I've always been annoyed they replaced "Philosopher's Stone" with "Sorcerer's Stone" in the title of the Harry Potter novel, for American consumption. It feels kinda of insulting, frankly.
I recently and randomly picked up a Japanese book, 1Q84. I was enjoying it quite a bit, when I started thinking about the cultural references it contained - it has numerous references to Western classical music and Sean Connery. It worried me that they might have actually replaced Japanese music and actors with western "equivalents". But of course, there has been a great deal of cultural cross pollination, so it is no more unusual for a Japanese person to be aware of Sean Connery or The Brothers Grimm than it is for me. I didn't want to spoil the book by reading reviews before I read the book itself, but I skimmed enough to gather the Sean Connery part, at least, seems to be original source material.
Part of the attraction in reading a book like that is the fact that it is a Japanese book. It feels demeaning to have take that away because they worry the foreigness of it will be disturbing or unwelcomed by American readers.
I think the attitude that Japanese popular culture should ideally be completely rewritten for overseas release (a la Godzilla) is still common within Japan itself, but thankfully US publishers and film distributors have mostly realized audiences don't want that. It's still enough of an issue that you're right to be cautious, though 1Q84 is a big enough title that the translation would be heavily scrutinized. A lot of Western culture has become so permeated into Japan that it's common to see: the Brothers Grimm are so popular with Japanese SF authors that I think some Western sticklers for originality would despair at how often those stories are referenced and adapted.
Murakami it's a special case: It's a Japanese feeling itself like an "alien" because he writes novels about being a mix between Japan's tradition and lots of Western influences.
The Japanese don't care much for Roland Emmerich's 1997 Godzilla. Because the rights to the character are owned by Toei, that character occasionally appears as a joke in Japanese Godzilla films as "Zilla" (because he is pathetic and not a god).
The current Western Godzilla from 2024 on fared better with Japanese audiences, but they consider him too fat or something.
Yes, and also I was thinking more of how executives think about it rather than audiences. Sometimes the reason for popular Japanese films not making it to the West (or not making it until many years later) is because the Japanese rightsholders are holding out for funding to make an alternative cut for overseas audiences and get a wider theatrical release.
It loses a lot of connotation, too. Philosopher's implies abstract, referring to the stone's elusive, impossible nature: having never been discovered, only theorized.
In a story where everyone is a sorcerer, it dumbs that down a lot. It could be one of their kidney stones for all it matters.
The American version is more accurate and arguably better - I like to think the title was changed for our heightened intelligence and not the opposite.
The myth of the Philosopher's Stone is not widely known outside the UK. Without correct context the title is dead boring and doesn't sound like it has anything to do with magic.
Imagine picking up a book called "John Smith and the Architect's Compass" and having someone tell you the title makes sense because there is a legend about an ancient cult who guards a a device that can locate the holy grail.
It's pretty widely known at least in Western Europe. I knew it from primary school history class in the Netherlands (long before the first Harry Potter book was published). Similar for German and French colleagues.
Not sure why the title should be changed to sound like it has something to do with magic. For people who are aware of the legend, the original title would mostly bring up associations with alchemy.
the myth is explained in the book. the only difference between 'philosopher's stone' and 'sorcerer's stone' is that the former provides a connection to a real myth.
Philosopher is an overloaded term. For someone who doesn't know the myth the definition is squarely non-magical. For someone browsing a bookstore the magical meaning is missing. It just sounds dry and boring. That doesn't help the book get sold.
At the time she was an unknown author with a single kids book. I think changing the title to make the theme more obvious was justifiable. Changing the term throughout the book was unnecessary.
Personally, I grew up with the Philosopher's Stone and always wondered why she chose that name. It was only years later when I learned it was a legend outside the books did it make sense. The book does explain the meaning in the context of the novel, but not the wider cultural significance. That dampens the impact (just like how the Crystal Skull is not nearly as impactful as the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones).
Aside from the fact that there can be nothing more 'accurate' in fiction than the Author's own words ... the 'Philosopher's Stone' has mythological reference that 'Sorcerer's Stone' obviously doesn't.
And using American words for 'the toilet' that the characters may not have used themselves, is not 'more accurate'.
And it mostly has little to do with intelligence.
As a reminder to everyone - America is a very big place, with a lot of different people, often with different roots, migration status etc..
It's feasible kids from New England would adapt to the English version without any fuss, but beyond that, a lot of this vernacular would just be 'very foreign'. We're talking about kids with limited vocabulary to start with, not the guy with an 'English Accent' in the documentary.
They didn't just change the title from Philosopher's Stone. It was lightly edited throughout to nix Briticisms. You'd think they were translating it from the Ancient Greek edition and wanted to smooth over the culture gap. (A real translation, by the way!)
All the more amusingly (or insultingly?) the Canadian release was the UK edition. Canadian English is much, much closer to American than British in its spoken form, so most of the worries about Briticisms would apply to Canadian children. Somehow we managed to read it, despite the strange and foreign speech and ideas.
