Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione

[sistermagpie]

> Miles
> Your assumption is, that the title of a book should make clear what kind of 
> book it is, right? Or at least you defend this idea concerning Philosopher's 
> Stone.

Magpie:
I'm not defending it as something that should have been done in this case, just saying that in this case the editor's stated intention was that he wanted the title to indicate that the book was about magic. I'm not at all making the case that every book (or any book) should be titled with a generic line that says what the book is about. 


Miles:
Would you consider it 
> appropriate to rename Fahrenheit 451 because it does not indicate what kind 
> of book it is? Or The Magic Mountain? Or Gone with the Wind? "The O'Hara 
> Drama - A Family in the Civil War" would have been much better ;).


Magpie:
Like I said, no, not at all! I think every book should have the best title for it. Sometimes that means giving people an idea of what kind of book it is in terms of subject matter. GwtW went through a lot of titles before they settled on what they considered the best one. If a publisher hadn't given thought to that they might never have arrived at that title.

I don't actually defend the title change as necessary or a particularly good idea. I just think an inordinate amount of fuss is made about it because the book is so popular. I don't get offended any time I notice a book or movie has a different title in the UK than it did in the US or vice versa. 

What I do defend is the idea that a good title is a good selling point--far more than things like assuming it's going to be shelved next to Marion Zimmer Bradley and Ray Bradbury (though the target audience for PS wouldn't have read those yet, I don't think) and that the word Philosopher isn't automatically repulsive.

Basically, I just don't think the idea that editors look at titles the way they do is a dirty secret or shameful in any way. The decision here wasn't that great but I think good decisions have been made using the same process in the past and will be again in the future.

-m