pay!'"

US: "I didn't think of Voldemort," said Harry honestly. "I -- I remembered those dementors."
UK: "I did think of Voldemort at first,' said Harry honestly. 'But then I -- I remembered those dementors."

----------------------------------

I honestly can't understand the reason for these changes. I mean, are all British books americanised or just the Potter series?

I think I actually agree with you on this one, but you can't forget that there are a lot of Americans out there who aren't Potter-maniacs (like most of the people on this forum). There are still many people who don't know that it was originally called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, nor the fact that "Philosopher" is the proper term.

I think I would actually take this topic a step further and ask that they stop taking the 'brit' out of Harry Potter. I find it insulting, as an American, that they think we can't handle certain words (mum, git, etc...). Now, having said that, I would actually like to keep the American covers. I love Mary Grandpre's work, I think it's fabulous. Each cover really captures the entirety of the book in all its glory.

So, in (my) perfect world, I would have Harry Potter the way JK originally wrote it surrounded by Grandpre's art. If only... ;)

Inigo Imago


I agree.

The thing about publishers is they usually know how to sell a book, so when they were selling the first one they were probably right that the "Sorcerer's Stone" title would appeal more to their demographics than "Philosopher's Stone" title. However, once it became clear that people will buy anything that has "by J.K. Rowling" written on it, I think it would have been better to not be condescending and to change it back to the original title.

In several interviews Rowling has indicated she was at first upset about them changing prose for the U.S., but now they have convinced her it is necessary. Those sort of remarks are very frustrating. Do we read bowderlized British classics? When I read Jane Austen, do I expect the color to be "gray"? No, I expect the color to be in British spelling: "grey." (And I expect it to be "colour," not "color," for that matter.)

The only reason I buy the U.S. versions is I don't want to have to wait for the UK version of Amazon to ship a copy to me. When the final series comes out, I'm going to buy the entire set in British editions and only read from them.

Although people can legitimately call it Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, I will gladly join a movement that calls it Philosopher's Stone instead.

I wish the big chain bookstores would purchase British versions as well. Perhaps patrons can reserve either a British or an American book that way Americans interested in the British versions wouldn't have to wait. I was only lucky to be able to read the British ones since my friend's cousin is in England and sent her the first three books the origional way and she lent them to me.
I think if people had a choice many would get the British versions with young children/young families primarily still getting the Americanized versions.

I would like to reread the series again, and what better time than now to try reading the UK version of the books. So does anybody have any idea where I can get my hands on the whole set of Harry Potter UK style? :huh:

I agree, Why change it from a title which few of us would to one which there is nothing to get?

From now on I will only call it The Philosopher's Stone

I'm always surprised by the amount of British things which are changed, or tweaked, for the American public. Not just Harry Potter but other things, like our comedy (The Office, AbFab and Fawlty Towers have all been redone for the American public). I think it's an insult to our friends across the pond to assume they wouldn't understand the UK version, when we import American stuff all the time.

On the other hand when I've written fan fiction Americans often pull me up on things that are just quintessentially British. That's a shame, and is proberly because not much undiluted British culture finds it's way over there.

Just out of wonder - What do they call the first movie in the States?

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"

Shame, isn't it?

Inigo Imago

I would like to reread the series again, and what better time than now to try reading the UK version of the books. So does anybody have any idea where I can get my hands on the whole set of Harry Potter UK style? :huh:

If you go to the UK version of Amazon.com you can order the UK versions. Instead of the normal address, it is at www.amazon.co.uk. I would imagine you could also purchase it through the Bloomsbury web site.

"I think it's an insult to our friends across the pond to assume they wouldn't understand the UK version, when we import American stuff all the time. "
thank you lavender3. i have wondered why they do that, myself. me, i always refer to philosopher's stone as philosopher's stone. that's how it was meant to be.

In " The magical worlds of harry potter " it says on one of the beginning pages ( where it talks about alchemists ) ...that the american publishers chose to write " sorcerer's stone " because they found it more " exciting " and they thought it would sell more ... to tell you the truth ... i find that philosopher's stone sounds a lot better... but that's just my opinion

I totally agree. I thought it was ridiculous that it was changed to Sorcerer's Stone, which lost all the historical significance. I mean, Sorcerer's Stone sounds better with the alliteration, it doesn't ring up "SATAN!!" as much as Philosopher's Stone, it sounds more magical... but it still ruins all historical significance, which I think is the most important factor.

What do you mean, "rings up SATAN!?" Just wondering.

Personally, I have all the UK versions except the first one, so it is SS on the cover. I have never had any problems with any of the British words in the book and from the first time I read SS I knew what a philosipher was, so I think it's a shame.

Really off subject, but while we're thinking of alchemists, anyone read Doctor Scintallius or Soul Stealer by Martin Booth?

If you go to the UK version of Amazon.com you can order the UK versions. Instead of the normal address, it is at www.amazon.co.uk. I would imagine you could also purchase it through the Bloomsbury web site.

Thank You. :)

What do you mean, "rings up SATAN!?" Just wondering.

There's a lot of idiots in my town who all think alchemists are devil-worshipers. So in that way, it was smarter to make the stone something non-alchemy related. But then again, Harry Potter apparently worships the devil anyways, with or without alchemy... :sigh:

i think that changing the title was ridiculous. I dont see how it would have affected the books sales...its a great book and would havesold whatever. having said that its a practise that occurs all the time in the entertainment industry, movie titles are contanly changed to suite different markets.

I don't so much mind that the name was changed for the original American edition of PS. At the time Scholastic was trying to market an unknown author to a target audience of 9-13 year olds. And I can personally say that at the age of nine I would not have picked up any book that had the word Philosopher on it, it would not have been nearly catching enough for me. But I do think now that the series has become what it is that all subsequent editions should be changed back to the original title.

Also as to the rewording of the books, there is a perfectly logical reason why they change that. While the majority of Potter-fans do understand English grammar it is because we spend time in these forums where many people write that way, and most older fans have also read several other books by British authors, so even though at times it can be drastically different from standard American english grammar it makes sense to us. But for other Americans who don't have a passion for literature they may not read any other books that aren't written by American authors and therefore would likely have problems understanding what was trying to be said. So unfortunately it is a necessary evil.

But like many other fans I have every intention of ordering the full set of British books after Book 7 is released. Except I might order mine from amazon.ca....i don't know it depends on which site would get it here faster.

Yes! Let's fight the Man! He thinks we're stupid! I already knew what the Philosopher's Stone was, and at the time I had no idea that they had changed it, so I was just incredibly confused by the change. When I found out what the "Sorceror's Stone" was, I wondered why Rowling would change its name.

What I would like to know is this:
Why would British children know better what the Philosopher's stone was than American children? If the title Philosopher's Stone were thought to be ok in Britain, why not then in the US? Personally I think Sorcerer's Stone sounds kind of "cheap" or "lame" if you like. More like a book from R.L. Stine (writer of the Goosebumps series) or some other similar paperback writer. Philosopher's Stone has a much more intriguing sound to it. It's silly to think it would sell better as Sorcerer's Stone. One would only have to read on the cover of the book to see what it's about anyways.

My mum told me that after i got into HP that the first book was gonna be called the Sorcers Stone because that it was called that in the U.S and i was like Why whats wrong with Philosiphers and my mum told me i dunno its just an American thing

As an English person, I'm very glad that there are Americans who feel this way. I was insulted when I heard that the Americans got a different version, since when we get American books, films and TV over here, they never change the words for us! We learn from a young age to be able to learn the meaning of 'Trash, Back Yard, Trash can, Mom, Sweater' that 'Z' is pronounced 'Zee' not 'Zed' and that 'Aluminum' is not a spelling mistake but has a syllable missing on puspose, and get on with reading/watching American stuff without being too traumatised by it.
I'm sure Americans can cope with 'Rubbish, Back Garden, Bin, Mum/Mam, Jumper' and the spelling of the words Grey, Aluminium and Colour (Okay, admittedly 'Mam' never appears in HP, since the North of England doesn't seem to exist in the books).

I agree as well. They shouldn't of changed the title espeailly because of the fact that Nicolas Flamel was used in the book. He was a real alchemist who tried to make the philospher's stone. Looking at that fact, calling it the sorcerer's stone makes no sence at all.

As an AMerican I would have prefered that they left the book alone, I see no need to change any of the dialect. I noticed in HBP their is signaifacantly more English slang terms than in the previous five. Maybe those doing the editing finaly realized that those in the book are English and should sound Engilsh.

when I first heard that the book received a different name on US territory, I couldn't believe it. shame... anyone who reads it knows in due time it was all about the Philosopher's Stone... oh, well... at least no other of the books was changed!

I wonder if they changed it because they thought Americans were stupid. 'Cause were not!(well at least not the ones who read Harry Potter) They should re-release the book with the correct title, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone.

I too think that they should have kept the name for the American version. They changed it also because 'sorcerer' sounds more exciting, right? As if Harry Potter isn't exciting with 'philosopher' instead in the title.

Think its possible that sometime in the future there will be American versions with the original title? I would certainly buy one.

I think that Scholastic changing the title of the book was what caused people to think that HP was 'evil' and started the Christian fundamentalists to condemn it. Why do people automatically think that Americans are inately stupid and wouldn't know what the Philosopher's Stone was? Scholastic probably thought that Sorcerer's Stone was more provocative as a title and would sell more books.

Well, there is a simple explantion as to why the title was changed in the US. American publishers didn't think American readers would like a book with the word "philosopher" in the title. Apparently, we're too thick for stuff like that. :p I, however, disagree. :p on the American publishers.

Mods: Feel free to close and/or move this thread as needed. I did a search and found nothing like it.

Well, obvously it's too late to change the name of the novel, but I feel this needs to be out there anyway. As an American, I always thought it was weird that Scholastic changed the title of the first book to Sorcerer's Stone. When I found out it was because Americans supposdly weren't going to know the refrence, i was a bit insulted. I knew what a philosopher was, and that the alcemists were considered them. Later on I learned the Philosopher's Stone was what the alcemists were trying to achieve.

So, while we can't offically change the book title, we Americans don't have to call it the Sorcerer's Stone when we discuss it. We know it's the Philosopher's Stone, and that's what it should be called.

