4 ms·
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 (
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoPerhaps "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 agoFor 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 agoHere'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 agoI like how the answer to the whole discussion was "eh, let's remove the lion, that'll be fine".