Canadian English is closer to American English, but Canadians (at least up until recently) 'get' Britishisms, or at least, the tone if not all of the specific vocabulary, to a great extent.
Edit: excluding Quebec where cultural references are completely different.
As an American that grew up reading Brian Jacques and Terry Pratchett, I don't think there's any difficulty in understanding Britishisms, even at a very young age. Even unbowdlerized Shakespeare isn't very difficult, it's mostly phonetically similar and the speech patterns are still present.
Your personal experience is likely not representative of 'America'.
America is a vast, vast place with very large numbers of people who have no cultural connection to 'English' culture. I mean - because America is an English colony, everyone does to some extent, but it's much deeper in some places (and groups) than others. Even those with continental European background, the further S. and E. you go, the less the resonance. And of course people with European backgrounds ... that's only part of America. Huge swaths of kids speak a language other than English at home, there's going to be no direct resonance with an 'Alternative English' (i.e. beyond American) in those cases.
Also, most children do not have any resonance with anything but their immediate culture - it takes a lot to get kinds beyond what's on TV, and/or what's in their immediate family environment.
I have utterly no idea why my OP is being downvoted. Usually, going against the grain on something will get you downvoted, or saying something silly but I can't fathom either this case.
I have no cultural or genetic connection to England or western Europe outside of growing up in an English speaking country. Might have helped that I wasn't allowed to watch TV as a child though!
According to Pullman that one wasn't really about an attempt at cultural adaptation, the title had been in flux and the US publisher had taken an early name for the upcoming series, "The Golden Compasses", and run with it before he settled on Northern Lights.
Not only did the American editors change the title, but the device in question – the alethiometer, which is not a compass – is made of brass not gold in the original text. The US editors basically changed it to gold to fit their created title.
1Q84's author, Haruki Murakami, is a notable fan of both jazz and (Western) classical music. And Connery is well known in Japan, at least partly because his Bond classic You Only Live Twice was set there.
Haruki Murakami is particular that way. Western culture references are the reason he gets "exported" so much. But that cultural cross pollination isn't as ubiquitous as one would think.
I wonder if the western cultural references are part of the attraction to Japanese readers, the same way I am attracted to reading a book with a Japanese setting.
He used to be an English-to-Japanese translator, so his books tend to read like they were translated from English. That might be another reason they're so popular outside the country.
In fact they're so popular that everyone seems to have the idea he's going to get a Nobel Prize someday, but I don't see why they'd give a prize to a novelist who only writes "women are so mysterious, truly men will never understand them" novels like him.
I remember learning about the title change, and the reason, and thinking “I know what a philosophers stone is…” because I’d come across it in my nerdy reading somewhere. I didn’t think American children would have had a problem with it. I’m kind of offended that publishers, television and movie producers, record executives, etc keep pulling this kind of garbage. We aren’t stupid, and I’m willing to bet that more often than not people are willing rise to the intelligence of a work rather than shy away from it.
> It worried me that they might have actually replaced Japanese music and actors with western "equivalents".
There's a weird inverse to this in the manga/anime Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. Many of the characters and their special abilities are named after well known American bands and songs (e.g. Steely Dan, Killer Queen, Crazy Diamond). But when localized, many have been censored due to potential rights issues. So Killer Queen becomes Deadly Queen, which is kind of sad since the references make me appreciate the cultural cross pollination you mentioned.
Murakami's work is chock full of western media references. It's like his _thing_. At first I found it lazy and pretentious à la Sorkin, but with some distance I see it is generally pretty well done, so credit where credit is due I suppose. He also writes in a much more western style than most Japanese literary greats, so it works on that level as well.
If you want more _Japanese_ Japanese literature, try Kawabata or Akutagawa. Though understanding the various cultural references is going to be a whole endeavor if you're not already familiar.
Agree. I remember very fondly an English translation of Gunter Grass' "Dog Years" for how German the novel felt. A great translation gives the reader the original's feel and impression. Too many editions/translations pander to the lowest factor and try to keep the even the dumbest reader comfortable!
Wait, it's disrespectful to the reader if they change the wording so that it's a pun in both languages? Isn't that like... the best possible translation?
I recently and randomly picked up a Japanese book, 1Q84. I was enjoying it quite a bit, when I started thinking about the cultural references it contained - it has numerous references to Western classical music and Sean Connery. It worried me that they might have actually replaced Japanese music and actors with western "equivalents". But of course, there has been a great deal of cultural cross pollination, so it is no more unusual for a Japanese person to be aware of Sean Connery or The Brothers Grimm than it is for me. I didn't want to spoil the book by reading reviews before I read the book itself, but I skimmed enough to gather the Sean Connery part, at least, seems to be original source material.
Part of the attraction in reading a book like that is the fact that it is a Japanese book. It feels demeaning to have take that away because they worry the foreigness of it will be disturbing or unwelcomed by American readers.