As for those now shaking their heads thinking "She's nuts", feel free to ignore my ramblings and move on. I didn't force you to come here.

I always thought that the reason it was changed to Sorcerer's Stone in the States was because the Americans thought that any living philosopher's in the States would be offended if the title was Philosopher's Stone?!?! Now that I think about it, it doesn't really make any sense because I highly doubt that anybody is really going to care whether it's Philosopher or not. Personally, I prefer it as Philosopher's Stone just because it just sounds better :).

As an English person, I'm very glad that there are Americans who feel this way. I was insulted when I heard that the Americans got a different version, since when we get American books, films and TV over here, they never change the words for us! We learn from a young age to be able to learn the meaning of 'Trash, Back Yard, Trash can, Mom, Sweater' that 'Z' is pronounced 'Zee' not 'Zed' and that 'Aluminum' is not a spelling mistake but has a syllable missing on puspose, and get on with reading/watching American stuff without being too traumatised by it.
I'm sure Americans can cope with 'Rubbish, Back Garden, Bin, Mum/Mam, Jumper' and the spelling of the words Grey, Aluminium and Colour (Okay, admittedly 'Mam' never appears in HP, since the North of England doesn't seem to exist in the books).

Your statement is very true. As a Canadian living in a border city, you hear a lot of the same things here. And even though I work at McDonalds and don't enjoy dealing with customers a lot of the time, the Americans that come to my store are hilarious to deal with. I usually have a good giggle about it with some of the people that I work with.

But anyways, I never could understand why the world knows more about Americans and their "culture" than the Americans know about the other cultures around the world. It's like the Americans are trying to make the world more American or something (no offence). Like I said, I am a Canadian living in a border city, and I always get the impression that they think that Canada is going to be just like the U.S. when they come to Canada, when us Canadians are, in my opinion, more like the English than the Americans. Maybe part of the reason is because Canada is a common wealth country, I don't know, but feel free to agree or disagree.

I did a little research to find out why Scholastic would change the title. My thought was that:
1. Scholastic was taking a big risk with publishing the first book in North America. They had paid over $105,000 for the publishing rights of a children's novel and had no idea of the expected revenue.
2. I would venture a guess that when North American kids were asked back then if they heard of the philosopher's stone, they'd give you the "huh?" response. So back to #1, to make the book sound more exciting, the publishers chose to change the name, increase sales and hopefully break even (maybe even make a profit?)
Interestingly enough, the spanish version, "Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal" retains the original meaning, while the french title, "Harry Potter à l'école des sorciers" (Harry Potter at the school of the wizards) is totally different.

I think that Scholastic changing the title of the book was what caused people to think that HP was 'evil' and started the Christian fundamentalists to condemn it. Why do people automatically think that Americans are inately stupid and wouldn't know what the Philosopher's Stone was? Scholastic probably thought that Sorcerer's Stone was more provocative as a title and would sell more books.

I agree. This was purely a business decision on Scholastic's part to maximize revenue potential.

(Still trying to figure out how to put images in the signature line)

Personally i don't get Sorceror's Stone, but i'm not the smartest apple in the tree. I don't like how they changed the title, or how they have different versions of the book. Having never read a british version it disturbs me to think what's different. What can they do git, mum all that's still in the american versions? What exactly is different?
As for the covers I prefer the american covers just more my taste. The british ones make it seem more like a childs book and not the darker story it's become. To add: I know there is an british 'Adult' cover but thats not the main stream cover.

But anyways, I never could understand why the world knows more about Americans and their "culture" than the Americans know about the other cultures around the world. It's like the Americans are trying to make the world more American or something (no offence). Like I said, I am a Canadian living in a border city, and I always get the impression that they think that Canada is going to be just like the U.S. when they come to Canada, when us Canadians are, in my opinion, more like the English than the Americans. Maybe part of the reason is because Canada is a common wealth country, I don't know, but feel free to agree or disagree.

Me neither, and I happen to be American. Personally, i love learning about other cultures...another reason why they shouldn't have started changing things in Harry Potter. However, business does what it does to keep the masses happy and buying their stuff. And most of the masses, unfortunally, in America are a bit egotistic. However, now that the masses are going to buy the stuff anyway, why not issue any new Philosopher's Stone books under its correct title?

I'm happy with where this discussion's going...many people have brought up a lot of good points and insight! :cool:

WE'LL BE BACK RIGHT AFTER THIS COMMERCIAL BREAK...

(Still trying to figure out how to put images in the signature line)
If you want a picture in your signature, it needs to be hosted by another website. At the moment the Signature Hosting thread is closed (to new posts) due to the large influx of members from the HBP release. Once you get the image hosted, just click on the little picture box (it looks like mountains) and paste in the url of the image. If you still have more questions AFTER viewing the Signature Hosting and Questions Thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=52999) (in which lanifel (http://www.cosforums.com/member.php?userid=851) has posted a siggie tutorial) AND the Signature Content Policy (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=22990), you can always PM a Moderator. I promise they don't bite.

Inigo Imago

AND NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED THREAD...

I just call it Book 1

Ahem. :steps onto soapbox: I absolutely refuse to call PS Sorcerer's Stone (though sometimes I forget and slip, heh). Number one, it is ridiculously historically inaccurate, and the story makes zero sense that way. The fact that there was a real man, a real alchemist called Nicholas Flamel that in real, historically recorded life that tried to create a philosopher's stone just blows me away that they think they're so high and mighty that they can just change history like that. In 100 years they'll be editing stories about the history of cars, but all through the story they'll take out the word "car" and put in "frangipani" instead because it sounds cooler. The object has a name, and people have been calling it that for hundreds of years - it does not need another!

Second, I find it highly insulting as an American that they think we have no interest in philosophy, or moreover that the word "philosopher" itself would cause boredom-induced snoring in the average public-school "educated", TV-addicted American citizen before we could even crack open the book. Contrary to your stereotypes, we aren't all a bunch of video game playing zombies that are scared of big words. Those of us who dare to touch books in the first place aren't going to be fazed by a word like fil-aw-so-fur. We buy books to read them, not to stare at the cover. Really, they're not like movie trailers. You know, I would really think twice about buying a book that so blatantly stereotypes and belittles another society. Fortunately for the publisher, the author is an intelligent woman, and the meat of the book that's been left unblemished is wonderful. Otherwise, I wouldn't think of it.

Now, following their logic, what makes them think "sorcerer" is any better than "philosopher"? Come on, this is America; know your market! We've seen it all. We're used to giganto spectacles and blow-your-mind celebrations. Ho hum. Unless you called it "The Absolutely Biggest, Awesomest, Super-Hyper-Coolest Most Sensational Wizarding Sorcerer's Stone in All History," I doubt it would fail to capture our ADD-filled society's attention anyway. But luckily, those are just stereotypes, and we loved the book because we're just not that obsessed with what's on the cover.

Furthermore (sorry, just one more thing), I don't know why they think we're so thick and can't understand English that they think they need to rewrite whole sections of the book. If people whose first language isn't English can read it and understand it, you would think Americans, who share a common language with the English (in case the publishers/editors haven't noticed), would be able to understand it too! Granted, I wouldn't have known what a lemon sherbet was the first time I read PS, but that's what FOOTNOTES are for! There is no need to chop up the author's finely crafted work just for a simple candy term; just tell us what it is and get on with it! No need to change spellings; I am fully aware what the words "colour" and "centre" and "defence" mean without someone having to explain them for me, as if I were a five-year-old. Please, just leave the works be, and add a few footnotes here and there. The majority of us do graduate from high school. We can, in fact, read at a level proper for our age, plus we have sufficient resources to be able to look up any cultural differences that might come along.

Hear! Hear!
*raises glass to toast Eir*

From this day forth we shall be known as proud founding members of the APS Society. We will be known as the brave souls who ventured to the other side! The ones who fought against stereotypes! The one's who banished the booktitle-that-shall-not-be-named!

Members will swear an oath to uphold the novel's true name from this moment on! Philosopher's Stone is the only title we need! Long live PS!

Inigo Imago

(this was all in fun... if anyone has a problem with what I've said, please PM me)

Woo! Yeah *claps* They should change the title if only because it encourages us brits to think Americans are all stupid and have terrible vocabulary, which I know from being online, they largely don't. The chances of an American kid and a british kid not knowing what the philosopher's stone is are probably about the same I think.

Perhaps it's part of a conspiracry :eyebrows: - The U.S. government is trying to lobotomise it's people by removing anything even remotely difficult to understand from popular culture so as to prevent you from thinking.

Fight back before your brains are turned to mush!

It's not really that rare for a movie or book to have a different name in different countries... They change the names of American movies in Germany all of the time.

.....Don't you think that might be because the Germans speak a different language?

Oddly enough, they do sometimes change stuff when it comes out here, ie.
In England when I was a kid, they released 'Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles' I have no idea to this day, why American kids could cope with them being called 'Ninja Turtles' (and they obviously were ninja) but they thought English kids would need them to be called 'Hero Turtles'.

Hem hem. I agree that the title should not be Sorcerors Stone. I have no doubt that most Americans who read this book have an idea of what a philosopher is, so why change it?

But, I am getting the impression that Americans think that the Brits changed the title because we thought Americans are stupid. I don't like this accusation of us being stereotypical. I for one do not think that Americans are stupid at all. I'm sure there are some nasty people from Britain who are sterotypical and think that Americans are stupid, but can Americans honestly say that there isn't anyone in America who has a view of us English as being posh and that we are all snobs? We are exactly the same, there are people in every single country who have stereotypical views of people in another country.

By the way, I hope you don't think I'm being nasty to Americans, implying that you think we're posh, because I'm not, I'm just saying there is bound to be people that do think that somewhere in America.

So, everyone in favor of joining the first ever APS Society, raise your hand and say "I".

If you do this, you are swearing to only call the first book by its true name, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Long live PS!

Inigo Imago

Hem hem. I agree that the title should not be Sorcerors Stone. I have no doubt that most Americans who read this book have an idea of what a philosopher is, so why change it?

But, I am getting the impression that Americans think that the Brits changed the title because we thought Americans are stupid. I don't like this accusation of us being stereotypical. I for one do not think that Americans are stupid at all. I'm sure there are some nasty people from Britain who are sterotypical and think that Americans are stupid, but can Americans honestly say that there isn't anyone in America who has a view of us English as being posh and that we are all snobs? We are exactly the same, there are people in every single country who have stereotypical views of people in another country.

