My son and my class at school are mad about the 'Harry Potter' books. One child in my class, having holidayed recently in Florida, brought back an American copy of the first book. In America it is called '...and the Sorceror's Stone', whereas in the U.K. it is, '...and the Philosopher's Stone'.

Is there a difference in meaning between the two cultures to have required the alteration??

Perhaps it is just a simplification to meet the needs of a world-wide audience. Joanna Rowling is usually at the Edinburgh Book Festival so I'll ask her if I get a chance and feed-back her answer.

I heard a lovely story about why the play "The Madness of George III" was called the "Madness of King George" when it translated to film. It was because they thought that people would think they'd missed out on "The Madness of George I" and the "Madness of George II".

Here in Canada the book is called "The Philospher's Stone". I find it hard to imagine, but such modifications to imported media are common for the US market.

For example, Mordecai Richler's novel "Barney's Version" was issued in Canada and England with a picture of a Cuban cigar on the cover. The US edition was changed to a non-Communist brand of cigar.

In another case, the movie "Eyes Wide Shut" had scenes of male genitalia edited out for the US audience. After much ivory tower debate, Canadians were treated to the US version rather than the European.

M.

I tend to think that the word "sorcerer" conjures up a magician, whereas the word "philosopher" in this context is heavier ( actually implying deep thought, heaven forbid). Since the market is child oriented, my feeling ( just personal) is that the marketing people might have thought that the change would sell more books. Why else do they do these things?

On the subject of changing names. I heard that the only way that "Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me" got through its American certificate was that they didn't know what "Shagged" meant.

I've not read the Potter books, though I've seen them on the shelves -- it is possible that "philosopher's stone" (the alchemist's tool to convert metal into gold) is not as widely-known a term in the U.S. as it is in the U.K., hence the cross-Pond title change to something more "magical"?

I understand that some parents in the USA have said that their children should not read the book as it encourages an interest in the occult. I find this very strange. I think people here just think its a very good story.

Or is this just a marketing tactic to keep the book in the headlines?

I'm afraid that "philosopher's stone" is way too much of a literary allusion to work in the American marketplace.

jmh,

The Potter books are truly a sensation in the states. No other books of any kind sell as well. All the kids in my nephew's class love them. As far as I can see, there seems to be little reservation on the part of parents, to their kids reading them. I think most parents feel that these books are a far better activity than TV or computer games. Besides, with the ubiquity of sex and violence in our lives, it's hard to imagine anything in these books to grouse about. Perhaps a word of explanation to kids would be wise, to disabuse any foolish notions they may have of the occult, but stories of the occult have traditionally been a mainstay of children's literature in America as well as Europe. Disney has imprinted the quitessential sorcerer story on every child's psyche, with his animated sequence "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", which has been retained in the sequal to "Fantasia", called "Fantasia 2000". Any parent who objects to stories of this genre for their children, would likely be in the extreme minority.

I've just booked tickets for J K Rowling at The Edinburgh Book Festival in mid August, so I promise to ask her about her reasons for the the change in title. I'll let you know what she says. Any other questions while we're on the subject?

http://www.edbookfest.co.uk/

I picked up my daughter's copy of the new Harry Potter yesterday (under instructions, she is away) and I'm only half way through (page 300) - I wonder how many ten year olds will get through all 600+ pages! I'm glad to see that they have given up with the separate titles.

I don't think I'll be posting for a few days - I've just got to find out the ending.

These books sure do have some hooking power in them. Not only have they set book selling records, but my little brother (11) got the book from the library Saturday morning and he's already done with it! If any book can keep a kid quiet like this I'm all for it.

But about sex in the media reaching children, I read that as the characters in the Potter books get older they're getting into troublesome relationships. Is Harry Potter Jr. next?

No sign of any teenage pregnancies at Hogwarts yet. All I can report from the fourth book is that they have faced the grueling task of choosing a member of the opposite sex to take to the Hogwarts Christmas ball. I think Harry feels, alongside many fourteen year olds, that he'd rather face a flame throwing dragon than ask a girl to the ball. All in all he might get his first kiss by the age of 21, we wait with baited breath.

