Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)(news.lettersofnote.com)
news.lettersofnote.com
Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)
https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/please-dont-let-anyone-americanise
325 comments
> 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 calculator.
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 calculator.
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.
> Plenty of people, myself included, get more instant meaning from a digital readout.
More from outside knowledge than from the digital readout itself. There's no way to tell from a digital readout there are 60 minutes in an hour or seconds in a minute, or that there's a 12-hour period that means something (and no hints to guess.) There's no evidence that the time represented on a digital readout changes at a constant rate or is sequential and doesn't jump around or go faster sometimes and slower others. Everything on an analog clockface is just there.
If you found an alien digital clock written in alien language, it would take you forever to figure out anything about it; it would take a while to figure out anything useful even if you knew it was a clock. If you found an alien analog clock, it would be immediately obvious what it was and what it was doing, and you could use it to help you understand the alien digital clock.
edit: also, when your alien digital watch did the equivalent of jumping from 12 to 1, it would throw everything off, especially if there were a different symbol for 1 second or 1 minute that there was for 1 hour. An analog clock visually explains the transition between 12 and 1.
I think all this stuff is obvious, I'm confused about the argument being made that it's not. There's just less information on a digital readout. I feel like I'm trying to explain that movies have more information than movie scripts, but Kolmogorov would say to compress them both and compare the filesizes.
More from outside knowledge than from the digital readout itself. There's no way to tell from a digital readout there are 60 minutes in an hour or seconds in a minute, or that there's a 12-hour period that means something (and no hints to guess.) There's no evidence that the time represented on a digital readout changes at a constant rate or is sequential and doesn't jump around or go faster sometimes and slower others. Everything on an analog clockface is just there.
If you found an alien digital clock written in alien language, it would take you forever to figure out anything about it; it would take a while to figure out anything useful even if you knew it was a clock. If you found an alien analog clock, it would be immediately obvious what it was and what it was doing, and you could use it to help you understand the alien digital clock.
edit: also, when your alien digital watch did the equivalent of jumping from 12 to 1, it would throw everything off, especially if there were a different symbol for 1 second or 1 minute that there was for 1 hour. An analog clock visually explains the transition between 12 and 1.
I think all this stuff is obvious, I'm confused about the argument being made that it's not. There's just less information on a digital readout. I feel like I'm trying to explain that movies have more information than movie scripts, but Kolmogorov would say to compress them both and compare the filesizes.
> If you found an alien digital clock written in alien language, it would take you forever to figure out anything about it; it would take a while to figure out anything useful even if you knew it was a clock. If you found an alien analog clock, it would be immediately obvious what it was and what it was doing, and you could use it to help you understand the alien digital clock.
I disagree with this. This seems to assume that an alien analog clock would look/function more like our analog clocks than an alien digital clock would look/function like our digital clocks. I'm not sure there's any reason to make that assumption.
I disagree with this. This seems to assume that an alien analog clock would look/function more like our analog clocks than an alien digital clock would look/function like our digital clocks. I'm not sure there's any reason to make that assumption.
The only assumption is that analog means a gauge of some sort with a pointer or pointers moving between symbols, rather than a series of symbols that change for digital. I wouldn't have any problem with assuming a circular gauge (because we calculate periodic things using circle math), but it's not necessary.
That's kind of a big assumption, IMO. Why does it need symbols? Perhaps a hypothetical alien species has an analog clock that keeps track of times with shades of color. Or audio tones. Or it uses a gauge, but the gauge vibrates and the vibrations mean something.
Combine that with the fact that their time system might not be based on a fairly regular rotation of the planet. Perhaps they value some other less regular measurement more. Or perhaps their planet does not have regular rotation. How might a time system evolve and be portrayed in those cases? How can you be sure that an analog display would be easier to interpret than a digital one?
Similar to how a 12-hour analogue clock does not necessarily imply that we actually have 24 hours in our days, an alien analog clock could potentially be vastly different than the same alien's digital clock.
Combine that with the fact that their time system might not be based on a fairly regular rotation of the planet. Perhaps they value some other less regular measurement more. Or perhaps their planet does not have regular rotation. How might a time system evolve and be portrayed in those cases? How can you be sure that an analog display would be easier to interpret than a digital one?
Similar to how a 12-hour analogue clock does not necessarily imply that we actually have 24 hours in our days, an alien analog clock could potentially be vastly different than the same alien's digital clock.
> I'm not sure there's any reason to make that assumption.
analog clocks are modeled around the idea that the time is circular because that's the natural cycle of day and night (same concept of the meridian, plus dark hours, when there is no shadow).
I imagine that any alien civilization that lives on a planet that rotates around its star and has a light/dark cycle would measure time in a similar fashion.
analog clocks are modeled around the idea that the time is circular because that's the natural cycle of day and night (same concept of the meridian, plus dark hours, when there is no shadow).
I imagine that any alien civilization that lives on a planet that rotates around its star and has a light/dark cycle would measure time in a similar fashion.
> analog clocks are modeled around the idea that the time is circular because that's the natural cycle of day and night
This is not supported by evidence. For one, it would make a 24 hour dial make more sense than a 12 hour one. For two, many early non-discrete clocks took the form of parallax observation or liquid flows and were not inherently circular.
https://muslimheritage.com/the-clocks-of-al-muradi/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_timekeeping_devices
This is not supported by evidence. For one, it would make a 24 hour dial make more sense than a 12 hour one. For two, many early non-discrete clocks took the form of parallax observation or liquid flows and were not inherently circular.
https://muslimheritage.com/the-clocks-of-al-muradi/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_timekeeping_devices
hourglasses and other similar devices are for keeping discrete times, not continuous times like in
"it cooks in half of that"
but they are circular inherently, when the top half falls to the bottom, we flip them and the cycle restarts.
analog clocks started as 24 hours historically [1]. the division of days in 24 equal segments was well know since ancient history, we still use base 60 to measure time because that's what babylonians used when they invented time keeping and started counting days in a year (360 of them, in base 60)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock#History
"it cooks in half of that"
but they are circular inherently, when the top half falls to the bottom, we flip them and the cycle restarts.
analog clocks started as 24 hours historically [1]. the division of days in 24 equal segments was well know since ancient history, we still use base 60 to measure time because that's what babylonians used when they invented time keeping and started counting days in a year (360 of them, in base 60)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock#History
If you limit the set of "analog clocks" to 24-hour dials, then yes, you have proven a tautology. If you look at the overall history of time device user interfaces then circular displays don't seem like such a slam dunk. I'll point you to Al Muradi of 1200's Spain again who often uses little doors or other time indicators.
https://muslimheritage.com/the-clocks-of-al-muradi/
https://muslimheritage.com/the-clocks-of-al-muradi/
of course
there are bizarre incantations of everything throughout history
Almuradi clock is still a *solar* clock hence it only works when the light rays hit it, so like a meridian, it can't show the full 24 hours rotation. in fact it's an half circle, because the earth rotates around the sun, the only approximation you can get is circular, of course there are meridians that do not display hours on an arc of circumference, but that's simply a design choice.
