Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione

[sistermagpie]

> Alla:

> 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.

Magpie:
She probably did. But only self-publishing is about the author's self-expression over all. The publisher is in the business of marketing and selling books so I can understand why they think they should have the right to make suggestions. Do you have a problem with editors editing the manuscript as well? 

Alla:
 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? 

Magpie:
That's the story from Arthur Levine's mouth. He's the one who suggested School of Magic.
 
> 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*. 

Magpie:
Well, the Philosopher's Stone is an object sought by real life alchemists, right? So I would say that Sorcerer is a more obvious link to wizardry. They wanted some reference to magic in the title. Nobody's trying to turn base metals into stone in the book, and there are no alchemists.


Alla:
How do we know that this title was not perfectly marketable?

Magpie:
We don't. Marketers just have to gamble, really. Just as they would have tried to market Trimalchio, Pansy and Anhedonia, but I'm not shedding any tears over the loss of those titles. (Not that Hollywood doesn't have a history of replacing good titles with bland ones--but writers don't have any say there.) Iirc, the studio planned a marketing campaign for Anhedonia embracing the fact that it would probably be the first time a lot of people were hearing the word. But I'm glad the studio kept asking him to consider a title change no matter how adamant he was at first.
 
Alla:
> 
> Author did well then, but again *author* did that, right? To me it is completely different.

Magpie:
I checked to make sure, and here's what actually happened afaik. Peter Benchley had a number of working titles, including The Great White and A Silence in the Water, but none of them seemed right. He asked his father for help and presented the editor with a lot of suggestions. The editor didn't like any of them. The editor suggested Jaws of the Leviathan (I was remembering this from an interview and must have remembered this part wrong). Peter Benchley pointed out that a Leviathan was a mammal. But he and the editor could both agree on the word Jaws. The editor said "At least it's short." Benchley told the title to his father, who said "What does it mean?" And Peter said "I have no idea, but at least it's short."

So I'd say the editor seemed to play a bigger part in the title than the author, though the author had some say, just as JKR had a say in Sorcerer's Stone. I wouldn't consider the editor to be overstepping anything there. He earned his pay well that day. I don't consider a title being the first one or even any one that the author came up with reason alone for putting it on the book.

-m