Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione

[sistermagpie]

md: 
> It doesn't matter, Harry Potter is the brand and in the end you market
> "Harry Potter" not the subtitle. In the youth market especially the
> book-cover is more important than the title. The title was changed to the
> Sorcerer's Stone because they felt American's associated Philosopher's with
> one who studies philosophy. However, when you open the book and there's no
> mention of Sorcery, your reaction may be "why did they name it that?" 

Magpie:
I would think most people would open the book and see plenty of sorcery. They'd also see an item called the sorcerer's stone.

So the US publisher wanted the title and the cover art to both hit magic. There was no brand when the first book was published. They could have only been selling a single book. It wasn't a particularly good decision imo, but that's what it seems like they wanted to do. They know the youth market. It's their market. 

me:
> Yes, they chose Sorcerer's because they believed us ignorant American's
> would associate that with magic, with still doesn't explain why the more
> obvious "wizard's stone" was passed over, since the stone was made and used
> by wizards, not sorcerer's, who practiced magic, not sorcery, they picked a
> title of nonsensical nonsense.

Magpie:
JKR is the one who came up with sorcerer's stone so she presumably doesn't think it's nonsensical. Neither do I--what's nonsensical about it? It's the name of the object Voldemort's looking for in the American edition. What's the big difference between a sorcerer and a wizard? I think sorcerer's stone sounds better, personally, than wizard's stone. So of those two choices I think JKR (in this case) made the right choice. Somebody looking up "Deathly Hallows" wouldn't have found anything either. It didn't need to be based on a real thing, it's just that in the case of the first book it was.

-m