But at that time the fact that a day was of 24 hours was a long well known fact.
the point is that if your planet rotates around a star, the first thing beings living there would notice are the repeating patterns generated by light rays. Which are most probably shadows creating something like a circle (or an oval)
there are bizarre incantations of everything throughout history
Almuradi clock is still a *solar* clock hence it only works when the light rays hit it, so like a meridian, it can't show the full 24 hours rotation. in fact it's an half circle, because the earth rotates around the sun, the only approximation you can get is circular, of course there are meridians that do not display hours on an arc of circumference, but that's simply a design choice.
But at that time the fact that a day was of 24 hours was a long well known fact.
the point is that if your planet rotates around a star, the first thing beings living there would notice are the repeating patterns generated by light rays. Which are most probably shadows creating something like a circle (or an oval)
>Almuradi clock is still a solar clock hence it only works when the light rays hit it
No, Almuradi's works are powered by water and moved by gears. At least one used light to illuminate particular numbers, but the optical aperture was moved by gears.
>Which are most probably shadows creating something like a circle (or an oval)
During the course of the day the shadows make a half circle at best. Over the course of a year the end point at the same time of day makes an uneven figure eight, known as the analemma. At no point is there a circle or an ellipse.
Passive solar timekeeping has its limitations and the next phase of development was the water clock.
These simple water clocks, which were of the outflow type, were stone vessels with sloping sides that allowed water to drip at a nearly constant rate from a small hole near the bottom. There were twelve separate columns with consistently spaced markings on the inside to measure the passage of "hours" as the water level reached them. The columns were for each of the twelve months to allow for the variations of the seasonal hours. These clocks were used by priests to determine the time at night so that the temple rites and sacrifices could be performed at the correct hour. [0]
If anything the circular three hand clock is a pragmatic method of indictors based on the method of power control. Looking at the Antikytheria mechanism for example, the back side shows a deep understanding of how the different cycles of time measures interact.
Going back to the original topic of "an alien digital clock written in alien language," to the degree that we could comprehend on what basis they kept time a time communication rooted in a sidereal period cannot be a given since the aliens might come from a tidally locked planet or one like Mercury which "rotates on its axis exactly three times for every two revolutions it makes around the Sun."[2] Even if they just used the Unix epoch time would look linear and relative; not circular.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time
No, Almuradi's works are powered by water and moved by gears. At least one used light to illuminate particular numbers, but the optical aperture was moved by gears.
>Which are most probably shadows creating something like a circle (or an oval)
During the course of the day the shadows make a half circle at best. Over the course of a year the end point at the same time of day makes an uneven figure eight, known as the analemma. At no point is there a circle or an ellipse.
Passive solar timekeeping has its limitations and the next phase of development was the water clock.
These simple water clocks, which were of the outflow type, were stone vessels with sloping sides that allowed water to drip at a nearly constant rate from a small hole near the bottom. There were twelve separate columns with consistently spaced markings on the inside to measure the passage of "hours" as the water level reached them. The columns were for each of the twelve months to allow for the variations of the seasonal hours. These clocks were used by priests to determine the time at night so that the temple rites and sacrifices could be performed at the correct hour. [0]
If anything the circular three hand clock is a pragmatic method of indictors based on the method of power control. Looking at the Antikytheria mechanism for example, the back side shows a deep understanding of how the different cycles of time measures interact.
Going back to the original topic of "an alien digital clock written in alien language," to the degree that we could comprehend on what basis they kept time a time communication rooted in a sidereal period cannot be a given since the aliens might come from a tidally locked planet or one like Mercury which "rotates on its axis exactly three times for every two revolutions it makes around the Sun."[2] Even if they just used the Unix epoch time would look linear and relative; not circular.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time
Iirc historically the day was first split into 12 parts with sundials, and only later was the night also split into 12 parts. Maybe thats where the 2x12 comes from. I guess another benefit is that it's simply less cluttered with 12 divisions.
I think the author was making the assumption that people understand fractions or at least ratios.
I don't think you're getting how important the word instant is in this context. An analog clock might be better for decoding an unfamiliar time system. It might be better for teaching children how we count time. It might implicitly contain more information. It might be better in a thousand ways. None of that matters.
For whatever reason I get a faster and more accurate sense of what time it is from a digital watch. I am not alone in this. Therefor the assertion that an analog readout is more instantly meaningful for everyone is wrong.
For whatever reason I get a faster and more accurate sense of what time it is from a digital watch. I am not alone in this. Therefor the assertion that an analog readout is more instantly meaningful for everyone is wrong.
My experience is different.
When I am at the train station I can have an immediate idea of what time is it just looking at the analog clocks around (they are digital displays mimicking analog clocks) even if I can't read the numbers from afar.
Digital clocks are harder for me because I have to parse the information: is that a 6, 8, 9, or zero?
It doesn't make much difference in the end, bit having to actually read the number forces me to be precise and I can't rely on intuition.
The more I age, the more my vision deteriorate, the more I find analog clocks easier to read.
When I am at the train station I can have an immediate idea of what time is it just looking at the analog clocks around (they are digital displays mimicking analog clocks) even if I can't read the numbers from afar.
Digital clocks are harder for me because I have to parse the information: is that a 6, 8, 9, or zero?
It doesn't make much difference in the end, bit having to actually read the number forces me to be precise and I can't rely on intuition.
The more I age, the more my vision deteriorate, the more I find analog clocks easier to read.
Oh absolutely. Your experience is in line with what Douglas Adams was originally saying. Plenty of people get a better sense of time from analog displays.
I'm not saying digital works better for everyone. I'm not even saying digital works better for most. It could easily be the case that I'm in the 1% of weirdos who have an easier time with digital. My only point is that it isn't universal either way. Adams said digital watches are silly because everyone gets a better sense of time from analog. It is a funny joke. But he is wrong about the facts.
