Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

news.lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 326 posts

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#91

Post by Hayvok »

CalRobert wrote: post #5

There's a deeply frustrating infantilisation when something is localized in the same language. My kids and I love Bluey, an Australian show, but apparently the producers had to refuse to have it redone with US and UK accents to stop it happening. Never understood what the problem with having David Attenborough instead of Sigourney Weaver narrate Planet Earth was either.

Bluey runs on repeat in our (American) house and I'm sure I've seen each episode a half-dozen times now. I find the Australian accents and cultural references to be a charming and fundamental part of the show. The wildlife, the fauna, the building designs—it all screams "Australian" at you, so hearing a bunch of American accents in that setting would be jarring and out-of-place.

The Aussie themes have even led to some history lessons in our house: a handful of episodes reference Australian soldiers (including Bluey's grandpa) which led to my kids asking what wars Australia fought in. Queue the (very) gentle introductions to WW1 and WW2, and the Pacific War specifically.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#92

Post by mrep »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #86
throwaway894345 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I’m an avid fan of all of the “Planet” series precisely because of Attenborough.

It's deeply lamentable that in this day and age one has to resort to throwaway accounts to express their fondness of Sir Attenborough.

? Are you referring to throwaway894345 who has been here for 4.5 years and has 12483 karma? Don't think that is an actual throwaway at this point.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#93

Post by bombcar »

Intermernet wrote: post #57
tallanvor wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, 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.

Perhaps "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

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#94

Post by bananabiscuit »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #80
pikminguy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you're right that analog watches are better tools that's not what Adams was saying. "We all know, really, that [analog clock face] is a lot more instantly meaningful to us than 15:39" which is just wrong. Plenty of people, myself included, get more instant meaning from a digital readout.

I don't think there's anything more inherently meaningful about a digital vs analog readout, or vice-versa. They're both highly abstract representations of time, it really just depends on what you're used to. That said, every single event on my calendar, and every single communication about time I have with other people is expressed as a written (or spoken) number, not as a position on a clock face. That makes digita…

Digital easier to read, but I personally think analog is easier to “feel”. I get a much more visceral sense of urgency when the minute hand approaches an anticipated position. And same goes for when the hour hand crawls downward to signal the end of the work day. Seeing it physically close the distance to the 6 o’clock position gives me a much better feel for how much of the day I have left than “3:24”. It really is like a pie chart in that sense.

At this point in my life I am definitely much more used to reading a digital clock so I don’t think you can attribute this to familiarity.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#95

Post by audunw »

joppy wrote: post #10
jawns wrote: post #7

His argument about digital watches did not age well. My kids have known how to understand a digital clock since they were toddlers, but even now, in elementary school, they require entire lesson units in school on telling time from a clock face. Beyond that, he argues that pie charts tell us more about the relationship between things than tables of numbers, and a clock face is "the world's most perfect pie chart." Bu…

Are you sure this is not just the amount of exposure to each type of clock? On the other hand, I’ve noticed that children who understand how to read only digital clocks are quite capable of answering what the time is (just read the numbers right off), but have trouble telling how many hours there are from 10am to 3pm.

> Are you sure this is not just the amount of exposure to each type of clock?

I have a large analog clock in our living room that I look at every other day or so. I still find that I instantly understood the digital watch, but with the analog watch example I had to actually stop and look carefully at it for a second.

If I had a analog wrist watch I used every day I'm sure I'd be equally good with both. But I really think it takes more time to get used to the analog version. At least in modern society when we have numbers all around us all the time anyway. I'm sure someone who's not literate would feel very differently.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#96

Post by Intermernet »

coldtea wrote: post #78
Intermernet wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're also (as far as I understand it) not actually continuous motion. They just have much smaller increments of movement than a single second.

It's still continuous, as even when fully ticking, it still goes from point a to b passing through all the in between points... well, up to planck length at least... Ticking just makes the motion jerky/abrupt, not discontinuous/discreet...

Ooh, alright, you win this one, but only on a technicality. I won't mention the fact that liquid crystals are also in a constant state of motion while under power ;-)

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#97

Post by quickthrower2 »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #90
bombcar wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me at least, for no real reason and perhaps because of British narration of documentaries, the British accent "by default" sounds more learned. Now I'm sure there's variations of British accents, but the ones we were exposed to as children seemed to coincide with "scientific" or other educational content.

> Now I'm sure there's variations of British accents That's an understatement.

or: Tats en oonderstatement.

or maybe: Thaaats and aaandastatement.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#98

Post by npteljes »

pikminguy wrote: post #25
eadmund wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His argument about digital watches did not age well. Didn't it? I think it remains true. Time is a continuum, not discrete; analogue watches demonstrate that, while digital ones do not. And yes, schools have to teach one how to use a clock, but at the end of the process one actually has enhanced one's understanding of time. Much like using a slide rule teaches one far more about numbers and maths than using a calcu…

Even if you're right that analog watches are better tools that's not what Adams was saying. "We all know, really, that [analog clock face] is a lot more instantly meaningful to us than 15:39" which is just wrong. Plenty of people, myself included, get more instant meaning from a digital readout.

Yeah, this instant meaning is something that's learned. I derive an instant meaning of the analogue clockface, and also from the digital.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#100

Post by Strs2FillMyDrms »

jimmaswell wrote: post #66
causi wrote: post #6

‘Disused lavatory’ has been changed to ‘unused lavatory’ and I’m not sure why. As an American it baffles me that an American editor would change the word disused but not the word lavatory. One other thing. I’d rather have characters say ‘What do you mean?’ than ‘Whadd’ya mean?’ Again baffling. Whadd'ya mean is an accent, not a word choice. Changing it in text is as ridiculous as writing 50 as "fifdy" when it's an Ame…

They have to make some minimum amount of changes to justify their job/importance. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9137736

When I was younger I thought it was a smart move to be deceiptive and fool people above my paygrade to make them feel important and or smart, to allow them their foolishness.

It is bad to do that as you just justify their behaviour, and allow them to keep behaving as such by giving them what they expect and want.

Maybe my attitude could land me some enemies and prevent me opportunities, but I decided not to continue that vicious cycle.

We need to surround ourselves with people we respect and respects us equally, somewhere were feedback is possible.

Not only for the better of our minds but also for the better of the things we produce.

Post reply on HN