> I've not read the Potter books, though I've seen them on the shelves -- it is possible that "philosopher's stone" (the
alchemist's tool to convert metal into gold) is not as widely-known a term in the U.S. as it is in the U.K., hence the
cross-Pond title change to something more "magical"?

This is interesting because I have noticed that there is a major US film company called 'Touchstone pictures' and the touchstone was the alchemist's tool. It certainly was a prophetic title for the company since they have produced many successful (relatively) low-budget movies.

Excellent point, Rubrick!!
However, they weren't fleet of feet (foot?) enough to beat out Warner Brothers for the Harry Potter movie rights.

>>they weren't fleet of feet (foot?) enough to beat out Warner Brothers for the Harry Potter movie rights.<<

Man--greed runs the world, doesn't it? :-(

Jackie,
I guess we can take some small consolation in Rowling's published refusal to allow Harry Potter action figures in Happy Meals

>>I guess we can take some small consolation in Rowling's published refusal to allow Harry Potter action figures in Happy Meals<<

Just to clarify, in case the author somehow (!) sees this:
I was thinking that WB wouldn't have rushed so, if they
hadn't thought there would be $$ to be made.

A side note: I cannot get my computer to make the
symbol for the British Pound.

Harry Potter hype has also reached New Zealand . The visuals are run and re-run of the excited (and sometimes bewildered) children at the opening of a bookstore, waiting for the stock to be rolled out.

I read a quotation from a critic's column yesterday - he seems to think that reading HP is about as intellectually stimulating as watching an episode of Neighbours

Whatever he thinks, tens of thousands of the books have been sold, prompting me to wonder if the hype around the book has transferred to the ownership of the book, rather than a real desire to read it, for reading's sake?

A bit like owning ALL the Pokémon toys?

Jackie, on a Mac the £ is made by pressing option 3. Can't help you with a Gates machine.

David, I'm sure there's some of that collector's frenzy, as well, unfortunately. In fact, some of the books printed in the US are missing pages; others have a few pages printed upside down: apparently those who bought these books are auctioning them off as collector's items.
But for the most part, I believe kids are actually reading again. The bookstore I work in admittedly caters to a university community and is no cross-section. But the kids who were there for our Harry Potter party last Saturday knew every single detail in the first three books. There was no winner for the trivia quiz - they all scored 100.

>reading HP is about as intellectually stimulating as watching an episode of Neighbours

most any parent would tell you that getting a kid to read almost anything is considered more intellectually stimulating than almost anything they watch on TV!

"Young readers can respond startlingly well to much of this complexity. From these novels they get not only magic, bravery, fun, satire, some pointed lessons on racism, a call to arms against cynicism and sheer page-turning pleasure, they also get a master-class in plot construction, and a mighty mental work-out in memory, anticipation and narrative alertness. Those critics who suggest the Harry Potter books are inherently simplistic fail to look past the pleasing frolics to the remarkable scale and tenacity of invention involved." Catherine Lockerbie, 15th Scotsman July 2000 http://www.scotsman.com/cgi-bin/t3.cgi/taf/books.taf? I'm not sure how long this link will work (I'll try to update it) but the review is from a journalist who's work I respect.


Of course there is hype. I'm not altogether happy about it but it does seem to go with the territory of things for children - Buzz Lightyear, Teletubbies, Tracey Island. All were sell-outs here in recent Christmas shopping frenzies.

Firstly it is amazing to see a ... book ... in the same category. Secondly the thing the book has, like Neighbours, Friends, Eastenders or whatever children watch is a very discussable plot. It has reached a critical mass so it is possible to discuss aspects of the plot with other children in a way that is usually confined to films or television.

In the review above one of the things that is highlighted is that way that a small item on one page of the first book suddenly becomes very important in the third or fourth book.

I didn't get a ticket for the recent book signing in Edinburgh but a friend took her daughter along. She had to queue for over an hour to get her book signed but there wasn't a problem. The children were all moving along quietly with their heads in their books. Even with her experience as an primary school teacher, she was stunned!

I'll have to go now and persuade my eleven year old to take a break from reading to have some breakfast. I have hardly seen her since she got her book yesterday!

I said I would get back with JK Rowling’s version of the answer to why the change in title - so here goes.