I'm not saying digital works better for everyone. I'm not even saying digital works better for most. It could easily be the case that I'm in the 1% of weirdos who have an easier time with digital. My only point is that it isn't universal either way. Adams said digital watches are silly because everyone gets a better sense of time from analog. It is a funny joke. But he is wrong about the facts.
I think "faster" and "more accurate" are getting inappropriately conflated in this discussion.
It is faster to visually parse two hands of an analog watch than it is to parse four digits of a digital watch. But the price you pay for this is accuracy, and if you wanted to parse the analog watch face as accurately as digital, it'd take you more time than just reading the digits.
It is faster to visually parse two hands of an analog watch than it is to parse four digits of a digital watch. But the price you pay for this is accuracy, and if you wanted to parse the analog watch face as accurately as digital, it'd take you more time than just reading the digits.
> Therefor the assertion that an analog readout is more instantly meaningful for everyone is wrong.
Maybe I'm confused about the assertion. The sentence "A picture with a bird in it" is more quickly recognized by very fluent English speakers than an actual picture of a bird. But it conveys far less information to a far narrower audience.
Maybe I'm confused about the assertion. The sentence "A picture with a bird in it" is more quickly recognized by very fluent English speakers than an actual picture of a bird. But it conveys far less information to a far narrower audience.
The problem with the original statement is the phrase "more instantly meaningful". It might be correct if it said "more meaningful", but I doubt it's more `instantly` meaningful for someone who can read numbers quickly.
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 digital clocks far more useful for me personally; it saves me the extra step of having to mentally convert to digital time before being able to reason about how the time on my watch relates to other events or significant times throughout my day.
To those who prefer analogue watches I have to ask; how does that process work for you? Do you find it easier to mentally convert written times to a visualization of a position on a watch, and then do whatever mental reasoning you need to do in that space? Or are you doing the same thing I would be doing if I had an analog watch; converting it to digital and then reasoning from there? If the latter, why does skipping that extra conversion step by using a digital watch feel worse from your perspective?
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 digital clocks far more useful for me personally; it saves me the extra step of having to mentally convert to digital time before being able to reason about how the time on my watch relates to other events or significant times throughout my day.
To those who prefer analogue watches I have to ask; how does that process work for you? Do you find it easier to mentally convert written times to a visualization of a position on a watch, and then do whatever mental reasoning you need to do in that space? Or are you doing the same thing I would be doing if I had an analog watch; converting it to digital and then reasoning from there? If the latter, why does skipping that extra conversion step by using a digital watch feel worse from your perspective?
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.
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.
Communications with others are expressed as a written or spoken number. But then calculations with that number (eg. "how long do I have?") have to be done with arithmetic. It's fairly rare that I wear a watch, but when I do, such as at a conference or similar, I prefer an analogue face. In this kind of case I prefer to visualise the time on the clock face. Then I can "see" the time remaining without doing arithmetic.
> If the latter, why does skipping that extra conversion step by using a digital watch feel worse from your perspective?
I'm quite capable of doing it either way, but my preference is to do the single required conversion to "analogue" so that repeated comparisons are visual and do not require repeated arithmetic. I also find it easier to remember a time visually, whereas single-digit errors in remembering a digital time can result in a greater error.
> If the latter, why does skipping that extra conversion step by using a digital watch feel worse from your perspective?
I'm quite capable of doing it either way, but my preference is to do the single required conversion to "analogue" so that repeated comparisons are visual and do not require repeated arithmetic. I also find it easier to remember a time visually, whereas single-digit errors in remembering a digital time can result in a greater error.
An analog clock is abstract in that it doesn’t show all the details of a globe with oceans and mountains and valleys and trees and lizards rotating and circling a distant light source with massive gravitation that appears to be arcing across the sky.
But it is a reasonable low resolution drawing of it, with some squiggly lines for reference, and arrows pointing in the approximate direction of the light source.
But it is a reasonable low resolution drawing of it, with some squiggly lines for reference, and arrows pointing in the approximate direction of the light source.
Having witnessed kids learning time: they will happily give "15:39" as an answer. But if you ask them when it'll be 4 o'clock, they literally have no idea - not even of yhe direction (forward or back).
I think this is Adams' point: digital watches pretend to give you information but only give you data. That's a reason to consider them silly: they make you work (translating their data to something with meaning) while pretending to do the work for you.
Note: analogue watches also require interpretation. But they support coarse- as well as fine-grained interpretation: is it before or after a whole hour? Closer to half than to whole? Or to a quarter? 10 past or to? Etc.
I think this is Adams' point: digital watches pretend to give you information but only give you data. That's a reason to consider them silly: they make you work (translating their data to something with meaning) while pretending to do the work for you.
Note: analogue watches also require interpretation. But they support coarse- as well as fine-grained interpretation: is it before or after a whole hour? Closer to half than to whole? Or to a quarter? 10 past or to? Etc.
That's not a fair comparison because you're comparing 24 hour time with 12 hour time.
Granted, a digital clock won't tell you there are 60 minutes in an hour, but teaching analog time involves much more than that. For starters, you have to explain that for minutes, the numbers are in increments of 5.
Granted, a digital clock won't tell you there are 60 minutes in an hour, but teaching analog time involves much more than that. For starters, you have to explain that for minutes, the numbers are in increments of 5.
What you need to do is take the numbers off the clock and start with only one hand.
Then ask them if there is more or less time (since midnight) until lunch.
Then ask them if there is more or less time (since midnight) until lunch.
Okay. How many other things do you have to break down though?
Funny you should use 15:39 as your example.
I find the translation I have to do from 15:39 to 3:39 pm to have much more friction than reading a digital or analog clock in the first place, both of which I can do with equal ease.
The problem of course is that I'm not used to 24-hour times, so I don't equate 15 with any particular time of day. Similar to how I have to translate C to F to make sense of C temperatures.
Now, a 24-hour analog clock with an embedded digital temperature read-out in C, that would really hurt.
Apparently 24-hour analog clocks are thing:
https://www.amazon.com/Navaris-Hour-Wall-Clock-Non-Ticking/d...
Ouch.
I find the translation I have to do from 15:39 to 3:39 pm to have much more friction than reading a digital or analog clock in the first place, both of which I can do with equal ease.
The problem of course is that I'm not used to 24-hour times, so I don't equate 15 with any particular time of day. Similar to how I have to translate C to F to make sense of C temperatures.
Now, a 24-hour analog clock with an embedded digital temperature read-out in C, that would really hurt.
