[ SECRET POST #2548 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2548 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

REMINDER: For people who needed extra time to finish for the FS Secret Santa - today's the last day to get in your gifts! Gifts go out tomorrow!

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 032 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

No, "Philosopher's Stone" is the thing's NAME.

[raspberryrain]

No, that one is a mistake. "Philosopher's Stone" is the thing's name. Jo Rowling didn't make it up. It's called "The Philosopher's Stone" in all countries.

There is no difference between "philosopher" in UK English and in US English. It's not like "biscuit" or "jumper." "Philosopher" is the same thing in both countries, and "The Philosopher's Stone" is the same thing in both countries.

That's why changing that is so bizarre.

Re: No, "Philosopher's Stone" is the thing's NAME.

[nyxelestia]

I know that it's the thing's name. I'm just saying that even knowing that it has a formal name/is a proper noun, most American kids have no idea what it is, so changing the name to "Sorcerer's Stone" to make them more inclined to pick it is an understandable move. And if British kids are unfamiliar with it, too, then I'd say that picking Philosopher's Stone as a name in the first place is a questionable publishing decision as well.

I mean, as an author, I can understand why she dislikes the title change and would get so attached to "Philospher's Stone". It's just that from the perspective of an editor or publisher, I can also understand that they have to market the book and they want to go with a title that will make the most sense to their market demographic. Retroactively, it seems like a dumb move, but they had no idea it was going to be so popular - and such an international culture movement in its own right - when they picked up the book for American circulation in the first place.

Re: No, "Philosopher's Stone" is the thing's NAME.

[raspberryrain]

Do you agree that it's the author's call, and this was a case of editorial overreach?

Re: No, "Philosopher's Stone" is the thing's NAME.

[nyxelestia]

Not really. As an author, you give up a few things when you go into a contract with a publishing house, and you do so in exchange for more visibility and thus more profits. The only way an author can retain total control of their book is via self-publishing. Otherwise, publishers are going to be focused on maximizing book sales/profits, and sometimes elements of the book have to change a bit to benefit that goal.