5 ms·

e.g., Philosopher's stone -> sorcerer's stone. Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too, which is another example of the same weird parochial

e.g., Philosopher's stone -> sorcerer's stone. Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too, which is another example of the same weird parochialism of the U.S. publishing industry as it was. My probably unpopular opinion is that it's a reflection of a more general, largely un-self-aware New York City parochialism, which was where most of the big publishing firms were based, at least until the last decade or so.

tallanvor 4y ago
Eh, it's something people sort of laugh about now, but in 1998 it was probably the right choice to change it to sorcerer. It made it much clearer to children (and adults, to be honest), that it was a book about magic. And 1998 was still a time when many families didn't have internet access, so you were more likely to run into it at the bookstore or library, so the title needed to be more descriptive.
- Intermernet 4y ago
  Yeah, but it sold just fine with the original title in all other markets. If I were from the US I'd be offended that the publishers decided to dumb it down. That's literally an insult to the society.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Perhaps "philosopher's stone" wouldn't have triggered such a loud backlash - which was needed to spur sales even further. I doubt many people even know (or care) about the slight differences. As to covers, even Tolkien was complaining about Americanization decades ago: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_277 http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_277
    - revertmean 4y ago
      For anyone wondering what that bizarre cover might look like: https://www.mytolkienbooks.com/tolkien-books/middle-earth/the-hobbit/the-hobbit-ballantine-2.jpg https://www.mytolkienbooks.com/tolkien-books/middle-earth/th... I can't find the lion...
      - underwires 4y ago
        Here's a variation with the lion, they removed it after his complaints https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IZy3SQYu8bQ/T3ByGLMH9BI/AAAAAAAAEW0/INcyKPCRGtU/s640/DSC_0134.JPG https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IZy3SQYu8bQ/T3ByGLMH9BI/AAAAAAAAE...
        bombcar 4y ago
        I like how the answer to the whole discussion was "eh, let's remove the lion, that'll be fine".
cjmb 4y ago
The book cover thing is really insane, too. It's gotten a little better over the last decade, but the early 2000s period was crazy (source: moved from UK to USA at that time). It's interesting that your pet theory is New York City parochialism. Mine is gerontocracy: the (mostly New York based) publishers of SF & Fantasy have been run by the same aristocracy for ~70 years. And those folks cut their teeth on serialized pulp fiction, comic books, and magazines, which culminated in a certain art style that (imo) peaked in the 1980s. If you browse wikipedia, you will see that many, many, many roads lead back to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_Books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_Books Outside of the US market, newer publishing shops were started & run by younger folks with more modern artistic visions.
nemo44x 4y ago
> Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too Same with video games back in the day. The Japanese versions had much cooler box art than the Western ones. But they were often abandoned because they used a style that wasn't as popular in the West.
em500 4y ago
The Harry Potter book cover art change was not nearly as bad as what they did to video game box art. Original (Japan): https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/5b/d9/225bd9e4fda8aee8ed0ca8b3c1e42499.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/5b/d9/225bd9e4fda8aee8ed0c... Americanized: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/351430897872-0-1/s-l1000.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/351430897872-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  The Americanized one is much cooler to me. I would have gone for that as a kid. The Japanese one is washed out and the art kinda looks amateur and crayola. I assumed that was the one you were complaining about because it minimizes the demon-looking Blanka and just looks boring. Kinda like how my mom (US) wouldn't buy me Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans because the large green orc on the cover looked like a demon, and you just couldn't be doing that in the 90s with all the stories of children worshipping Satan coming out on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
wyclif 4y ago
Cover and book jacket art was better for all books, because what happened is that (especially in the US) instead of letting art directors have creative freedom, they started focus grouping it relentlessly. This, unsurprisingly, creates bland art.
kjeetgill 4y ago
This whole thread seems to be in agreement, but I don't personally know anyone who didn't think the UK covers we're absolutely terrible. Especially the first book. My impression when I first saw it was. It looks like it was done by a talented middle schooler for a community center assignment. Something to pin on a wall with a blue ribbon. Granted I was in elementary at the time I think you all in this thread (and I) are under appreciating how much of that opinion is just pure nostalgia.

tallanvor 4y ago

Eh, it's something people sort of laugh about now, but in 1998 it was probably the right choice to change it to sorcerer. It made it much clearer to children (and adults, to be honest), that it was a book about magic. And 1998 was still a time when many families didn't have internet access, so you were more likely to run into it at the bookstore or library, so the title needed to be more descriptive.