Apparently 24-hour analog clocks are thing:
https://www.amazon.com/Navaris-Hour-Wall-Clock-Non-Ticking/d...
Ouch.
Counter example: I grew up using 12-hour time and still do to this day, with plenty of analog clocks all around, and yet I find it much easier and faster to convert between 24-hour and 12-hour time (just remove the leading 1 and subtract 2, if the hour is more than 12) than to parse an analog clock (identify which hand is which, convert the minutes to get an approximation, even more work if it's a stylized clock that might use roman numerals or not have any labels at all).
I didn't pick 15:39 that's the quote from Douglas Adams. He pretty clearly went with a hard to read digital time to emphasize the point that he (and according to him everyone else) can more readily get useful information from an analog readout. My own watch is a digital 12 hour display and that is more useful to me.
At the time of writing 24 hour digital clocks were very common in UK train stations. All rail services in the UK are always in 24 hour form.
So there’s a good chance he just picked 15:39 as a familiar train time.
So there’s a good chance he just picked 15:39 as a familiar train time.
In the context of hours of time, I perceive `15' as just an alternative symbol for `3pm'.
Likewise, I perceive 1539 as an alternative symbol for 1536, as I like to keep my clocks three minutes fast.
Likewise, I perceive 1539 as an alternative symbol for 1536, as I like to keep my clocks three minutes fast.
Yeah, this instant meaning is something that's learned. I derive an instant meaning of the analogue clockface, and also from the digital.
c'mon, not believable. his statement about digital time display is correct, and it strikes me that you are pretending it's not.
"it's 10 till", or "5 minutes before the hour" are statements that capture the human concept of time much better than 15:52
"it's 10 till", or "5 minutes before the hour" are statements that capture the human concept of time much better than 15:52
They may capture your concept of time, but I agree with the parent. I always have to translate "5 minutes before the hour" to "3:55" in my head before I really understand what was said.
In this age of digital displays, what people don’t realize is that 3:55 is “just a little bit” before the hour — which is immediately obvious on a circular display.
I don't think that analogue watches demonstrate the continuous nature of time. They tick. That's discretizing time. Sure you can omit the seconds hand or even make it run smoothly, and some do, but that's not reflective of the nature of the timepiece. You could just as well make a digital clock that fades out the unit seconds digit as the new one fades in. Or show digits until a blurby hundredth of a second, which some do.
That’s why the continuous motion ones are so sought after and pricy. The mechanical continuous motion watches are really marvelous feats of engineering
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...
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 ;-)
> up to planck length at least...
Well, we actually do not know that...
Well, we actually do not know that...
It seems there are mechanisms with fully continuous motion, eg: https://www.grand-seiko.com/global-en/about/movement/springd...
Is it "fully continuous" if it has a discret electronic controller correcting it all the time?
>Time is a continuum, not discrete; analogue watches demonstrate that, while digital ones do not
While obviously true, we often treat time as discrete to an appropriate level of precision. Timekeeping in sports is essentially all digital these days for example. And generally speaking (at least for some contexts), 10am really does mean 10am, not 10ish.
I actually normally use an analog display on my Apple Watch but I think it's mostly to have something different as pretty much all the other clocks I use, including the watch I usually wear, are digital.
While obviously true, we often treat time as discrete to an appropriate level of precision. Timekeeping in sports is essentially all digital these days for example. And generally speaking (at least for some contexts), 10am really does mean 10am, not 10ish.
I actually normally use an analog display on my Apple Watch but I think it's mostly to have something different as pretty much all the other clocks I use, including the watch I usually wear, are digital.
The issue is 10AM has real meaning but you’re only actually at 10AM for an instant mostly you want to know how long until something happens.
Think of a meeting at 10AM with an analog clock you can get an intuitive feel for how long you have to finish what your working on. With a digital clock it’s easy to do the calculation but that distracts from the task at hand.
It’s most noticeable with a seconds. Many analog clocks include a second hand because it’s actually useful, while few digital clocks do so.
Think of a meeting at 10AM with an analog clock you can get an intuitive feel for how long you have to finish what your working on. With a digital clock it’s easy to do the calculation but that distracts from the task at hand.
It’s most noticeable with a seconds. Many analog clocks include a second hand because it’s actually useful, while few digital clocks do so.
I find it much easier to judge how urgent it is to finish given the information that it's 9:54 than by looking at an analog clock. I wore an analog watch from age ~5-20 out of stubbornness and never got to the point where it conveyed useful information to me without actively stopping to think.
I think much like reading is abstracted to a point where the "shape" of the words conveys the meaning (and you can muddle up the inner letters without much loss of information), when you use digital clocks enough the subconscious meaning of the shape of the numbers is what you see. I don't have to do a manual conversion to understand from the 16:54 on my phone screen that I have 5 minutes until 5pm - I just "know" that from a single glance.
Ultimately both digital and analog clocks are abstractions which convey meaning to whatever our internal sense of time is. I suspect the internal concept of time is quite different for everyone (hence why my mum is always late for everything...)
Ultimately both digital and analog clocks are abstractions which convey meaning to whatever our internal sense of time is. I suspect the internal concept of time is quite different for everyone (hence why my mum is always late for everything...)
Except you just gave up a lot of precision doing that conversion. 16:54 might be 5 minutes and 0.1 seconds or 5 minutes and 59.9 seconds.
If you can get that same feel for 16:54:36 then sure, but I personally don’t.
If you can get that same feel for 16:54:36 then sure, but I personally don’t.
I can't say I've ever taken the second hand into account when looking at an analogue clock to check the time, nor do I usually find myself reading the minute hand more precisely than 5 minute intervals. I've certainly watched it slowly approach 12 when waiting to get out of class or something like that, but I could just as easily watch a number count up toward 60.
It’s a useful skill. Anyway, you don’t actually need a second hand to get sub minute precision as a minute hand should be continually sweeping through the range.
Which is why people in the thread are talking about the feel of time. You can get an intuitive feel of how much you need to speed up etc.
Which is why people in the thread are talking about the feel of time. You can get an intuitive feel of how much you need to speed up etc.
I was aware I had poor eyesight, but I'm kind of amazed to hear that there's anyone who can clearly see the position of a minute hand between two tick marks on a clock from any reasonable distance.
How many analogue clocks do you have which you trust to be that accurate? One huge advantage of a digital clock (on a phone, anyway) is that it's NTP synced with an atomic clock - so it's highly accurate and will remain that way.