I didn’t get chance to ask any questions during today’s session at the Edinburgh Book Festival http://www.edbookfest.co.uk but she was asked many questions - including one asking why the first book had a different name in America. Here’s the gist of what she said:

“You must remember that when I wrote the first book I knew that most children’s writers did not make a lot of money. I had anticipated that I would continue supporting myself and my daughter through my teaching and I would try to get my writing to fund itself in some way, so that I could justify continuing to write. When the first book was published I was delighted but also thought that it was likely that only three copies would be sold and none outside my immediate family.
…..
The decision to publish the book with a different title in the USA is one that I would like to have been able to go back and change. Actually the title was a compromise. The American publisher said that “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” did not really reflect the nature of the story and they wanted it to be called “Harry Potter and the School for Wizards”. I felt that that gave far too much away, so “Sorcerer’s Stone replaced Philosopher’s Stone” as a compromise. At the time I so pleased that I had a publisher that I didn’t really feel able to stand my ground. I now realise the problems it has caused, one bookseller in America told me that, after the first book was published, children kept trying to buy the Philosopher’s Stone book as they thought it was the sequel”.

After the session I managed to ask her if this would cause problems with the film – would they keep two versions? She said that it was a problem and that they may have to settle on one version – most likely the original title.

There is a very good interview that some people might like to look at on the Bloomsbury site http://new.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter

Thank you so much for the update and the links, Jo! Interesting compromise they settled on, and I can understand her reluctance to stand her ground at that early date. You know what I bet? I bet they'll call it "Harry Potter I" (in reference to a comment in another thread on "The Madness of King George III")

But seriously, the wise thing to do would be to call it "Harry Potter" and leave it at that. The sequels could all then have their respective titles, which I'm presuming to be identical cross-Pond.

Ah ... but the problem is deeper than merely the title. What do they do when they mention the Philospher's stone in the plot - do they do a separate soundtrack for American release?

>>...What do they do when they mention the Philospher's stone in the plot - do they do a separate soundtrack for American release?

Good point. Hadn't thought of that. Maybe visual cues?

sorry to disappoint y'all, but here is a link to the WB casting call for "J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"

http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/cmp/main-fr.html

and I thought it would be a cartoon. . .

well, I guess kids wouldn't be able to relate to a cartoon as much as they do the book.

> Is Harry Potter Jr. next?

I have it on good authority that in the last book Harry will be a head of household. In fact the book is going to be called Harry Potter Familias.

All seriousness aside, there are some right-wing Christian elements here in Colorado who are trying to get these books banned. One youth minister in Colorado Springs actually burned one of the books page by page for his young and impressionable charges, chanting, "This is the hell they will inhabit" as each page caught fire. He also burned a bunch of Pokemon stuff. We're VERY liberated here. Probably because we're so close to Kansas :)

>I guess we can take some small consolation in Rowling's published refusal to allow Harry Potter action figures in Happy Meals

Not to mention her retaining the right to cast the characters. She's already stated that Harry will be an English kid because she doesn't want a boy with an American accent playing the part.

Heck, I didn't even know I HAD an accent!!!!

>She's already stated that Harry will be an English kid because she doesn't want a boy with an American accent playing the part.<

Way off track, but can anyone name me a Hollywood (or even American) movie where the villains have American accents and the heroes have English/Australian/South African/etc accents?

...I feel like this should be in tsuwm's 'multicultural' education thread....

(TEd, the single word 'heck' screams American accent to me!)

Way off track, but can anyone name me a Hollywood (or even American) movie where the villains have American accents and the heroes have English/Australian/South African/etc accents?

Snowy River. OH American movie -- The one where Diane goes swimming in the river and gets eaten by a large reptile -- Crocodile Done Dee.



(TEd, the single word 'heck' screams American accent to me!)

I figured you'd notice! VERY VERY BIG GRIN!

>but here is a link to the WB casting call for "J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"

So what's the internet version of "you can't believe everything you read in the papers"!

> "you can't believe everything you read in
the papers"!

well, do you have insider information?! (I was swayed by the lightning bolt logo with embedded title :)

>(I was swayed by the lightning bolt logo with embedded title :)

I did note the logo. Yes I do have insider information and the insider information is that the title isn't settled yet. We'll just have to wait and see.