By the way, I hope you don't think I'm being nasty to Americans, implying that you think we're posh, because I'm not, I'm just saying there is bound to be people that do think that somewhere in America.

Oh no, I'm not trying to say at all that I think English people as a whole think the American people as a whole are stupid. I'm trying to say that the publishers at Scholastic think American children are less educated and need to change things in the book in order to accomodate that, and that's just odd. No offense to England at all! I don't even think it was the British publishers that wanted to change it, was it? I think it was Scholastic that wanted to make the changes, right? So England couldn't take the blame if they wanted to, lol.

So, everyone in favor of joining the first ever APS Society, raise your hand and say "I".

If you do this, you are swearing to only call the first book by its true name, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Long live PS!

Aye! I do solemnly swear to only call the first book by its true name, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Huzzah! Long live PS! :D (thanks to everybody for reading my long-winded post, btw...I didn't think anyone would!)

I feel like many others very insulted with the publishers for believing that Americans don't want the original versions and aren't smart enough to read them. If I could I would definitly read PS instead of SS along with all the British versions.

So, everyone in favor of joining the first ever APS Society, raise your hand and say "I".

If you do this, you are swearing to only call the first book by its true name, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Long live PS!

Inigo Imago

I raise my hand and say "I". Long live PS!

I always called it Philosopher's Stone anyways. The two copies of the first book that I have are both Philosopher's Stone.

I think that Philosopher's Stone is what people should call the first book. That's the original title. However, I suppose Jo agreed to change it for the American version. So if Americans wants to call the first book Sorcerer's Stone that's fine by me:D

Jo resently said that she wished she hadn't changed the title.

I'm just so used to "Sorcerer." I don't think the American editors changed it becasue they perceive US kids to be stupid, but perhaps more willing to grab up a book with such a mysterious thing as a sorcerer in the title. I don't really blame them -- I like the sound of "Philosopher's Stone" better, but then I came to the books when I was 17, and I'm pretty sure I'd've gone for a Sorcerer at a younger age.

(Is "I'd've" a fair word? lol.)

:drool: Sweet!!!

Hem hem. I agree that the title should not be Sorcerors Stone. I have no doubt that most Americans who read this book have an idea of what a philosopher is, so why change it?


Sounds better, thus more sales.

.....Don't you think that might be because the Germans speak a different language?.

No.

Translations aside, many movies names are changed BEFORE they are changed/translated into another language. For instance that Vin Deisel (however you spell his name, I have no clue) movie, The Pacifier, became something like The Baby Sitter... I actually can't remember what it was called. Whatever the actual name, it was changed in both the German and English (as many foreign movies are played in their original language here in Germany.)

Cultural differences and language connotations cause the change, not "stupidity" amongst the masses.

hahah i just thought philosopher was a sorcerer...hmm

Maybe I'm a purist, but even being American I've always called the first book "Philosopher's Stone." I also wish they would stop changing the slang inside the books so Americans can "understand" it, but that's another topic for another rant.

Hero of Time, thanks for that hint about Amazon.ca. I wanted to buy all of the books in UK editions, but most of the places I found them were ridiculously expensive.

I think people are reading Waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into this Sorceror's Stone business. If you ask me, it was probably changed to make the title more poetic (which it is...), not because "american kids are stooopid!"

Then again, that's what I'm used to by now. I'm not the type that insists on seeing fansubs of anime created in back rooms by japanese exchange students. The dub's always been fine for me, even when I knew other translations. Why make such a fuss over something much smaller?

I agree. I'm calling it Philosopher's stone.

I think the problem isn't that they think we are stupid. Its the age group making these decisions. These people are what? 30? Which would have made the people who changed it bone in the sixty's or seventy's and lets face it back then we were pricks(well our government still is but thats not the point) we didn't like reading. We were insanly pro-american, we got very little entertainment from europe and the only people who found it funny were "geeks" and worst of all we didn't have the internet.

In short we wanted nothing to do with the outside world(ofcourse this is as a whole I don't mean to offend anyone from that time. There were ofcourse a few cult loves such as Monty Python, and Hitchhikers but the whole population wasn't the same) we were america damit best place in the world.

This has changed in the time. We youth of america have been eposed though TV and internet to the outside world much more than before. We thrive in it. We had changed but even more we have changed since then. Sure NOW the thought of changing British books so that the are "American" is met with anoyance and distane but way back when it was something you had to do. Times change. We just didn't in time.

i usually call it philosopher's stone unless i'm talking to someone who wouldn't know it by anything other than sorceror's stone. aside from wanting to call it by it's real name, i think it just sounds nicer.

In portuguese it is "Pedra Filosofal" what is the same as "Philosopher Stone" in english. I really wanted to understand why the american editors changed the book's name... You (English and americans) have (almost) the same language... it's really weird.

It's not really that rare for a movie or book to have a different name in different countries... They change the names of American movies in Germany all of the time.
i heard that in japan the movie "dr. no" was released as "i do not need a doctor" lol. but that's totally different since americans and brits both speak english. i don't think they change the names between america and britain as often as they would between america and germany. otherwise we might be calling "monty python" "maurice boa-constrictor" - or "the beatles" "the spyders".

So, in (my) perfect world, I would have Harry Potter the way JK originally wrote it surrounded by Grandpre's art. If only... ;)

Ditto for me!

We (my husband and I) are Americans, but we're collecting the Bloomsbury "adult" cover editions of HP (shipped from Canada). That way we get the "original" text plus a nice cover picture (we don't care for the Bloomsbury children's edition cover art). My only gripe (besides no Mary GrandPre art) is that there is no table of contents in the "adult" edition.

Yes, the Schoolastic letter voices my opionion exactly. Well, almost exactly. I knew that Jo changed her text herself, and I feel she did this so some of the seven-year-olds out there (That's how old I was when the first one came out) would understand it. Even though I'm older now (obviously) I didn't know what "Wotcher" meant, until coming here... This thread has drifted rather off-subject, hasn't it? lol. As for the SS/PS, call it whatever you like! I grew up with SS, so that's what I'm used to, and it's true Jo *did* wish she hadn't agreed to change it (I don't know how many of you already know that) so if it makes you feel better, call it the Philosipher's Stone.

Well folks, I just took it upon myself to stop conjecturing and actually find FACTS :)
I e-mailed Scholastic today and asked them why they felt the need to make the changes they did. I also explained about the dictionary of English jargon that appeared in the front of "The Indian in the Cupboard" books and told them that kids love to learn new things, especially when they don't realize they're learning! I hope to hear back from them soon. And when I do, you can better believe that I will cut-n-paste their reply here.

~Pete

WOW! Talk about PROMPT! I barely finished my last post when a very personal (i agree it might have been a form letter designed to "sound" personal since I don't doubt they've been asked this question before) responce showed up in my inbox! And as promised, here it is! :)

Thank you very much for your recent email. We’re delighted that you are such an enthusiastic fan of the “Harry Potter” series.



We would like to point out that no changes are now, or have ever been made to the text without the complete participation and approval of the author, J.K. Rowling. The philosophy of the translations was always to give the American reader the same experience--or as close to the same experience as possible--as the British reader. In other words, the books should feel very British. There would never be wholesale "Americanization." Changes would be as few as possible. However, we felt that the readers should be perplexed only when the author wants them to be perplexed, they should notice the slang only when the author wants them to notice the slang, and at no other times. When the Scholastic editors were brought up short by a word or phrase, they would query it to the author and would either come up with an alternative British phrase (not necessarily an "American" phrase), find an acceptable translation understandable to American readers, or we would leave it as is.



It was our guess--now borne out by experience--that American readers would become progressively more familiar with the magical world that Ms. Rowling had created, more familiar, and thus would be better oriented and less likely to be confused by individual language differences. Therefore, there have been progressively fewer "translations" to the point where the US and UK texts are virtually identical now.



Please feel free to contact Customer Service with any additional questions or concerns you may have. And as always. . .Thank you for choosing Scholastic!

Wow, you're amazing! I did not think about doing that. That's great! I'm glad that they think that way.

However, and like i said, what's done is done, but still as a point, the first book was changed a lot. I'm not expecting any changes to come from this, it's just a peeve of mine as to how Americans are/Americans are viewed.

This thread has drifted rather off-subject, hasn't it?

Naw, I don't think so. It's just as much about changing the first book title as to why they did/what made them do it, etc. Which can include the other changes that were made...and that i didn't even think of until i started reading some of these posts.... :blush:

Oh well.

It's just as much about changing the first book title as to why they did/what made them do it, etc. Which can include the other changes that were made... and that i didn't even think of until i started reading some of these posts... :blush:

Oh well.

You really started something here! This thread has been popular ever since you posted it. Apparently many people here feel just as strongly (if not more strongly) than you do. Great topic choice!

Inigo Imago

I :)

I always call it that anyway, as that's what my copy IS called LOL! I do agree though. Why make a new version when people from every other english speaking country can manage on the UK version :huh: I still don't understand that.

As for the movie, I can't imagine Dan saying "sorcerer's stone". Hi accent sounds so cute when he says "philosopher's stone" ;) Or maybe that's just me!!

Oh! One question I had. I believe it was OoTP, Neville made a comment about "the Sorcerous Stone" this being a mispronunciation of "Sorcerer's Stone" Does anybody know what the UK printing (it's not really a "version" or "edition") had in place of this line?
There is a specific mention of that exact same line in New Clues to Harry Potter: Book 5 (Ultimate Unofficial Guide) *searching desperately for the page*

Ok, I can't find the page so I guess I'll make an edit later to add it in, but Neville called it the "Philological Stone." The book also talks about the significance of this specific phrase. *still searching for the page* D'arvit!

Inigo Imago

Yeah, I'm all for the Americans calling it Philsopher's Stone (even just so it stops confusing me when Americans on here put SS!) Neville called it a Philological Stone in OotP :rotfl: Were the films edited differently so the actors all said 'Sorcerer's' in the US then?