I know that when I'm running for a train, I rely on my phone more than my analogue wristwatch - because the analogue clock is rarely perfectly accurate, and that matters.
I know that when I'm running for a train, I rely on my phone more than my analogue wristwatch - because the analogue clock is rarely perfectly accurate, and that matters.
Most of the ones I have used. The dial is just a display they can use NTP or RCC etc to stay synced. Ex: https://www.amazon.com/Crosse-Technology-WT-3129B-Atomic-Ana...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWV_(radio_station)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWV_(radio_station)
He also lost a whole minutes precision rounding to 54 to 55
If you are talking about 12-hour analogue watches, no. They wrap the continuous time into some non-intuitive measure that needs an external context to determine the actual time of day. They rather demonstrate that time needs to be as precise and accurate as needed; the continuity of time doesn't always matter.
I think this is more of a "different people's minds work differently" thing than an age thing. Some people who grew up in the digital age still find analog clock faces more useful. Here's a short youtube video exploring that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZArBfxaPzD8 . I think Adam's mistake was assuming the preference for analog was universal which was probably wrong even when he first wrote the joke.
I think the argument could be made for a clock face being a pie chart if you think of it the way the host of that video does. The categories are "time left in the hour/day" and "time passed in the hour/day".
All that said I was really happy to finally understand what Adams was trying to say with that joke witch, as a person who finds digital readouts more useful, never landed for me before.
I think the argument could be made for a clock face being a pie chart if you think of it the way the host of that video does. The categories are "time left in the hour/day" and "time passed in the hour/day".
All that said I was really happy to finally understand what Adams was trying to say with that joke witch, as a person who finds digital readouts more useful, never landed for me before.
The author’s point was that technology was making people stupider. They’re being told what to believe and their data source is isolated from reality so not only are they easily fooled by those who control the sources of information, they lose the ability to process data on their own, and they do it to themselves for reasons as banal as fashion.
I'm 37 and have a hard time parsing clock faces, I remember having a hard time with it in kindergarten and they basicaly wrote it of as me being a little prick and refusing to do it right
I was very surprised that anyone at all would find digital displays harder to read than an old-style clock face. Learned something new just now. I'm 37 too.
Same. I can do it. But not fast.
Also same, this seems to be related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia
I am just apparently very bad at estimating which hand is the longer one (if there's not a huge amount of difference). Once I figured that out... reading the time is not a problem.
Do you where one strapped to your body at all times? If you did, I bet you'd find it more intuitive.
I wore an analog watch for about 15 years and never hit the point where it was easier for me to read than a digital display.
Same for me. My house had loads of analog clocks when I was growing up, I had one for a watch for over a decade, but still it was always a little bit harder to figure out than digital for me.
> in elementary school, they require entire lesson units in school on telling time from a clock face.
I'm not sure our age difference, but as a millennial I'm pretty sure we did when I was in elementary school as well. I don't remember which grade though, I didn't learn about how to read those watches from my parents. Digital clocks became so common that I never cared for it. Same with cursive, because of computers making cursive really pointless, I don't know how to write in it outside of my own signature.
I'm not sure our age difference, but as a millennial I'm pretty sure we did when I was in elementary school as well. I don't remember which grade though, I didn't learn about how to read those watches from my parents. Digital clocks became so common that I never cared for it. Same with cursive, because of computers making cursive really pointless, I don't know how to write in it outside of my own signature.
Numbers on a digital face can be read by anyone who knows numbers.
Just yesterday my toddler told me it was 6 oclock because the big hand was pointing at the six.
Trying to explain to a three year old that the small hand was for the hour, and the big hand pointed at a number which you multiply by 5 to get the minutes was beyond him.
But the digital clock, he gets.
Just yesterday my toddler told me it was 6 oclock because the big hand was pointing at the six.
Trying to explain to a three year old that the small hand was for the hour, and the big hand pointed at a number which you multiply by 5 to get the minutes was beyond him.
But the digital clock, he gets.
Funny how we got downgraded into "smart watches" that barely hold a charge for a day and are good at everything other than telling the bloody time. Having an always on display is an actual feature nowadays lol
People said the same about smart phones compared to Nokia candy bar phones with battery lives that lasted a week.
In exchange for charging my cellular watch every night, I get a device on my wrist that can make phone calls, stream music, store 16GB worth of music, has GPS for when I run, monitors my heart rate, gives me notifications and let’s me send messages.
If I went into coma in 2009 and the most advanced piece of technology that I knew at the time was the iPhone 3GS or the then current laptops and woke up in 2022, I would be much more impressed with the Apple Watch than any other piece of technology.
In exchange for charging my cellular watch every night, I get a device on my wrist that can make phone calls, stream music, store 16GB worth of music, has GPS for when I run, monitors my heart rate, gives me notifications and let’s me send messages.
If I went into coma in 2009 and the most advanced piece of technology that I knew at the time was the iPhone 3GS or the then current laptops and woke up in 2022, I would be much more impressed with the Apple Watch than any other piece of technology.
We could have had Pebble, never forget what they took from you
I still use my Pebble Time; I can't understand why you'd buy a watch with a battery that lasts less than a week.
(I've had people tell me that you just put an apple watch on the charger overnight. Then why does it have a sleep tracker app that requires the watch to be on your wrist?)
(I've had people tell me that you just put an apple watch on the charger overnight. Then why does it have a sleep tracker app that requires the watch to be on your wrist?)
Garmin has several smart watch models with sleep tracking and batteries that last for over a week.
Why else would God have given you two wrists?
So that people can look as ridiculous as possible, it would seem
I don't know what you're trying to get at with that comment.
The idea is you can wear a longer lasting watch on the other wrist.
There are smart watches that will go for weeks on a charge. They automatically set time based on the cell phone network and GPS so are always accurate to within 1 second.
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/702797
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/702797
> Funny how we got downgraded into "smart watches"
We didn't get downgraded. The "dumb watch" product category is still alive and kicking. Whether it's the more moderate priced quartz segment, or the less moderately priced mechanical segment it's not even slightly dying. What we've gained is choice.
And I say this as someone who would never buy a smartwatch because it would need charging. I have a perfectly decent Citizen analog watch that has worked perfectly every day since I bought it five years ago (not even needing a battery change because it's solar powered). I occasionally consider splashing out on a mechanical watch, but even a 3 year servicing interval would be tedious.
We didn't get downgraded. The "dumb watch" product category is still alive and kicking. Whether it's the more moderate priced quartz segment, or the less moderately priced mechanical segment it's not even slightly dying. What we've gained is choice.