Footnote: I understand that they have now agreed to release the film with two separate titles. Parts of the film will be shot twice so that the UK version refers to the Philosopher's stone and the US version refers to the Sorceror's stone - I just hope that they don't get them mixed up!

One of the most-eagerly awaited movies in years, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, has received its world première in Leicester Square, London.
The cinema was turned into a replica of the magic school Hogwarts school for the occasion and thousands of excited fans, some dressed up in wizard hats and cloaks, gathered to catch a glimpse of arriving celebrities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/film/newsid_1634000/1634408.stm

I've got preview tickets for next weekend - is the US version out yet? Is it out anywhere else and which countries are using which titles?

it opens here the 16th, with sorceror in the title of course. it remains to be seen if it will be dubbed or subtitled in american.

Many books that I read as a child had magicians, sorcerers, witches, fairies, and animals that could talk. A few kids got scared by the witches in the OZ books. From what I can gather, the Potter books have nothing objectionable in them. Certainly vastly preferable to the vile movies and TV and violent computer games and comics.

>it opens here the 16th, with sorceror in the title of course. it remains to be seen if it will be dubbed or subtitled in american

I think, neither. Some scenes have been shot twice. I don't think that they have changed much apart from the words in the title. Even so, there are compromises for an international audience. Harry's house in Privet Drive would be probably a London thirties house - here is a modernised detached version http://compuhost.co.uk/houseforsale/ but a more modern house has been used to make more sense to an international audience (in some countries such a house would be interpreted as being too upmarket, apparently). At least the whole thing wasn't moved lock, stock and barrel to the USA as in so many film versions of popular British children's books such as Matilda (Aylesbury), Madame Doubtfire (Edinburgh) and the Borrowers (South of England). Still, I'll be looking out to see if they toast crumpets or english muffins.

It goes on general release here on the 16th as well.

I think that it will be less in need of dubbing or subtitles than the Full Monty or Chicken Run! We'll see.

Ms. Rowling apparently managed to retain much more control than is normal for authors of movified books. All reports so far are that the kids (who know the books upside a goat) are quite satisfied.

http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/harrypotter.html

Have any adults hereabouts read the books?
I have and I love them.
It's a trip back to childhood (no remarks about my "second childhood," please!) with all the excitement and, well, magic!
I intend to be on (in) line when it opens at our local cinema and if any small people get in my way, well....they better watch out is all I'm saying!

Have any adults hereabouts read the books?

I have. I started buying them when my wife became pregnant so we would have them to give to my daughter -- they'll be somewhat out of date by the time she gets to read them, but I remember getting started on the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, even though they were somewhat old-fashioned. The Harry Potter books are great kids' books -- tons of imagination, excitement and empowerment, with healthy doses of challenging authority -- giving respect only to those authority figures who earn it. Ignore those nose-in-the-air types who claim that they are no good for kids or somehow worse than the stuff they read growing up. I think anything that inspires a love of reading is great!

>Have any adults hereabouts read the books?

I spent Easter this year selling part of my mineral collection at a car park market style of event in Wagga Wagga (pron "wog-a" - and you only say it once), New South Wales. The "well into their 70's" couple selling from their vehicle's tailgate next to me spent the four days listening to the Harry Potter spoken books!!

I suspect a grandchild was getting a present soon after Easter - but not until Granma and Granpa has listened to it first!!

stales

In the same vein, the movie "Airplane" was released in Australia (and presumably elsewhere in the British Commonwealth) as "Flying High". I presume this was an attempt to prevent the creeping Americanisation of Oz (too bloody late I reckon!!). Ah, the thought police at the Censor's Office, gotta be seen to be doing their job I suppose.

stales

stales, I know a bit about what is and isn't likely to be a target for censorship in both our benighted countries, and whatever the reason for the name change, it wasn't the censors!

However, I will point out that I am now living in a country where the prime minister has been known to comment, in Parliament, on the unfairness of the imprisonment for fraud of a character in Coronation Street. Go figure.

So maybe it was purely political!

Have any adults hereabouts read the books?
I have and I love them.
Note me down as being in full agreement with wow's view. I was also quite impressed with the books' wordplay -- such as naming a street named "Diagon Alley".

xara was last seen comparing the USn text against the original. She can come back now as there is a list of the differences at http://www.hpgalleries.com/wordgallery1.htm

Bingley