Oddly enough, they do sometimes change stuff when it comes out here, ie.
In England when I was a kid, they released 'Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles' I have no idea to this day, why American kids could cope with them being called 'Ninja Turtles' (and they obviously were ninja) but they thought English kids would need them to be called 'Hero Turtles'. I heard that the connotations of the word Ninja were too violent :huh: apparently it would corrupt us!
that Vin Deisel (however you spell his name, I have no clue) movie, The Pacifier, became something like The Baby Sitter... I actually can't remember what it was called. Whatever the actual name, it was changed in both the German and English (as many foreign movies are played in their original language here in Germany.)This is because, over here a pacifier is called a dummy, so the pun in the title was lost on us Brits!

I don't even live in America and I do have the PS version, but if I was American I would find it a little insulting to have the name of a book changed because publisher's thought that no one would understand it and another thing, hasn't Jo said that she regrets letting the American version going under the name of SS? (If not, ignore what I just said, I probably dreamed it or something...). Though it doesn't matter, all that matter's is that children and adults alike will still love the books, because it has the same plot and the same characters, really you shouldn't even worry about the name if you are so engrossed in the book.
Long live Harry Potter. (ignore ramblings)

As an American Adult OVER the age of 30, I also find it insulting that the name and content was changed for the American vs. British editions.

But, it certainly is not something to get bent out of shape over.... :shrug:

when i first started reading 6 years ago when i was in fourth grade i would not have gotten the reference. now that i have learned about alchemy and the such i get the reference. i believe the publishers meant for it to be a children's book and american children would not have gotten the reference.

i agree that we americans are rather selfish for changing the title because of our ignorance, but i think the publishers made a decision based on a selling standpoint.

when i first started reading 6 years ago when i was in fourth grade i would not have gotten the reference. now that i have learned about alchemy and the such i get the reference. i believe the publishers meant for it to be a children's book and american children would not have gotten the reference.

i agree that we americans are rather selfish for changing the title because of our ignorance, but i think the publishers made a decision based on a selling standpoint.
I believe every publisher in the world meant for it to be a children's book at that time so that's no reason to change the title in my opinion. Why would British children get the reference any easier than American children? And why should it even be considered necessary to get it when it's clearly stated on the book cover and in the reviews what it's all about? Surely no one would have thought it was a boring book about philosophers? It looks to me as if American publishers think they have to "Disneyfy" titles to make them sell in America, and this is rather patronising in my opinion, -as if they think kids over there won't pic up a book unless it has bright colours and an easily understandable title. :huh:

Well, obvously it's too late to change the name of the novel, but I feel this needs to be out there anyway. As an American, I always thought it was weird that Scholastic changed the title of the first book to Sorcerer's Stone. When I found out it was because Americans supposdly weren't going to know the refrence, i was a bit insulted. I knew what a philosopher was, and that the alcemists were considered them. Later on I learned the Philosopher's Stone was what the alcemists were trying to achieve.

So, while we can't offically change the book title, we Americans don't have to call it the Sorcerer's Stone when we discuss it. We know it's the Philosopher's Stone, and that's what it should be called. .

Not so fast, not so fast. Many books have been retitled upon later printings. Many. One example is And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie (fantastically awesome book, by the way. Taught me what a red herring was ^_^). That book was originally titled Ten Little Indians but was retitled in later printings because it was deemed too offensive.

Of course, in my opinion And Then There Were None is ten times the better title anyway (sounds more of a murder mystery title), but the point is that renaming books has happend before. This is but one example.

well I call it philospers stone anyways.

This is because, over here a pacifier is called a dummy, so the pun in the title was lost on us Brits!

Sorry, off topic..... I could have sworn it was called The pacifier in my local cinema. Though I quite like the idea of it being called "The Dummy" :rotfl:

Books change titles all the time. The Agatha Christie example is a good one.

I'd like to see it renamed, because that means the value of the original "Sorcerer's Stone" books would go way up. :evil:

But seriously, there is another reason. In Alchemy, there is no "sorcerer's stone," only the "Philosopher's Stone." Alchemy was both a science and a philosophy, and the title of the book should reflect that historical fact.

When I think of a "sorcerer," I think of Mickey Mouse dancing with a broom in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." :p That's not very dignified.

Well folks, I just took it upon myself to stop conjecturing and actually find FACTS
I e-mailed Scholastic today and asked them why they felt the need to make the changes they did. I also explained about the dictionary of English jargon that appeared in the front of "The Indian in the Cupboard" books and told them that kids love to learn new things, especially when they don't realize they're learning! I hope to hear back from them soon. And when I do, you can better believe that I will cut-n-paste their reply here.

~Pete

WOW! Talk about PROMPT! I barely finished my last post when a very personal (i agree it might have been a form letter designed to "sound" personal since I don't doubt they've been asked this question before) responce showed up in my inbox! And as promised, here it is!

Thank you very much for your recent email. We’re delighted that you are such an enthusiastic fan of the “Harry Potter” series.

We would like to point out that no changes are now, or have ever been made to the text without the complete participation and approval of the author, J.K. Rowling. The philosophy of the translations was always to give the American reader the same experience--or as close to the same experience as possible--as the British reader. In other words, the books should feel very British. There would never be wholesale "Americanization." Changes would be as few as possible. However, we felt that the readers should be perplexed only when the author wants them to be perplexed, they should notice the slang only when the author wants them to notice the slang, and at no other times. When the Scholastic editors were brought up short by a word or phrase, they would query it to the author and would either come up with an alternative British phrase (not necessarily an "American" phrase), find an acceptable translation understandable to American readers, or we would leave it as is.

It was our guess--now borne out by experience--that American readers would become progressively more familiar with the magical world that Ms. Rowling had created, more familiar, and thus would be better oriented and less likely to be confused by individual language differences. Therefore, there have been progressively fewer "translations" to the point where the US and UK texts are virtually identical now.

Please feel free to contact Customer Service with any additional questions or concerns you may have. And as always. . .Thank you for choosing Scholastic!
Hero of Time: I think it is awesome that you wrote to Scholastic! :tu: :)

Would you be so kind as to post that letter on the thread about the differences between the American and British versions Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=2793513#post2793513)? I think everyone would find it quite interesting! Or with your permission, I will copy it over there.

There is a debate going one right now about the extra lines in the U.S. version. If what Scholastic says in your e-mail is true, the JKR must have known about the change, right? Or did she? We are waiting for confirmation about whether this was a snafu/mistake or whether she OK'd the differing versions.

I'd like to see it renamed, because that means the value of the original "Sorcerer's Stone" books would go way up.

:evil: It makes me wonder if the paperback versions of SS would be worth as much as the hardback...

I think it insulting that they thought we wouldn't get the reference. Though I was only 9 when I read the first book, I would have known what a philosoher was.

i completely agree that they should have left if philosopher's stone. it's kind of insulting that they think some of us wouldn't have got the meaning, and that we would have found Sorcerors (spelling? w/e) more "exciting". i also agree about how they changed some of the words so that its more "american". i know we have our own variations on the english language, but it's not like we're stupid and wouldn't be able to figure out that "mum" is mom to us and other such things. what i've liked about the past couple of books is that they are changing it less and less and i find more and more of the british edition in it.

and i do like the cover art on the american books.

but back to the main topic... totally should have left it philosopher's stone.

well they changed the title of first book not only in the US - what do you think about french version "Harry Potter à l’école des sorciers" (Harry Potter in the school for wizards)?

Goodness me, I had no idea they took out the British slang in the American books as well! That seems to be pushing it a bit...I'm sure you lot would have had no trouble realising that "git" was not a pleasant word. :rotfl:

Now, I know that being non-American this is going to sound very biased, but I think it was utterly stupid to have the title changed. What do they think you are, a load of imbiciles? It sometimes even irritates me to see people referring to it as The Sorcerer's Stone, because it's not The Sorcerer's Stone. I mean, some people just genuinely don't know about the difference, but some just do it out of spite. "Sorcerer's Stone" doesn't sound any more or less exciting than "Philosopher's Stone." Really, I don't see what sort of economic difference it would have made.

When I moved to Canada not too long ago, I was sure I'd have to put up with the American books...but no, Canada gets the English version that the rest of the world gets as well. If it's good enough for Canada, why not for the US? It would certainly make page references easier, hehe.

Not so fast, not so fast. Many books have been retitled upon later printings. Many. One example is And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie (fantastically awesome book, by the way. Taught me what a red herring was ^_^). That book was originally titled Ten Little Indians but was retitled in later printings because it was deemed too offensive.

Of course, in my opinion And Then There Were None is ten times the better title anyway (sounds more of a murder mystery title), but the point is that renaming books has happend before. This is but one example.

True, but not only would the title have to be changed, every time the Stone was mentioned would have to be changed...and i doubt Scholastic will do that.

Also, i thought that book's title was only changed in the States because the Native Americans found that song offensive. I thought it was still Ten Little Indians in Britain. (By the way i agree with you...great book!)

well they changed the title of first book not only in the US - what do you think about french version "Harry Potter à l’école des sorciers" (Harry Potter in the school for wizards)?

No offence, but that title seems even worse than the American change. Why did they do that? After all, France was a major part of the Elightenment...why would they get rid of the Philosopher's Stone part? Anyone know, because i would love to.

But seriously, there is another reason. In Alchemy, there is no "sorcerer's stone," only the "Philosopher's Stone." Alchemy was both a science and a philosophy, and the title of the book should reflect that historical fact.

Right. Even though i will admit i didn't know what the Alchemists strived for was actually called the Philosopher's Stone until my sisters got into the show Full Metal Alchemists. I knew they strived for a stone that turned metal into gold, etc, but not that that was it's true name. Which makes it even worse that they changed it. After all, I could have learned that Alchemists stived for the Philosopher's Stone from Harry Potter than 4 or so years later from a Japanese show.

Yes, i know. Long post.

: As for those now shaking their heads thinking "She's nuts", feel free to ignore my ramblings and move on. I didn't force you to come here.

no way do i think that you are nuts! i totally agree! i call it both titles.. because some of my friends are 'culturaly challenged' and don't understand that there are two titles, one for US and one for UK. I too was a tad insulted for people thinking that us americans would not understand. of course we would! we are smart too! well.. most of us are.. hahaha just kidding..

ahem..

well anyway, just wanted to share my opinion with everyone.

True, but not only would the title have to be changed, every time the Stone was mentioned would have to be changed...and i doubt Scholastic will do that.