And I say this as someone who would never buy a smartwatch because it would need charging. I have a perfectly decent Citizen analog watch that has worked perfectly every day since I bought it five years ago (not even needing a battery change because it's solar powered). I occasionally consider splashing out on a mechanical watch, but even a 3 year servicing interval would be tedious.
I would never wear a watch that had to be charged every day. My Amazfit Bip (stupid name, I know) is good for about 6 weeks if I don't use the GPS and heart monitor, and 2 weeks if I do.
Mine is extremely good at telling me the time. I just look at my wrist and there it is. Maybe you're using it incorrectly?
Sure it does - for example the portion of the hour in front of the minute hand's sweep is "in the future" whereas the portion of the hour behind the minute hand's sweep is "in the past" and the portion of the hour under the minute hand is "now".
Three categories, and the distribution of the current hour's minutes between them
Three categories, and the distribution of the current hour's minutes between them
It's really two overlapping pie charts, each hand forming a side of a slice with an imaginary line from the center to the top forming the other side. We read them together, but to work as pie charts they have to be read separately.
You can't get much useful information from the hands' relationship to each other without knowing their relationship to the imaginary up line. If I say, "The hour and minute hands are 30° apart", what does that tell you about the distribution of time into past and future?
The hour hand shows distribution of hours between most recent 12 and next 12 into past and future. The minute hand is an entirely separate chart showing the distribution of minutes in the current hour into past and future.
Trying to read a clock from the frame of a pie chart is kind of confusing though, given this overlap. I don't think I would call it a good pie chart, much less the most perfect one.
You can't get much useful information from the hands' relationship to each other without knowing their relationship to the imaginary up line. If I say, "The hour and minute hands are 30° apart", what does that tell you about the distribution of time into past and future?
The hour hand shows distribution of hours between most recent 12 and next 12 into past and future. The minute hand is an entirely separate chart showing the distribution of minutes in the current hour into past and future.
Trying to read a clock from the frame of a pie chart is kind of confusing though, given this overlap. I don't think I would call it a good pie chart, much less the most perfect one.
Imagine Douglas Adams thinking that within a single generation, digital clocks would render the majority of smart, technical people adult people to not only be unable to read a clock but also unable to grasp the idea of fractions, ratios, time elapsed or remaining, or the concrete nature of the way days occur in the physical world.
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.
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.
Great argument for using the 24h clock ;-)
Ever seen the 24h analog clock? :)
https://m8y.org/images/24.svg
https://m8y.org/images/24.svg
Related, I made a little toy[0] that lets you explore what analog clocks would like with an arbitrary number of hours in the day (since 12/24 is of course arbitrary too).
[0]: https://nadavrecca.com/eleventhour
[0]: https://nadavrecca.com/eleventhour
12 may be an arbitrary number but with all it's numeric factors it sure is a convenient one!
I've been staying at that click for a solid ten minutes, but I can't figure out why minutes and seconds start on top, but hours on the bottom. Any idea why that particular choice was made?
From the sibling comment's link: "Noon is at the top, so that the hour hand mimics the path of the sun."
Adding additional info to my sibling comments. Since the bottom is designed to show night, it would be cool to grab a geolocation and draw the bottom based on sunrise/sunset times.
the 24 hour clocks I've seen usually are set up like this so daytime is the top half and night time the bottom - as though the tip of the hour hand was the sun
This is very nice as it addresses the zero-index nature of time by going 0-23 instead of 1-24. Time would be much more comprehensible if all clock were marked that way.
Hm, I think most countries that use 24h time systems use 00:00:00 to 23:59:59
Ok, it is interesting that the top of 12h clocks in those countries is often a 12 instead of a zero [0]. Maybe the tension of a cardinal zero in an ordinal world (i.e. 1900 is the 20th century) lead the Swiss Railway to de-number the 12h clock [1].
0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gare_de_Lyon_xCRW_13...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_railway_clock
0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gare_de_Lyon_xCRW_13...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_railway_clock
I have the widget on my phone, it uses local sunrise/sunset to adjust the nighttime shaded area: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.staticfre...
> 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.
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.
>but even now, in elementary school, they require entire lesson units in school on telling time from a clock face.
I'd say that's a failure to teach them analog time as toddlers, not digital time being inherently superior.
I'd say that's a failure to teach them analog time as toddlers, not digital time being inherently superior.
Digital time is inherently superior. Analog time requires the extra cognitive step of translating to the numbers being represented. Digital time skips that process and shows you the numbers directly.
This thread has devolved into what sounds like a bunch of web devs that think that makes them experts on perception and psychophysics.
But on this point there isn’t anything inherently more abstract about Arabic numerals as a representation of numbers than the angles of the hands on a clock face (ie a short hand to the right is 3 and upright is 12, etc is a pretty efficient way to convey a number). As for what can be read quicker probably has overwhelmingly a lot to do what was learned in youth. Similar to stenographic shorthand this can probably be acquired but there just isn’t much incentive to do so.
There isn’t necessarily any extra “cognitive step” in the pattern recognition of a clock face vs that of a numeral.
I don’t know much about research on this particular area but there is some in the related area of written language.
But on this point there isn’t anything inherently more abstract about Arabic numerals as a representation of numbers than the angles of the hands on a clock face (ie a short hand to the right is 3 and upright is 12, etc is a pretty efficient way to convey a number). As for what can be read quicker probably has overwhelmingly a lot to do what was learned in youth. Similar to stenographic shorthand this can probably be acquired but there just isn’t much incentive to do so.
There isn’t necessarily any extra “cognitive step” in the pattern recognition of a clock face vs that of a numeral.
I don’t know much about research on this particular area but there is some in the related area of written language.
Teaching kids about analog clocks isn't just about telling time. It's teaching them about how gauges work.
If they can understand how the hour hand goes around, they can understand how a fuel gauge goes from Full to Empty. They can tell how a battery gauge on their iPad means they're running out of power.
Kids that age are soaking up concepts.
If they can understand how the hour hand goes around, they can understand how a fuel gauge goes from Full to Empty. They can tell how a battery gauge on their iPad means they're running out of power.
Kids that age are soaking up concepts.
Neither numerals nor configurations of clock hands are numbers and both require a translation step. For what it's worth, time isn't a number either and you translate from a number to a time.
You make a good argument about people growing up with digital clocks not understanding a clock face.
Maybe if you fill in the area covered you could more easily see it’s relation to pie charts.
