Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione

[Carol]

Alla:
> > 
> > I do understand what you are saying Magpie about wanting to grab right audience and fast, but still I think I have to agree with Miles again :-)
> > 
> > I mean, the reason why they would want to grab the right audience with changing the word, the underlying assumption is that the audience may not know the definition, right?
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old  would automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the cover and say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy who can do magic" is the same as assuming they're stupid.
> 
> Sure it might imply thinking more highly of their intelligence if you assume they'll not only make the connection to alchemy and then make the second connection to wizards and sorcery, but you might lose a lot of intelligent kids who don't make the right connection. Even a kid who knows what the Philosopher Stone is wouldn't necessarily connect it with Wizardry, since that's an artificial connection. Just by title I'd probably assume it was a mystery story.
> 
> Yeah, the title is totally more in-your-face, writing MAGIC in big letters on the title, but if HP hadn't been a huge sensation I wouldn't be surprised if that led to more book sales by putting the selling point in the title rather than the Maguffin. <snip>

Carol responds:
I more or less agree with Magpie though I want to point out that the education children receive has little relation to their intelligence and a great deal to do with their culture. I'm willing to bet that most American third and fourth graders (in contrast to those in European countries) have not been exposed to the concept of the Philosopher's Stone, either because teachers think it's too advanced for them (or insufficiently interesting to them) or, more likely, because American education has other priorities, and what history and science is taught in those early grades is very practical (science) and American-oriented (history). When I was in fourth grade, for example, I learned about inclined planes and other simple machines (yawn!), the solar system (exciting new stuff for me in those days), and the Basic Seven food groups (giving away my age here). I never heard of a Philosopher's Stone until seventh grade, in or out of school, and I did a *lot* of recreational reading. These days, I'd be surprised if American kids are exposed to the concept before high school.

So it's partly a cultural thing--not that kids are stupid (though the schools do seem to thing that they can't learn without being entertained), but that the publisher's simply didn't expect kids of that age to be familiar with--or interested in--the concept. "Sorcerer's Stone," OTOH, is nicely alliterative and suggests (obviously) sorcery--magic, fantasy, etc., sa opposed to philosophy, which few nine-year-old that I've encountered are interested in even if they've heard of it. However unfortunate it might be with regard to medieval alchemy and Nicholas Flamel (I doubt that many young readers from any country realized that he wasn't as imaginary as Grindelwald and Dumbledore), if it caught their attention and interested them in the books, it served and more than served its purpose. 

Anyway, the title doesn't insult anyone's intelligence, IMO. It merely reflects an accurate view of the educational level and interests of the average American third or fourth grader, again, IMO.

And Hollywood had nothing to do with it. WB just gave the American version of the film the same title as the American version of the book.

Carol, not "fussed" by this particular alteration, which for all we know, may have attracted a large number of children who would not have read the book otherwise