Also, i thought that book's title was only changed in the States because the Native Americans found that song offensive. I thought it was still Ten Little Indians in Britain. (By the way i agree with you...great book!)

You have a point...

But the title was only changed in America?

.........you know, I guess I really don't know if that's true or not. I was under the assumption that it had changed all over, but maybe not. I mean, there have been like five movies made from that book, and each one was called And Then There Were None. How would I find this out?

You have a point...

But the title was only changed in America?

.........you know, I guess I really don't know if that's true or not. I was under the assumption that it had changed all over, but maybe not. I mean, there have been like five movies made from that book, and each one was called And Then There Were None. How would I find this out?
Actually, I think that's only in the US. I've seen a few movie/TV versions of this book and they've all been called Ten Little Indians, and it's still in the library as Ten Little Indians here last time I checked the A. Christie section. Did you know that the book originally was called Ten Little *******? They probably first changed it to Indians as this was less offencive.
From Wikipedia:
" And Then There Were None (also known as Ten Little Indians and Ten Little *******) (published in 1939) is a work of detective fiction by Agatha Christie. It was first published as Ten Little ******* in England in 1939, and in 1940 it was republished in New York as And Then There Were None, a less offensive title taken from the same rhyme."

"TEN LITTLE ******* (1939). The film version of Ten Little ******* (1945, US title: And Then There Were None ) by the French director René Clair"

I did a search and it seems it's still refered to as Ten Little Indians in the rest of the world:

Ten Little Indians (1989). Director Alan Birkinshaw Screenplay Jackson Hunsicker

Ten Little Indians (1974). Director Peter Collinson Screenplay Erich Krohnke

Agatha Christie: Ten Little Indians (TV)(1959)

Ten Little Indians [1965]

In Norway it's still known as Ti Små Negerunger (which means: Ten Little Negro Kids, which is the translated title of the nursery rhyme )

Right. Even though i will admit i didn't know what the Alchemists strived for was actually called the Philosopher's Stone until my sisters got into the show Full Metal Alchemists. I knew they strived for a stone that turned metal into gold, etc, but not that that was it's true name. Which makes it even worse that they changed it. After all, I could have learned that Alchemists stived for the Philosopher's Stone from Harry Potter than 4 or so years later from a Japanese show.

Yes, i know. Long post.
Haha..when I started watching Fullmetal Alchemist was when it really clicked for me. I mean, before that I knew it was really called the Philosophers stone and I'd read about it a bit and heard of it in science class, but I follow FMA and when I first started to I was like "OHHHH! *facepalm*"

But yeah, I really don't like the fact that it's "Sorcerer's Stone" in the American version. It just seems like such an utterly pointless change. When I read it, I read "sorcerer's", but think "philosopher's". :p

And it just annoys me every time I come across the word "soccer" or the phrase "Merry Christmas" because I know in the UK they don't talk like that.

I'll go with you on the "soccer" thing, but we say "Merry Christmas" over here. It's a good toast when at the Christmas party's, Christmas dinners, or meeting your mates down the pub.

I don't think our terminology is all that different. I mean "Mum" has been changed into "Mam" in parts of the UK, and the U.S "Mom" isn't all that different. And we use the word "garbage" aswell, just not as often as we say "rubbish". Okay "sidewalk" is utterley different, and I can't see the "pant's on the head" game being nearly as funny on US kids TV.....but really, it's not that different.

Actually, I think that's only in the US. I've seen a few movie/TV versions of this book and they've all been called Ten Little Indians, and it's still in the library as Ten Little Indians here last time I checked the A. Christie section. Did you know that the book originally was called Ten Little *******? They probably first changed it to Indians as this was less offencive.
From Wikipedia:
" And Then There Were None (also known as Ten Little Indians and Ten Little *******) (published in 1939) is a work of detective fiction by Agatha Christie. It was first published as Ten Little ******* in England in 1939, and in 1940 it was republished in New York as And Then There Were None, a less offensive title taken from the same rhyme."

"TEN LITTLE ******* (1939). The film version of Ten Little ******* (1945, US title: And Then There Were None ) by the French director René Clair"

I did a search and it seems it's still refered to as Ten Little Indians in the rest of the world:

Ten Little Indians (1989). Director Alan Birkinshaw Screenplay Jackson Hunsicker

Ten Little Indians (1974). Director Peter Collinson Screenplay Erich Krohnke

Agatha Christie: Ten Little Indians (TV)(1959)

Ten Little Indians [1965]

In Norway it's still known as Ti Små Negerunger (which means: Ten Little Negro Kids, which is the translated title of the nursery rhyme )

Oh, shows how much I know, then. ::lol:: Guess it's just here in America.

And I should really check Wikipedia. I've heard so many good things about it. ^_^

But i'm interested in how the very original title worked. I mean, everything takes place on Indian Island, so the rhyme being "Ten Little Indians" made more sense that way. You can't have an island in the shape of someone who is black, can you? I don't see how. But an American Indian? Yes, if you go by the sterotype.

I'll go with you on the "soccer" thing, but we say "Merry Christmas" over here. It's a good toast when at the Christmas party's, Christmas dinners, or meeting your mates down the pub.

I don't think our terminology is all that different. I mean "Mum" has been changed into "Mam" in parts of the UK, and the U.S "Mom" isn't all that different. And we use the word "garbage" aswell, just not as often as we say "rubbish". Okay "sidewalk" is utterley different, and I can't see the "pant's on the head" game being nearly as funny on US kids TV.....but really, it's not that different.

I always thought that in Britian they said "Happy Christmas"?...it just always seemed to make more sense to me anyway. No one in the US says "merry" for anything other than christmas....i mean we don't go around saying "Merry Birthday!"

But, the topic at hand....I agree with everyone that the changing of the name was pretty useless, but, the general public in the US may not have known that a philosopher and alchemist were similar. They probably would have looked at the title and associated the book with someone like Plato or Socrates.

well i always thought it was because sorceror is something that young americans can understand. I didn't even know what a philosopher was until i was like 8 and i'm an American. I think it makes sence, it's at least better than a title that means nothing to them

I'll go with you on the "soccer" thing, but we say "Merry Christmas" over here. It's a good toast when at the Christmas party's, Christmas dinners, or meeting your mates down the pub.

I don't think our terminology is all that different. I mean "Mum" has been changed into "Mam" in parts of the UK, and the U.S "Mom" isn't all that different. And we use the word "garbage" aswell, just not as often as we say "rubbish". Okay "sidewalk" is utterley different, and I can't see the "pant's on the head" game being nearly as funny on US kids TV.....but really, it's not that different.
it's mum in the US version too though but i agree that our version of english is very similar to the UK one but people from the UK all seem to think our way is completely different or something :huh:

I always thought that in Britian they said "Happy Christmas"?...it just always seemed to make more sense to me anyway. No one in the US says "merry" for anything other than christmas....i mean we don't go around saying "Merry Birthday!"

Neither do we!
But we use both Merry and Happy for christmas.
Hope that clears it up. :)

Ok so what DO you call that thing we call a sidewalk? :huh:

Pavement :)

Ok so what DO you call that thing we call a sidewalk? :huh:
And "pants on the head" game?


Pavement.....

And the "pants on the head" game.....well I saw it on kids TV one Saturday. I think it was In Da Bungalow with Dick and Dom. Anyway I digress :rolleyes: From what I could gather it basically involes a bunch of pre-teens dancing around with underware "pants" on their head. Not sure what the point is but it was quite funny.

This intelligent game comes from the same people who brought us the "Boogies" game. Taking it in turns with your friends to shout "Boogies" out randomally in public places to see who shouts it louder.

Time to take over Scholastic and change the title :elaugh: :lol: I'd be fine with changing the name. It already has such a fanbase I don't think it would matter much.

I think it insulting that they thought we wouldn't get the reference. Though I was only 9 when I read the first book, I would have known what a philosoher was.


I absolutely agreen with you! I'm English, living in Canada, and in my experience (American son, Canadian daughter --- both influenced by English Mom & Dad!) Americans probably read MORE than Canadians do, have an excellent vocabulary and don't need their books 'adjusted". After all, if Canadian readers can understand the "Britishness" of the writing, then Americans can too. (Not a word but you know what I mean!)

I think, personally, that it should have been called "The Alchemist's Stone", so that our own definitions of "Philosopher" (thinker) or Sorcerer (wizard) wouldn't have been misunderstood at all, and we all know that an Alchemist (chemist) made the original metal-into-gold legend famous in the first place!


(PS Imagine having "philosopher" changed for you, and then having to wade through all Hagrid's dialect and slang! Makes me sorry for all non-Brits --- like your worst English comprehension test,ever!!)

I'm for either. Sorcerers Stone sounds more magical to me, partly because im American partly because i like that word better.

I prefer the title Philosopher's Stone to Sorceror's Stone, but as an American I have grown so used to referring to the book as the latter. I'm curious as to why the movie, which was comprised of an all British cast, was called SS. I think the movie title also contributed to people referring to it as SS, not PS. I also feel slightly insulted at the change in title, Philosopher's Stone sounds so much better. I also think it has more meaning being derived from the Greek roots: philo sophia (love of wisdom). Correct me if I'm wrong.

The movie was called philosopher's stone everywhere except in the US. The apparently had to shoot scenes where they said either PS/SS twice to put in the appropriate movie :)

The philosopher's stone actually has a lot of history based in alchemy etc. I did not know about this before reading the book, but have learned it after. Whereas the sorceror's stone is just a catchy title :)

When I found out that they had changed the name for Book 1, I've been angry about it ever since. Now I feel like we don't have the 'real' thing. I know it's dumb to think that, but it just doesn't feel right. I'm trying to transition and call it the philosopher's stone instead of sorceror's stone.

Originally posted by kyliealysha
The movie was called philosopher's stone everywhere except in the US. The apparently had to shoot scenes where they said either PS/SS twice to put in the appropriate movie :)

No way...I didn't know that! :wow:

Originally posted by kyliealysha
The movie was called philosopher's stone everywhere except in the US. The apparently had to shoot scenes where they said either PS/SS twice to put in the appropriate movie

That is twisted!
I'm not American, but I agree it is incredibly insulting of them to change the name for that reason and in the movie! Its not like the term 'philosopher' wasn't explained properly in the book anyway! I'm sure all Americans would have been able to figure it out, I was only 9 when i read the first book and I figured out what it was even though nobody told me.