A clock face is actually 3 pie charts on top of each other, indicating the ratio between hours, minutes, and seconds left in a sequence.
It might not be intuitive that it only covers half of the hours in a day (12) but then covers all minutes in an hour (60) and seconds in a minute (also 60).
By looking at the long hand (minutes) you can see the fraction of an hour that has elapsed if you color in the area between the “12” at the top, and for example, the “6” at the bottom. That would be half an hour. Or if the hand was in the “3” it would be a quarter hour, and you and see at a glance that a good majority of the hour is still remaining.
Seconds work the same way, with the skinny hand. For minutes and seconds you can just ignore the big numbers (or multiply then by 5 because 12 * 5 is 60).
But because the hours only cover half a day the ratio covers only half of that day, but you can still use the clock to decipher how much time has elapsed (or is left) between midday and midnight.
Having grown up with digital clocks, and only sweated through the difficult lessons of learning to read a clock face and not used them practically, even at school, you may not have realized this ratio (staring at the clock waiting for class to finish does not obviously indicate this property because classes are not evenly divided into hours)
Maybe if you fill in the area covered you could more easily see it’s relation to pie charts.
A clock face is actually 3 pie charts on top of each other, indicating the ratio between hours, minutes, and seconds left in a sequence.
It might not be intuitive that it only covers half of the hours in a day (12) but then covers all minutes in an hour (60) and seconds in a minute (also 60).
By looking at the long hand (minutes) you can see the fraction of an hour that has elapsed if you color in the area between the “12” at the top, and for example, the “6” at the bottom. That would be half an hour. Or if the hand was in the “3” it would be a quarter hour, and you and see at a glance that a good majority of the hour is still remaining.
Seconds work the same way, with the skinny hand. For minutes and seconds you can just ignore the big numbers (or multiply then by 5 because 12 * 5 is 60).
But because the hours only cover half a day the ratio covers only half of that day, but you can still use the clock to decipher how much time has elapsed (or is left) between midday and midnight.
Having grown up with digital clocks, and only sweated through the difficult lessons of learning to read a clock face and not used them practically, even at school, you may not have realized this ratio (staring at the clock waiting for class to finish does not obviously indicate this property because classes are not evenly divided into hours)
I wear an analog watch for the simple reason that I can tell the time at a glance, and don't need glasses to get it.
With a digital watch, I have to wear glasses and deliberately focus on it.
There's good reasons why cars and airplanes still have analog displays, and people present data with graphs rather than columns of numbers.
With a digital watch, I have to wear glasses and deliberately focus on it.
There's good reasons why cars and airplanes still have analog displays, and people present data with graphs rather than columns of numbers.
Analogue displays are quicker to read, but less precise. Which is better depends.
On analogue clocks, it doesn't usually matter if I think it's 8:32 when it's really 8:34 unless I'm running for the train. However, I often make the terrible mistake of reading the wrong hour entirely. For that reason (and that I'm frequently running for trains) I do generally prefer digital clocks.
For a rev meter on a car on the other hand, all I care about is if it's getting too far to the bottom or too close to the red. Whether it's 3218RPM vs 3389RPM is entirely irrelevant. So for that, analogue is far better.
For flying, I quite like that electronic flight instrument panels have both analogue and digital displays.
On analogue clocks, it doesn't usually matter if I think it's 8:32 when it's really 8:34 unless I'm running for the train. However, I often make the terrible mistake of reading the wrong hour entirely. For that reason (and that I'm frequently running for trains) I do generally prefer digital clocks.
For a rev meter on a car on the other hand, all I care about is if it's getting too far to the bottom or too close to the red. Whether it's 3218RPM vs 3389RPM is entirely irrelevant. So for that, analogue is far better.
For flying, I quite like that electronic flight instrument panels have both analogue and digital displays.
A similar issue arises in aviation.
In the cockpit, airspeed and altitude used to be presented on a dial like a watch (one hand in the case of airspeed, two hands or even three in the case of altitude).
In modern cockpits with screens, they could be presented like that, or just as numbers, but they are presented as infinite bands that move up and down. One sees the number on it, but also perceives movement (and how fast it moves) "out of the corner of an eye". Maybe it combines the advantages of both.
See here, for example, for both styles: https://www.flight-mechanic.com/pitot-static-pressure-sensin...
I wonder what studies were made regarding this design.
In the cockpit, airspeed and altitude used to be presented on a dial like a watch (one hand in the case of airspeed, two hands or even three in the case of altitude).
In modern cockpits with screens, they could be presented like that, or just as numbers, but they are presented as infinite bands that move up and down. One sees the number on it, but also perceives movement (and how fast it moves) "out of the corner of an eye". Maybe it combines the advantages of both.
See here, for example, for both styles: https://www.flight-mechanic.com/pitot-static-pressure-sensin...
I wonder what studies were made regarding this design.
Yea I am not sure I get his argument much at all either. While I love my analog watches and wallclocks I also have digital ones. If anything I think the argument should be that the AM PM system is just ridiculous - why do we use it? I am an american but always switch all clocks to 24 hour time (if digital) and while I am completely used to analog clocks being on the standard 12 hour cycle it always also seemed crazy to me that we do not just all use 24 hour analog watchfaces.
Probably because when watchfaces were invented, the hour was much more important than the minute or the second.
People wanted to look up to the town hall or church clock and see what hour it was, maybe quarter hour.
Maybe keeping it more distinct from a distance during daylight hours was more important?
People wanted to look up to the town hall or church clock and see what hour it was, maybe quarter hour.
Maybe keeping it more distinct from a distance during daylight hours was more important?
seriously, I am a GenXer who grew up with mostly digital clocks and I still have to stop and think to get a time out of a clock dial.
But then again as Adams said elsewhere, Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so. That one still rings true, especially if you're a freelancer like me who never needs to get up and go to an office at 9AM.
But then again as Adams said elsewhere, Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so. That one still rings true, especially if you're a freelancer like me who never needs to get up and go to an office at 9AM.
If I just want a sense of progress of time, especially within an hour, an analog clock works just fine for me. It obviously is more work if I want an exact to the minute time for logging something, and then it must be converted.
On the other hand, analogue might probably slightly easier if I just want to get an to the nearest 15 minutes approximation of the time. If reading from an analogue clock, I'll probably say it is 3:30, but would say it is 3:27 if reading from the digital clock, as reading it exact is faster than rounding it. I have had people seem bemused by my telling them the precise time like that, but like, I'm not going to make more work for myself to make the time less precise to better match tradition.
