Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the only Harry Potter book to have been published in the States under a different name. It wouldn't be the only decision they made to help with the marketing: for instance, the original publishers used J.K. Rowling's initials rather than her full name for fear young boys wouldn't read a book written by a woman. Honestly I don't think that's going to help matters at all, not even giving boys the chance to prove they would read a book written by a woman, but I digress... It's also not the only time this particular book's name was changed: in French, for example, it's called Harry Potter à l'École des Sorciers, or “Harry Potter at the Wizard's School”. It seems a lot of people didn't like that title “Philosopher's Stone”... But the big difference here is, even if the French title isn't a direct translation of the English one, the book still is about, well, Harry Potter at a wizard's school. No matter what you might think about them altering the title, it still fits with the story the book sets out to tell.
But if you suddenly claim the book is about Harry and friends finding out about and trying to protect a “sorcerer's stone”, it's a whole other story. The Philosopher's Stone is a real magical concept, something J.K. Rowling didn't make up any more than she made up dragons or unicorns or trolls or magic wands. The Philosopher's Stone was the ultimate goal of alchemists dating back at least as far as the 13th century. It was indeed supposed to (among other things) alter the makeup of common metals, enabling them to turn into precious ones like gold, and to produce the elixir of life which would heal all illnesses and grant immortality. The first Harry Potter book even has a passage where Hermione reads from a book which states: “The ancient study of alchemy is concerned with making the Philosopher's Stone, a legendary substance with astonishing powers.” Nicolas Flamel was a real person, a French scribe who lived in the fourteenth century and was rumoured, some centuries after his death, to have been an alchemist who discovered a Philosopher's Stone. Harry Potter was not the first book to mention him as an alchemist who might have succeeded at this quest.
So if you change not only the title of the book, but the name given to this magical item, it suddenly erases all that long, rich history and becomes meaningless. There's no such thing as a sorcerer's stone that can transform any metal into gold and produce the elixir of life, not in our world or in any known fictional one. And yes, of course you can invent new magical items for your own magic system, and of course you can base them off of existing ones – but we all know that's not what was happening here. No one was inventing a new and interesting magical item known as the “sorcerer's stone” modelled after the Philosopher's Stone, out of creativity and a desire to expand on existing magical lore. No one was adding an interesting piece of trivia to the worldbuilding by deciding that modern-day wizards have a new name for the Philosopher's Stone of medieval times. J.K. Rowling meant to use an existing piece of magic that had been known since the late Middle Ages and possibly even before that. The publishers made the name change, to the best of my knowledge, for fear the American audience would not know what a philosopher is and would then not want to pick up the book. Although some have said it was also because the book is about magic and not wise people who think about the deep mysteries of life. The publishers sound kind of ignorant to me, if they want to completely ignore what the Philosopher's Stone is really all about and assume they can just change the name of an object with so much history behind it and it won't make any difference at all. As a side note, they also changed much of the British dialect for the American Harry Potter editions, probably making it that much harder for younger readers to appreciate how different people from around the world live and speak in different ways. It was through reading books written and taking place in England that I learned “Mum” was the British version of “Mom” and “bonnet” and “boot” were for parts of a car – it took me a few stories to figure all that out, but without the proper British dialect in those stories, I never would have learned, or been exposed to a way of life different from my own. I feel like the last thing we want to do is raise children with the idea that everyone in the world talks and thinks the same way they do, and if they don't it's impossible to relate to them.
Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I first started reading Harry Potter I didn't even think about what the title was supposed to mean. I knew the series was supposed to be about a boy wizard at a magic school and that tons of people loved the story, and I basically just accepted “the Philosopher's Stone” as what the first book happened to be called. It was very much one of those situations where you just “hear” a word, without thinking about what it means. I actually remember being about three-quarters of the way through the book before it suddenly hit me that the book was called “the Philosopher's Stone” and I had no idea why, prompting me to figure out what was in the mysterious grubby package just before that surprise was revealed.
The really strange thing about all this is that I have seen some fans – I'm guessing the American Harry Potter fans who are used to using the alternate name – getting offended whenever anyone suggests that calling the Stone “Sorcerer's” is dumbing it down. Maybe they think that in saying the change is dumb, the fans who use the alternate name are being called dumb. Maybe some of the fans who advocate for only using “Philosopher's” have actually implied that, which if they have is a major case of taking out your frustration on the wrong target. And in that case I entirely understand your feeling the need to defend yourself, and from there the need to defend the entire practise. But I think I can speak for most fans who think it's dumb to simplify the name when I say we aren't calling you dumb, American readers. It's the American publishers who made the change in the first place that we take issue with, and... if anything, they're the ones calling you dumb. After all, what are they saying if not that they think you're too dumb to understand what a philosopher is? Or not sophisticated enough to take a book off the shelf if you see a long word like “Philosopher's” on the cover? Or unable to figure out from other marketing tactics, such as the cover art and all the existing hype around it, that this is a book about a boy going to a magic school? And aren't they denying you the chance to be introduced to a new and interesting magical concept, denying you the chance to expand your sphere of knowledge and learn something potentially fascinating, just because it might be unfamiliar to you now? Imagine going through life thinking alchemy was concerned with making the “sorcerer's stone”, all because the American publishers didn't trust your intelligence!
Now, I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I do want to say that when I strongly advocate for only the original book title to be used, I am not insulting you, American fans. Actually, I'm saying I think you're being insulted if anything – you and everyone who ever had anything to do with a Philosopher's Stone, right down to Nicolas Flamel if he ever was an alchemist. And I'm saying the whole idea of changing the name of an existing concept for the sole reason of being afraid it won't be understood and thus won't sell is a ridiculous, and very likely unfounded, way of thinking. It feels very much like catering to the lowest common denominator, rather than allowing readers to rise to the challenge and learn and grow. If you wanted you could advocate right along with us, for your right to read the books in the exact way they were originally meant to be. The people promoting the books should trust you to be smart enough to figure out the unfamiliar terms, or to look them up, or to make a guess and then go on with the story, without having anything dumbed down for you. I know that I do.
Comments