Heh, I'm all for doing anything that the Brits do, especially if it's more historically accurate/gramatically correct!

Also, I don't really see how changing "philosopher" to "sorcerer" is really going to clear things up for Americans who are too slow to grasp the concept in the first place. I mean, you'd have to be awfully thick since they explain it clearly in the book and the film....

Honestly I don't see it as a big deal. It's been done to more than just Harry Potter. The His Dark Materials trilogy starts off with 'The Golden Compass' in the US, but in the UK its called 'Northern Lights'. I highly doubt that the names are changed as part of an elaborate scheme to undermine the extent of American vocabulary and mind capacity.

I personally dont have a single problem with it being called Sorcerer's Stone. Simply take a look at the meaning of Sorcerer and Philosopher:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
Main Entry: phi·los·o·pher
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French philosophe, from Latin philosophus, from Greek philosophos, from phil- + sophia wisdom, from sophos wise
Date: 14th century
1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER b : a student of philosophy
2 a : a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b : an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c : one who philosophizes
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Main Entry: sor·cer·er
Pronunciation: 'sor-s&-r&r, 'sors-r&r
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a person who practices sorcery : WIZARD

Main Entry: [1]wiz·ard
Pronunciation: 'wi-z&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wysard, from wis, wys wise
Date: 15th century
1 : archaic : a wise man : SAGE
2 : one skilled in magic : SORCERER
3 : a very clever or skillful person
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Then we have:

Main Entry: philosophers' stone
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: an imaginary stone, substance, or chemical preparation believed to have the power of transmuting baser metals into gold and sought by alchemists; called also philosopher's stone
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

To me :
Sorcerer's Stone is actually more accurate. As you can tell the PS definition is not what the story was about. Yes I realize she named is PS, then SHE gave permission for it to be changed in the US. Scholastic books has a tendency to do that, keep things in proper perspective. Its not about taking the Brit out of it. Its about using the proper definition for what it was.

I agree that that book should be the same in both countries and I dont really know what scholastic was thinking in changing it from philosopher to sorcerer. I mean Philosopher is want JKR wanted in the first place so changing it was a pretty stupid idea. But unfortunatly I think that it is a little to late to change the name in America.

Ah, I figure it doesn't really matter.. Sorcerer sounds more intimidating anyway.. However, it just proves how our American coporations think it's consumers are morons who not only have a timid vocabulary, but aren't intelligent enough to lookup on a philosopher's stone artifact..

I keep hoping JK will touch on The Necromonicom. And watch our American companies re-name it "Ohnoes! T3h Chutllue!" :rotfl:

I agree that the title should not have been changed.

...although, yes, the actual "philosopher's stone" as sought by alchemists did not produce an elixer of life, but merely changed any metal into gold.

Honestly I don't see it as a big deal. It's been done to more than just Harry Potter. The His Dark Materials trilogy starts off with 'The Golden Compass' in the US, but in the UK its called 'Northern Lights'. I highly doubt that the names are changed as part of an elaborate scheme to undermine the extent of American vocabulary and mind capacity.

Maybe not for that series, but it scholastic admitted to changing then name to 'Sorcerer's Stone' because they didn't think Americans would go for it's original title.

Found a quote from JK on the subject:

Why did they change the name of the book from HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE to HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in the US?

JKR - Well, once again that was my American editor's choice. He felt "philosopher's stone" gave a false impression of what the book was about. He wanted something more suggestive of magic in the title, so we tried a few alternatives and my favorite was "sorcerer's stone."

As far as i can tell, the Philosopher's Stone is what the books is about. And it has already been metioned that while Sorcerer's Stone was her faviorite title, she regrets letting them change the title at all.


I agree that the title should not have been changed.

...although, yes, the actual "philosopher's stone" as sought by alchemists did not produce an elixer of life, but merely changed any metal into gold.


Actually, according to my search, the real philosopher's stone does create the elixer of life.

The philosopher's stone, a longtime "Holy Grail" of Western alchemy, is a mythical substance that supposedly could turn inexpensive metals into gold and/or create an elixir that would make humans immortal. - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AND

"The stone, also referred to as the "tincture," or the "powder" (Greek xerion, which passed through Latin into Arabic as elixir), was allied to an elixir of life, believed by alchemists to be a liquid derived from it. Inasmuch as alchemy was concerned not only with the search for a method of upgrading less valuable metals but also of perfecting the human soul, the philosopher's stone was thought to cure illnesses, prolong life, and bring about spiritual revitalization. The philosopher's stone, described variously, was sometimes said to be a common substance, found everywhere but unrecognized and unappreciated." (Encyc. Brit., 15th ed., 1976)

BTW - I figured out that Brits call a "crosswalk" a "Zebra Crossing" from reading Douglas Adams.

Really? Do you know what book? I happen to love Adams' "Hichhicker's Guide" series yet i don't seem to read anything about Zebra Crossings.
Anyways, that's pretty funny.

A similar example of title changing (or name changing) exists among those of us who are Volkswagen enthusiasts like myself. From 1999 until the first part of 2005, VW sold a car in the United States called the 'Jetta'. For marketing reasons, outside North America, this vehicle was sold in Europe as the 'Bora'. Many people felt that this was belittling and insulting to Americans and didn't feel that US buyers should be treated any differently from the rest of the world, so many enthusiasts went so far as to remove the JETTA lettering from their vehicles and replace it with BORA badges purchased over the Web.

Now, VW has begun selling the new Jetta in the United States and Canada, and has just introduced it in Europe -- as the Jetta. In Europe, sedans (saloons) don't sell as well as wagons (estates) do, so VW apparently chose not to change the name so as not to interfere again with the car's identity.

This seems to have overall gone over well, although many people believe the new Jetta looks a lot like a Toyota Corolla, but that's another matter entirely ...

I've gone so far as to purchase the UK edition of a book (Diane Duane's On Her Majesty's Wizardly Service, a pun based on Ian Fleming's James Bond novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service) because I didn't like the US title (To Visit The Queen). I don't regret having done so. (I would highly recommend this series; Duane did the entire idea of teenage wizards before JK Rowling did, and I've always found her stories more absorbing, though if I didn't like the HP series, I wouldn't be here!)

I personally dont have a single problem with it being called Sorcerer's Stone. Simply take a look at the meaning of Sorcerer and Philosopher:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
Main Entry: phi·los·o·pher
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French philosophe, from Latin philosophus, from Greek philosophos, from phil- + sophia wisdom, from sophos wise
Date: 14th century
1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER b : a student of philosophy
2 a : a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b : an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c : one who philosophizes
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Main Entry: sor·cer·er
Pronunciation: 'sor-s&-r&r, 'sors-r&r
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a person who practices sorcery : WIZARD

Main Entry: [1]wiz·ard
Pronunciation: 'wi-z&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wysard, from wis, wys wise
Date: 15th century
1 : archaic : a wise man : SAGE
2 : one skilled in magic : SORCERER
3 : a very clever or skillful person
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Then we have:

Main Entry: philosophers' stone
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: an imaginary stone, substance, or chemical preparation believed to have the power of transmuting baser metals into gold and sought by alchemists; called also philosopher's stone
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

To me :
Sorcerer's Stone is actually more accurate. As you can tell the PS definition is not what the story was about. Yes I realize she named is PS, then SHE gave permission for it to be changed in the US. Scholastic books has a tendency to do that, keep things in proper perspective. Its not about taking the Brit out of it. Its about using the proper definition for what it was.

Calling it Philosopher's Stone was directly relevant to the artefact mentioned in the book. Using philosopher was not negating the wzarding aspects of the story since there was actually a stone that was thought to exist during the Middle Ages [time frame could be a tad off]:

The philosopher's stone, a longtime "Holy Grail" of Western alchemy, is a mythical substance that supposedly could turn inexpensive metals into gold and/or create an elixir that would make humans immortal. The Great Work, or Magnum Opus, refers to the quest for this stone.

Therefore your supposition that Sorcerer's stone is infact the correct definition for this keystone of Alchemy is incorrect. However, since it's a fictional world, I guess the publisher's didn't think it would need to be accurate, and went for the "what's an easier title to distribute" option instead .It's a bit commercial to me, Sorcerer's there purely because it's more marketable to junior readers PS/SS's main demographic, and it's just another reminder of the subtle ways in which the market affects 'lit' and artistic creativity.

Having said that, it's really no big deal, some people just think that The Philosopher's Stone is now called the Sorcerer's stone. Oh well.

the first time that I even knew that there was a difference in titles was when the first movie came out and i saw an advertisement on an American channel for the SS movie. I had only recently been introduced to the books at that point, having no child of that age in my family, and my friends were well beyond the point of wanting to read HP - to this day they still harass me about reading it. So, who cares if i cried when DD died? But I digress. I had no idea that there had been a title change, so i took it upon myself to figure out why. The best that I could find was that the publishers didn't think that Americans would be able to understand all of the slang, and that the title would be confusing for them.

This completely confused me. I only had access to the British books, being in Canada, and had never had a problem understanding anything - not even the slang. But then the slang was something that I was used to hearing with a family that had come over from Britain and still used some of it. Regardless, it seemed to me that very little credit was being given to the readers and that it had made no sense.

The title was bad enough, but when i heard that text had been changed I was outraged for the people who weren't being sold the original text - and was very glad that i was in Canada where we could be trusted to understand the original text. (what an utterly ridiculous thought on the part of the publisher). I know that our books come from Raincoast not Scholastic which makes a difference I'm sure.

Anyway, I've now found some of the differences between books and I do prefer PS to SS. Amazon.ca is not much different from .com and it's probbaly the cheapest and fastest way for you to get copies of the original text.

Oh and one other thing - if text was changed because the editors at Scholastic "came up short", then they should hire me - i'm an editor anyway and frankly, i never came up short on any of the book. Just a thought.

Sorry for the length of the post.

