Re: [mythsoc] Harry Potter in the Original English?
- I have to agree that the changing of "philosopher's stone" in the title and
throughout the text, a term with specific resonance, implications and
history, into "sorcerer's stone" is indeed major.
As the clock struck 10:45 AM 8/10/2000 -0400, WendellWag@... took pen
in hand and wrote:
>In a message dated 8/10/00 10:26:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Stolzi@...--
><< But that's the one that is major dumbing-down! >>
>One word in the title is a "major" dumbing-dumb? Annoying and pointless,
>yes, but major?
James P. Robinson III jprobins@...
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with
an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given in writing.
>I read that the publisher thought that Americans wouldn't buy a book,So publishers may think, narrow-mindedly. I like to think that even
>especially for children, if it had "philosopher's" anything in the title.
>Alas! Probably too close to the truth.
Americans might find a phrase like "philosopher's stone" intriguing rather
than off-putting. I do, and certainly children are attracted to such
things, even if some adults are not. I first read about the Philosopher's
Stone in Flash comics in the 1960s, when DC were throwing all sorts of
education at its young audience without us realizing, and liked the sound
of the words as much as the concept.
Rowling's publishers, both of them I gather, of course also felt that no
boy would read a book by a female author, hence "J.K." rather than
"Joanne". It never bothered me as a young reader who wrote a book as long
as it was good, and there can be few male Harry Potter fans now who don't
know that Rowling is a woman.