British meaning?

[davewitley]

I, David, wrote:
> 
> "...As I recall, the Scholastic were concerned, not so much with 
the ability of audiences to understand or enjoy the book, as with 
their initial reaction on seeing the cover.... and were considering
> how the title would affect the decision someone would make, on
> picking up the book in a store for the first time. They may very
> well have been right, as far as the USA was concerned."

Paula:

> I agree with you, David.  Let's face it, we Americans have more 
than a 50 year history of all day television, mass media, and 
dramatic advertising.  A "scholarly" word like philosopher isn't 
nearly as strong as an "action" work like sorcerer.

I should just clarify - I didn't intend my remarks as a slur on the 
intelligence or knowledge of American audiences.  I think that, in 
this case at least, British audiences are probably essentially the 
same.

We all have to choose what to read, and, even taking account of the 
recommendations of friends and professional critics (actually I 
rarely read book reviews), we often *are* in the situation of having 
to judge a book by its cover.  Bloomsbury made a judgement call to 
let (what I assume is) JKR's original title stand, and Scholastic 
made one to change it.  In the event, it probably didn't matter, but 
I can't say if it was a bad decision at the time.

David