I really don't understand why "Philosopher's Stone" would have been difficult to understand, and live in Finland and I read all the HP books first in English and I had no problem to understand and it isn't even my mother's tongue.
And in Finland PS is known as "viisasten kivi" - the stone of the wise men - and I still got it.
Well, it isn't really my problem, if it makes someones life easier, that's fine :p
I just wanted to say my opinion, don't judge me too much :rotfl:

Instead of considering it as Philosipher/Sorcerer, I consider it as SS/PS. Its a lot easier, and everyone can understand it. But, I didn't even know that in England, they used PS. I din't find that out until I went to the library to see if they had GoF like three years back. I found it on a shelf, and then I asked my self, "Whats this?" So then I looked it up, and found out thats what they use in England.

Why bother translating one and not the other? WHY? Why why why why?!

An editing goof. Inconsistent terminology usually is. A US editor likely failed to realize that 'football' has a different usage in Europe than it does in the US. Correctly localizing this text would replace 'football' with 'soccer' in the first sentence as well. It may also have been an error by the author that was not caught during the editing process. Someone with a European edition should check this passage to see how it appears, and 'soccer' should then read 'football'.

They made other, very small changes as well - I have both versions here, a bookstore in London sold the US versions. They changed term to semester, timetable to schedule, post box to letter box, car park to parking lot, some of them really small changes, but in the grand scheme quite telling. And why they changed some entire sentences is just beyond! There wasn't a point to it, and it in fact dilutes a book when you go around changing words and sentences. I can understand if it was changing from English to Welsh, or French, where some words may not have direct translations, but English to American is going slightly overboard.

Hmm, I've never really wondered. It's called Sorcerer's Stone in the States and that's that. But, I think it would be cool if it were called Philosopher's Stone. I like Philosoper better than Sorcerer - it's funner to say!!

I think I actually agree with you on this one, but you can't forget that there are a lot of Americans out there who aren't Potter-maniacs (like most of the people on this forum). There are still many people who don't know that it was originally called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, nor the fact that "Philosopher" is the proper term.

I think I would actually take this topic a step further and ask that they stop taking the 'brit' out of Harry Potter. I find it insulting, as an American, that they think we can't handle certain words (mum, git, etc...). Now, having said that, I would actually like to keep the American covers. I love Mary Grandpre's work, I think it's fabulous. Each cover really captures the entirety of the book in all its glory.

So, in (my) perfect world, I would have Harry Potter the way JK originally wrote it surrounded by Grandpre's art. If only... ;)

Inigo Imago
Couldn't have said it better myself
:tu:

They made other, very small changes as well - I have both versions here, a bookstore in London sold the US versions. They changed term to semester, timetable to schedule, post box to letter box, car park to parking lot, some of them really small changes, but in the grand scheme quite telling. And why they changed some entire sentences is just beyond! There wasn't a point to it, and it in fact dilutes a book when you go around changing words and sentences. I can understand if it was changing from English to Welsh, or French, where some words may not have direct translations, but English to American is going slightly overboard.
I agree totally there really was no reason to do that imo, they should of just left it Philosopher's Stone.

The title never bothered me, because the term "Philosopher" has a different conotation to me and it would have changed how I pictured things in my head if "Sorcerer" wasn't used.

The title never bothered me, because the term "Philosopher" has a different conotation to me and it would have changed how I pictured things in my head if "Sorcerer" wasn't used.

The problem is that it was never the "Sorcerer's Stone" until some bureaucrat decided it should be. You will find, for example, that if you try to find it on Wikipedia, you won't -- you'll just get referred to the article listing it under the correct name.

I personally feel that arbitrary changes like this do no one any good, and only lead to confusion. Sorcery isn't the same thing as alchemy, and besides, the legend of the philosopher's stone can be traced as far back as the 8th century -- why undo 1,200 years of history now?

The popular press makes many regretful mistakes that cause more of a mess than they clean up, and this is one of those times.

Darn Philosopher's Stone... Americans are just considered too stupid to understand it. Reminds me on an argument I had a few years ago. A girl in my class was talking about books for a report, and said something to the effect of, "...of the inherant dangers of the Sorceror's Stone..." I sighed dramatically, and put up a hand when she was done. The teacher called on me, and I launched into a lengthy explanation about the Philosopher's Stone and past attempts to make it.

The girl (and the rest of the class) thought I was crazy. It;s called Sorceror's Stone, dunderhead! There is no Philosopher's Stone!

Riiiiiiiiight. The girl giving the report, who is actually quite smart, said that since everyone else in the book is fictional, then the Stone is too.

Wrong. Nicholas Flamel was an actual person who would indeed had been 665 years old during the time of the first book. He is credited as being the only person to make gold artificially. The only way to do this is with the Philosopher's Stone. Put two and two together.

My school has a lot of funding, so I called up the internet on the SmartBoard, and launched into a huge explanation of how the stone is typically said to be made, the fact that transmutation is real (we made artificial gold in the 1940s), and that alchemists across the centuries have all gone for making the Philosopher's Stone.

(It helps that I got ten points extra credit for the whole thing.)

OK I found this irritating. I'm reading GoF for the third time and I picked up a piece of mixed "translation" Well I'll let the book speak for itself

Seamus had pinned his Ireland rosette to his headboard and Dean had tacked up a poster of Viktor Krum over his beadside table. His old poster of the West Ham football team was pinned right next to it.

"Mental," Ron sighed shaking his head at the completely stationary soccer players.

Emphasis mine. Why bother translating one and not the other? WHY? Why why why why?!

Actually in the UK version it has "soccer" there too. So it's not a mixed translation.

I think Scholastic should seriously consider changing the title.
Is it possible another book publishing company could get distribution rights or will Scholastic always have them? They might change the title back.

They could earn more money off the first book if they had a new edition with a changed title.
What could be more American than that? ;)

You know in the first book, in the chapter The Sorting Hat, the British version doesn't have that little line saying that Dean Thomas is a black boy even taller than Ron. That's one American edit that I'm glad they did.

I agree. Americans already have a bad general reputation for being intolerant of other nationalities. I think it would be great if we just got the UK edition--if we're immersing ourselves in a world that's based in Britain, we should be able to have access to all the vernacular.
exactly! If I wanted to be hum-ho bored I wouldn't be reading (anything, including Harry Potter) in the first place. Challenge me a little, or a lot, if the story is worth it, don't change it to make it easier. Yeah.

i never really think about it that much. as long as everybody knows that its philosiphers/socerers stone, then we should all be fine...........plus, you can tell if someone is british or a stupid american because of what they call it (i have nothing against americans, for i am an american my self, and i think all americans, including myself, are stupid)

I would've thought Philosopher's Stone would sound more interesting than 'sorcerer's stone', and in fact i loved the idea that i was reading something with as big and clever a title when i was 11!strange child that I was :)
To turn this around, I've always been jealous of the fantastic covers on the American books!!

I personally dont have a single problem with it being called Sorcerer's Stone. Simply take a look at the meaning of Sorcerer and Philosopher:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
Main Entry: phi·los·o·pher
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French philosophe, from Latin philosophus, from Greek philosophos, from phil- + sophia wisdom, from sophos wise
Date: 14th century
1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER b : a student of philosophy
2 a : a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b : an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c : one who philosophizes
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Main Entry: sor·cer·er
Pronunciation: 'sor-s&-r&r, 'sors-r&r
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a person who practices sorcery : WIZARD

Main Entry: [1]wiz·ard
Pronunciation: 'wi-z&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wysard, from wis, wys wise
Date: 15th century
1 : archaic : a wise man : SAGE
2 : one skilled in magic : SORCERER
3 : a very clever or skillful person
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Then we have:

Main Entry: philosophers' stone
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: an imaginary stone, substance, or chemical preparation believed to have the power of transmuting baser metals into gold and sought by alchemists; called also philosopher's stone
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

To me :
Sorcerer's Stone is actually more accurate. As you can tell the PS definition is not what the story was about. Yes I realize she named is PS, then SHE gave permission for it to be changed in the US. Scholastic books has a tendency to do that, keep things in proper perspective. Its not about taking the Brit out of it. Its about using the proper definition for what it was.

How can it be more accurate. You have what the philophers' stone is. It has historical and mythic grounding.

The US title means nothing.

The movie was called philosopher's stone everywhere except in the US. The apparently had to shoot scenes where they said either PS/SS twice to put in the appropriate movie :)

Meh. Too common.

In many Australian films bits that are too hard to American audiences are altered.

Every line in the original Mad Max was redubbed with American accents when it was first released.

ALl this football/ soccer stuff gets on my nerves. Soccer is a swear word IMO. It football damnit, FOOTBALL or footie for short. All the football clubs in the english premiership are called, for example, Birmingham City Football Club which is shortened down to BCFC. West Ham is WHFC so west ham football team to me is correct, i just hate them using soccer afterwards :(

hip hip horray...
I don't know why they changed the title at alll
or why the debrit the books...we aren't total gits...
I think we could handle the input if the rest of the world can

I still don't get why the American version is changed around. Although the plot and such are the same, without those little English details, the books loose their essence of JK Rowling. I would want something straight from JK Rowling's pen, and the English editors, not something that has been 'fabricated' to appeal to community of readers. Thankfully, though, I live in Canada, and we get the UK editions.

i dont think it matters, to me, actually as an american, i knew what both meant, but for sounding wise, i like sorcerrer's better.

i've never really had my hands on a british version of the books (didn't know there was on really. thought they were the same).

but sorcerer's stone sounds more magical than philosopher's stone, although ironically it doesn't seem to do much with sorcery or a philosophy.

Yeah, I like Sorceror's Stone better too but I got the UK version of the Philosopher's Stone.

It was a standing joke in England that they had to change the title as Americans wouldn't understand the term 'philosopher' or 'philosophy'. It was insulting and patronising of the US publishers to change the name - not to mention confusing. The Philosopher's Stone was a part of hisatory at a time when the USA didn't exist, therefore it is part ot America's history too.
Was the film in the US called the Philosopher's stone oor the Sorcerer's stone?

Well, obvously it's too late to change the name of the novel, but I feel this needs to be out there anyway.

Actually, it's not too late. Scholastics can change the name, but when writing the copyright page, they will have to say:

"Published orginally under the name Socerer's Stone."

It was a standing joke in England that they had to change the title as Americans wouldn't understand the term 'philosopher' or 'philosophy'. It was insulting and patronising of the US publishers to change the name - not to mention confusing. The Philosopher's Stone was a part of hisatory at a time when the USA didn't exist, therefore it is part ot America's history too.
Was the film in the US called the Philosopher's stone oor the Sorcerer's stone?

