Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione

[dumbledore11214]

Alla:
>
> Right, it could have been, but again my sticking point is that author had
enough faith in young kids' ability to know what it is AND make a right
connection. I mean it is not like she wrote with different ages in mind for
British kids before book sold in the USA. I wish American publishers had as much
faith and not ask her to change title. Of course she just wanted badly to sell
her first book, it however did sell just as well with original title, no?

Magpie:
Or not. I mean, JKR probably wasn't naming the book with the same marketing
ideas in mind. She sold the book on the ms, not on the title.

Alla:

I am sorry, I do not quite understand what you are saying here, or maybe I was unclear upthread. Of course JKR probably was not naming the book with the same marketing ideas in mind. My point is that I do not *like* the marketing idea that American publishers came up with that's all. I think it is insulting, even if their intentions were to get more readers, I thought we agree that the obvious part of it is the assumption that kids do not know what philosopher stone is and even those who may know will not make this connection.

I mean it is obvious to me that author preferred her original title, since she did not change it for Britain. I was also trying to say that I totally do not blame new writer who just wants for her book to sell if she went along and changed title for Americans, I just think that the fact that she did NOT change title for British kids speaks loud and clear about what her preferences are.

I think what I am also saying I feel that American publishers here intruded on author's territory, that they had no right to make the creative decision like that. I mean, I know they did have that right, but I am just saying that this feels obnoxious to me if that makes sense.

Of course she did not sell the book on title, we are discussing the publishers strategies though, right? They were going to make title to be first catching point and they felt that the one that author chose was wrong, not catchy enough, or whatever. I am just saying that I wish they would not do that.

Oh and to go back to the beginning, you said that you heard rumors, right that the title was changed for the reasons you stated? So if those are just rumors it is quite possible that title was changed because they thought that American kids will not even know what Philosopher stone is? Or do you know for sure? Not that I think it matters much, because I think these two reasons are similar, since underlying assumption IMO is pretty much the same, but I am curious.

Magpie:
Obviously it sold just fine as PS in the UK, but then, the actual sales were so
crazy that the title wound up being completely irrelevant. There really was no
reason to change it. But if I imagine the book not having those crazy sales,
even if I prefer the Philosopher's Stone title, I wouldn't think it was
ridiculous to want to make the title more obvious just in case it could get a
few more readers. The people selling the thing probably wouldn't stand on an
intellectual principle even if the author might.

Alla:

But that's my thing. Whether or not the actual sales would have been so crazy, what I dislike is the fact that they decided that the title will be more obvious *their way*. I mean, I know the book sold a lot with word of the mouth, however before word of the mouth started to spread, kids had to pick it up. How do we know that British kids did not initially pick it up at least in part because they found the Philosopher stone title to be catchy, fun, mysterious, etc? How do we know that this title was not perfectly marketable?

I think I view the request from the author to change the title as too much of being an author as well, if that makes sense and that annoys me.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
Jaws is far more fitting because it gets to the more primitive, gut of the story
You're not afraid of the fancier word that means something in the deep, you're
afraid of being eaten by the big teeth. It's the same thinking that drove John
Williams to write the awesome theme music. When Spielberg first heard it he
said, "Are you kidding me? Two notes?" And Williams was like, yeah, because it's
that primitive and single minded!

So yeah, for that title I think Jaws was genius. Very often in writing the
simpler word is better.


Alla:

Ah, please disregard my previous reply, I thought there are at least some references , some allusions to Leviafan in the book, if not than sure, Jaws is better for primitive horror, etc.

Author did well then, but again *author* did that, right? To me it is completely different.

Magpie:
Not that this has anything to do with HP where the only real advantage of
Sorcerer is maybe the alliteration, of course. It's a whole different set of
issues. Just wanted to say that sometimes the simpler word is the correct
choice, even if fewer people know the longer word.

Alla:

Sure, but that was author's choice. As I wrote above, I know what JKR's first choice of the title was and I do dislike that because of American publishers request she was forced to go with her second choice and I do dislike what it implies about what American kids know and don't know.

JMO,

Alla