JK Rowling

[jbean7916]

Sorry to possibly revive a dead-post ... but I saw this and got a good kick out of it.

But in my opinion, this has to be of rumor, JK Rowling had no knowledge of snakes and probably didn't care. But more importantly then that the original quote starting this rumor could not have even come from jk herself.

http://thechive.com/2011/11/16/daily...ump-dar-36-14/

^^ see up in the original post, jk says that Nagini is the original snake from the first book which she calls "the philosophers stone"
... I'm no Harry Potter nerd but ... isn't the first book "the sorcerer's stone?

if JK Rowling is messing up the titles to her own books ... well ...

2 titles in different countries. Sorcerers stone in the US and Philosophers stone everywhere else I think

sent from my EVO

[Slashmaster]

It was first published in the UK as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" but the US publishers thought Americans were too stupid to know "Philosopher's Stone" refers to magic, so they made it "sorcerer's."

[lilbit]

the snake in the first movie was not Nagini, just a random snake at the zoo.

[ajpolicastro]

hmm well that makes me feel quite ignorant for not figuring that actually =[ lol sorry!

[mainbutter]

Yeah I don't think I've ever heard JK Rowling refer to the first book in it's US title.. only as "The Philosopher's Stone".

Just an FYI, the idea of the "philosopher's stone" is just as old as the ideas of unicorns, dragons, and krakens. JK Rowling did not invent the idea of a stone that can turn lead into gold and create a life-giving elixer. Just like the werewolves and hippogriffs introduced to us in book three, the dragon from book one, magic wands, the association of wizards and owls, and any number of other aspects of the magical world she created, she did not invent those ideas, but rather she built upon centuries of mythology that we can all relate to and are comfortable with in varying degrees.

Not only that, but there really lived a "Nicolas Flamel" who lived some six hundred or so years ago, which the Harry Potter character is based upon.

For anyone who is a fan of Harry Potter, I highly recommend getting your hands of copies of the BRITISH prints. These are how the books were originally written and edited, and how (IMO) they should be read. Don't forget that JK Rowling is a Brit, not an American, and her words have been changed when printed in the US to be better marketed to an American audience.

[Melody]

i know exactly what youre talking about! it always bothered me...

[kitedemon]

I live in Canada and I was kinda stunned when on a trip to the states found the books were re worked for the US market. If I lived in the US I'd be mildly offended that the american publishers felt that it needed to be 'translated' into 'American' that readers could not figure out that a box placed in the boot of the car was in the trunk of the car.

[ShamelessAardvark]

You guys, I think you're missing the big picture. Nagini. Is a magical serpent. Magical. She is definitely based off a retic, but in the world of Harry Potter, she's not just any retic. She's probably a different, magical species all together.

So don't get too upset that she's a venomous python, she's a magical creature! She can be whatever her creator wants her to be. C:

[Melody]

You guys, I think you're missing the big picture. Nagini. Is a magical serpent. Magical. She is definitely based off a retic, but in the world of Harry Potter, she's not just any retic. She's probably a different, magical species all together.

So don't get too upset that she's a venomous python, she's a magical creature! She can be whatever her creator wants her to be. C:

thats very true! lol i didnt think of it that way..