Socerer's Stone.

I am Canadian and my parent's satellite dish carries HBO. I found it weird that the movie is called Socerer's Stone. In Canada, at the movie theatres, it was called Sorcerer's Stone, but the DVD and tape sold as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone".

i think it would be better if it had the same name... :p

Quick question to the people with the British version,
in chapter 16 (in the Hog's Head) Neville tells everyone that Harry saved the Sorcerous Stone. What does it say in the British version?

I still don't understand why they changed the name. I don't think people would care either way. Oh and for your question, Shelty, I think you mean in OotP when they have their first DA meeting...well...I think he just calls it the Philosopher's stone (I use the British versions because they're easier to get hold of in Canada), but I can't remember. That should be right because if they are going to change the name it'd probably be smart to change it in every book because then readers wouldn't get confused. Which heightens my point that it's sort of a waste of time to change it.

Quick question to the people with the British version,
in chapter 16 (in the Hog's Head) Neville tells everyone that Harry saved the Sorcerous Stone. What does it say in the British version?

Philological Stone

It was a standing joke in England that they had to change the title as Americans wouldn't understand the term 'philosopher' or 'philosophy'. It was insulting and patronising of the US publishers to change the name - not to mention confusing. The Philosopher's Stone was a part of hisatory at a time when the USA didn't exist, therefore it is part ot America's history too.
Was the film in the US called the Philosopher's stone oor the Sorcerer's stone?
The film was called Sorcerer's Stone here in US. I don't mind that England jokes about it. You know how many jokes we make here about them. All countries do it. I don't care what its called. Let them make stupid jokes. We pretty much all know what Philosopher means, so it doesn't matter. Once again I say, I don't care what its called because the book still matters, and whats in it is way more important than the title.

that got me confused to. Cuz i know waht the philosiphers stone is, and im american...Wierd....

Do they change the dialogue in the film when they mention the philosphers stone by name?

i always found it funny that the publishers thought that american kids were too thick to understand the original title.
when i first heard someone say scorcers stone i thought that a new harry potter book had been released and ran to a shop to try and buy it, now im the one whos thick! but i was like 12!
its kinda weird that they still 'americanize' the books, its set in england, they talk like english kids, not american ones!
also i agree that scorcers stone is a stupid title as it makes NO sense!

in america the movie titled harry potter and the sororers stone
but the books were named that way too but some were the philosophers stone too
so i dunno why they did that.
im american so yea.
god bless those who might die in hurricane rita

hip hip horray...
I don't know why they changed the title at alll
or why the debrit the books...we aren't total gits...
I think we could handle the input if the rest of the world can

Git doesn't mean idiot, it's a term for a generally disagreeable person - usually male, women don't get called gits often.
I don't think there's an American equilvilant for it - except possibly, Jerk?

I think its kind of funny, I've been posting on forums and seeing Philosopher's Stone so much that I said it when I was talking to someone the other day. When I said it, I didn't even think twice about it, it just came out. Then I got a really strange look and had to figure out why..."um...Sorcerer's Stone?"

I like the name Sorcerer's stone better but than again, i really don't care what it is called, i just hate that americans are always thought of as ignorant (which 51% of us are).

I like the name Sorcerer's stone better but than again, i really don't care what it is called, i just hate that americans are always thought of as ignorant (which 51% of us are).
lol

It's not us who thinks you don't understand the title it's your publishers so don't think that we think you're all stupid, because we don't. I suppose it's all just a matter of opinion, some of you like the actual title, some of you don't.

I like the name Sorcerer's stone better but than again, i really don't care what it is called, i just hate that americans are always thought of as ignorant (which 51% of us are).

Unforntunlly, that's probaly why people think of Americans as ignorant. But that dosen't mean you shouldn't take the opputunity to let the masses learn things (wow, what a shocking thing!)

Then again, since many Americans are at least though of as ignorant (or are), the companies cater to the masses so they make more money. It's just that to me, an un-ignorant American, now that seems like a stupid move.

170 posts....you guys are great! :cool:

I always thought it was strange, how they changed the title. They didn't think we would figure it out, or what? I understand Philosopher's stone, and so do all my close friends (perhaps we're a more erudite group than most, though). When I talk to people about HP I usually say SS, because that's what everyone's used to where I am (guess where), but when posting I usually write SS/PS. I actually like Philosopher's Stone better, because I know what it is, and I don't think it's really interchangeable with the term Sorcerer's Stone. What is a Sorcerer's Stone anyway?

(perhaps we're a more erudite group than most, though).
Using "eurdite" points to that :p

I could really care less what is is called. It's JKR's writing that entrances people in the Harry Potter series... not the title.

Its weird that they assumed British seven year olds would know what a 'philosopher' was, and yet American seven year olds wouldn't. When I first read the book, I was about...um...must've been 10 or 11, but because I'm a closet geek I knew what a philosopher was. I can't imagine any nationality of child knowing that bigger word any younger than that. I do love Philosophers stone as a name, though.

ALl this football/ soccer stuff gets on my nerves. Soccer is a swear word IMO. It football damnit, FOOTBALL or footie for short. All the football clubs in the english premiership are called, for example, Birmingham City Football Club which is shortened down to BCFC. West Ham is WHFC so west ham football team to me is correct, i just hate them using soccer afterwards :(

you see this really doesn't bother me. football or soccer call it what you like, as long as you can understand what i'm talking about i don't care what you call it. But i would say calling soccer, football is more accurate then calling american football, football, because in soccer you are supposed to use your feet and your not allowed to use your hands unless you have a throw in or your the goalkeeper in your area, where as Football to the americans (to me any way) seems as if you use more hands then feet (a bit like rugby, in british terms). i see know problem in changing british words so that others can understand it more.

there's loads of words in the british volcabulary that ain't in the american we have an whole oceanthat seperates us so of cause there's gonna be some things that mean differant things to eachother look at Jumper (sweater) Pants (to us these are mens underwear). I mean what do you lose really do you still read and love the books, would giving you the british copy make you love it more, i don't think so...

but i don't know many books that come over from the states they don't really change any of the slang used.

That is a great idea and all but I don't live in Britian. I live in America so if they say the book is called Sorcerer's Stone then so be it. Anyways if I went off and started saying Philopher's Stone, my friends wouldn't have no idea what I'm talking about and would think it is the 7th book or something. Yeah, I figured out what the slang meant and stuff, it's not that hard.

I was just wondering, is the name for the first book different in America and England??? I always thought it was the sorcerer's stone, that's what our books and movies are called. But then there are all these people calling it the philosophers stone. I just wanted to know if there are 2 versions of the book.

They are different names but the same book.

apparently in america philosopher means something differant than in britain.

Here (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/differences-ps.html) are pretty much the only differences between the books.

The original and proper title is "Philosophers Stone"
In United States the title was change because whoever did so decided that people would get an improper interpretation of the book through the title.

Sorcerer's Stone was used in america becasue the publishers didnt think that enough people would understand what the word 'Philosopher' means.
So in reality they dumbed down the title thinking that American people would not buy a book if they didnt Understand the Title.
Im not saying American people are dumb, just that the Publishers believed the Amercians to be dumb.
Please dont shoot the messengar

Sorcerer's Stone was used in america becasue the publishers didnt think that enough people would understand what the word 'Philosopher' means.
So in reality they dumbed down the title thinking that American people would not buy a book if they didnt Understand the Title.
Im not saying American people are dumb, just that the Publishers believed the Amercians to be dumb.
Please dont shoot the messengar

Dumb or is it that America doesnt have the same view of what a philosopher is as the UK does? And besides, these are childrens books (or were to begin with) American children would connect with Sorcerer quicker then philosopher.. it wasnt for the general population

They are different names but the same book.

I have the Philosopher's Stone, because that's the English version. The American version is the Sorceror's Stone, but it's exactly the same. :D

Sorceror is the correct title.

sion is right, having studied this for part of my degree (it was a module on the globalisation of culture for those who are interested), the publishers changed the title from the Philosophers Stone to the Sorcerors Stone as they believed that more of the target audience for the books would understand what a sorceror was as opposed to a philosopher

They are the same book, pretty much. There are few, very minor differences between the two, and yes I've read them both (sadly, I do not own the British version, but when I go to England, I'm getting the entire series, so I'm sorta waiting for book 7....)

Sorceror is the correct title.
No, it isn't... read the rest of the thread...

JK Rowling called it "The Philosopher's Stone" so it is called "The Philosopher's Stone".

Stupid American publishers changed it to Sorcerer's because they thought it sounded more exciting. Uh. How pathetic.

Yep. Pretty much what Kumori said. :D

American publishers changed it because Americans have a different definition of what Philosopher means.

That's where I read it some where.

heres something i found out after reading about it a little...

the philosphers stone was an actual item in medieval times that alchemists believed could create a thing called the elixar of life. they thought it could change metals like lead into gold as well. u can read about it here at wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher's_stone

after reading this about 50 times so i understood i really dunno why americans changed it. guess they like to be different.

i think people should stick with what the author wrote.

American publishers changed it because Americans have a different definition of what Philosopher means.

That's where I read it some where.
I was more under the impression that "philosopher" had too many letters for the average american to understand.

(okstate - this post is dedicated to your memory)

Sorceror is the correct title.
No, it isn't.

The original title of the first adventure, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, appeared on the books in the UK, Canada and Australia and other territories. It was changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by the American publisher, because 'Sorcerer's' seemed more exciting.

Sorceror means wizard, and in my opinion Philosopher's stone sounds more interesting than wizard's stone.

hm....im use to Sorcerer's Stone....but after reading what GinervaMWeasley put im...starting to like Philosopher's Stone better!!!

Philosopher's stones have been around in lore for a while (alchemy), I don't get why they would change it.

Philosopher's!! That's what JKR called it, but the American publisher decided to change it!!! And I think JKR knows best as she wrote the book in the first place!

Hmmm... I don't see why the US publishers would change it just because the target audience wouldn't know what a philosopher is. I mean, a lot off UK kids wouldn't know what the philosopher's stone or a philosopher was either, but it is explained in the book.

I could be just used to it, but I like "Sorcerer's" better.