Intermernet 4y ago
Yeah, but it sold just fine with the original title in all other markets. If I were from the US I'd be offended that the publishers decided to dumb it down. That's literally an insult to the society.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Perhaps "philosopher's stone" wouldn't have triggered such a loud backlash - which was needed to spur sales even further. I doubt many people even know (or care) about the slight differences. As to covers, even Tolkien was complaining about Americanization decades ago: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_277 http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_277
  - revertmean 4y ago
    For anyone wondering what that bizarre cover might look like: https://www.mytolkienbooks.com/tolkien-books/middle-earth/the-hobbit/the-hobbit-ballantine-2.jpg https://www.mytolkienbooks.com/tolkien-books/middle-earth/th... I can't find the lion...
    - underwires 4y ago
      Here's a variation with the lion, they removed it after his complaints https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IZy3SQYu8bQ/T3ByGLMH9BI/AAAAAAAAEW0/INcyKPCRGtU/s640/DSC_0134.JPG https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IZy3SQYu8bQ/T3ByGLMH9BI/AAAAAAAAE...
      - bombcar 4y ago
        I like how the answer to the whole discussion was "eh, let's remove the lion, that'll be fine".

cjmb 4y ago

The book cover thing is really insane, too. It's gotten a little better over the last decade, but the early 2000s period was crazy (source: moved from UK to USA at that time). It's interesting that your pet theory is New York City parochialism. Mine is gerontocracy: the (mostly New York based) publishers of SF & Fantasy have been run by the same aristocracy for ~70 years. And those folks cut their teeth on serialized pulp fiction, comic books, and magazines, which culminated in a certain art style that (imo) peaked in the 1980s. If you browse wikipedia, you will see that many, many, many roads lead back to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_Books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_Books Outside of the US market, newer publishing shops were started & run by younger folks with more modern artistic visions.

nemo44x 4y ago

> Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too Same with video games back in the day. The Japanese versions had much cooler box art than the Western ones. But they were often abandoned because they used a style that wasn't as popular in the West.

em500 4y ago

The Harry Potter book cover art change was not nearly as bad as what they did to video game box art. Original (Japan): https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/5b/d9/225bd9e4fda8aee8ed0ca8b3c1e42499.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/5b/d9/225bd9e4fda8aee8ed0c... Americanized: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/351430897872-0-1/s-l1000.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/351430897872-0-1/s-l1000.jpg

hombre_fatal 4y ago
The Americanized one is much cooler to me. I would have gone for that as a kid. The Japanese one is washed out and the art kinda looks amateur and crayola. I assumed that was the one you were complaining about because it minimizes the demon-looking Blanka and just looks boring. Kinda like how my mom (US) wouldn't buy me Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans because the large green orc on the cover looked like a demon, and you just couldn't be doing that in the 90s with all the stories of children worshipping Satan coming out on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

wyclif 4y ago

Cover and book jacket art was better for all books, because what happened is that (especially in the US) instead of letting art directors have creative freedom, they started focus grouping it relentlessly. This, unsurprisingly, creates bland art.

kjeetgill 4y ago

This whole thread seems to be in agreement, but I don't personally know anyone who didn't think the UK covers we're absolutely terrible. Especially the first book. My impression when I first saw it was. It looks like it was done by a talented middle schooler for a community center assignment. Something to pin on a wall with a blue ribbon. Granted I was in elementary at the time I think you all in this thread (and I) are under appreciating how much of that opinion is just pure nostalgia.