But unlike some other people I know, I don't have much difficulty understanding the progress of time with a digital clock either. 13:54, and the equivalent clock face both give me equally good impression of how much time is left until until 14:00, and I feel no need to translate either into the other for that purpose.
On the other hand, analogue might probably slightly easier if I just want to get an to the nearest 15 minutes approximation of the time. If reading from an analogue clock, I'll probably say it is 3:30, but would say it is 3:27 if reading from the digital clock, as reading it exact is faster than rounding it. I have had people seem bemused by my telling them the precise time like that, but like, I'm not going to make more work for myself to make the time less precise to better match tradition.
But unlike some other people I know, I don't have much difficulty understanding the progress of time with a digital clock either. 13:54, and the equivalent clock face both give me equally good impression of how much time is left until until 14:00, and I feel no need to translate either into the other for that purpose.
same, every single morning I have to and think for a second to figure out the time :(
Anecdote: my partner can't read analog watches at a glance, they prefer digital displays.
It's a funny little hole in their wide skillset!
It's a funny little hole in their wide skillset!
‘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 American character's dialogue.
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 American character's dialogue.
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.
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.
Speaking of the "disused" part:
https://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2018/06/disu...
(and yes, I am that Paul)
https://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2018/06/disu...
(and yes, I am that Paul)
Well I suppose they are called an Editor for a reason. They change the wording to reflect how they picture the character and might think that "What do you mean" is too formal, even in England we are more likey to say "What d'ya mean".
I guess the main thing was that Douglas Adams had the chance to review it and gave helpful feedback.
I guess the main thing was that Douglas Adams had the chance to review it and gave helpful feedback.
Wasn't there a joke about a "Zebra crossing" that didn't translate?
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
Apparently that got changed from "zebra" to "pedestrian" which entirely loses the black/white joke.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
Apparently that got changed from "zebra" to "pedestrian" which entirely loses the black/white joke.
From my experience in the media industry some producers/higher ups like making arbitrary changes to a work/show/whatever just so they can say they had an impact, or to say that they made that change at the end, most of the time it ends up making the final product worst.
I.e. "get rid of the duck": https://www.simplethread.com/looks-great-lose-the-duck/
I've used that trick on Fortune 500 CEO's many times. Almost never had any of my designs changed beyond whatever "duck" I put in.
Every once in awhile they fall in love with the duck, and it becomes the center piece - so it's not without risks!
There is a joke among audio engineers that they need to have a button specifically for this - I forget the exact name used ( I have heard several) but essentially it is a button that does nothing. The Exec or higher up asks for a very small tweak and the engineer obliges (by pressing the button) and then plays it back again. Nothing has changed but the Exec feels satisfied.
There's a HN classic for that: "Just remove the duck"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9137736
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9137736
This reminds me of stories about directors intentionally putting ridiculously over-the-top violent or sexual scenes in their already quite violent or sexual movies for the rating board to focus on, and getting a PG-13 rating (instead of an R or NC-17) by removing it.
Oh wow – I remember battle chess! I played it as a kid and loved it. Thanks for sharing this.
Happens in music. Producer will make arbitrary change and now they are a co-writer and qualify for royalties.
Not quite the same thing. This phenomenon is how meddling managers like to make a decision simply so they feel useful, not for any material gain.
What you’re describing is “taking credit”.
What you’re describing is “taking credit”.
The Black Keys talked about this on Joe Rogan's podcast. Pat Carney, the drummer, calls it "the guy with a degree from Pepperdine who wants to tweak the high hat."
When I was in the biz we called it "write a word, take a third."
I've been annoyed at this but some of the changes are based on focus groups and other data suggesting that it will appeal to a larger portion of the local public when changed.
A lot of "Americanization" sucks.
But I want to point out some counter-examples.
1. Digimon Season 1 English Dub is far superior to the Japanese original. Many people choose Cowboy Bebop as the "Better in English" anime, but... Digimon S1 is night-and-day. Stronger script with better jokes/puns, cooler attack names (English "Pepper Breath" vs the Japanese "Baby Flame"), everything is straight up better in English.
2. Cowboy Bebop is probably the better known example in anime community.
3. Final Fantasy VII -- Perhaps it is more obvious that "Cloud" and "Earth" would have a doomed romantic relationship if we stuck to the original Japanese. But "Earth" was chosen as a name for the Japanese audience because English sounds exotic. To return that feeling of "exoticness", they transliterated it into "Aeris", and suddenly we return back to the original exotic feeling name.
4. Power Rangers -- Okay, I don't know how to think of this one. Power Rangers took the original Japanese stuff and changed it so much, it no longer looked anything like the original Super Sentai.
------
Saban Entertainment knew how to do dubs / Americanizations. (Digimon S1, Power Rangers, Samurai Pizza Cats, Dragonball Z '96).
Just because other companies failed where Saban succeeded doesn't mean that "Americanization" is bad. Its that "bad Americanization" is bad.
But I want to point out some counter-examples.
1. Digimon Season 1 English Dub is far superior to the Japanese original. Many people choose Cowboy Bebop as the "Better in English" anime, but... Digimon S1 is night-and-day. Stronger script with better jokes/puns, cooler attack names (English "Pepper Breath" vs the Japanese "Baby Flame"), everything is straight up better in English.
2. Cowboy Bebop is probably the better known example in anime community.
3. Final Fantasy VII -- Perhaps it is more obvious that "Cloud" and "Earth" would have a doomed romantic relationship if we stuck to the original Japanese. But "Earth" was chosen as a name for the Japanese audience because English sounds exotic. To return that feeling of "exoticness", they transliterated it into "Aeris", and suddenly we return back to the original exotic feeling name.
4. Power Rangers -- Okay, I don't know how to think of this one. Power Rangers took the original Japanese stuff and changed it so much, it no longer looked anything like the original Super Sentai.
------
Saban Entertainment knew how to do dubs / Americanizations. (Digimon S1, Power Rangers, Samurai Pizza Cats, Dragonball Z '96).
Just because other companies failed where Saban succeeded doesn't mean that "Americanization" is bad. Its that "bad Americanization" is bad.
> 3. Final Fantasy VII
エアリス (earisu) is not how Japanese speakers would pronounce "Earth". That would be アース (aasu), which sounds quite different. And you may be aware, but "Aeris" is not the preferred rendering today, which is "Aerith".
Don't have an opinion on your examples in general, just wanted to correct a misconception.
エアリス (earisu) is not how Japanese speakers would pronounce "Earth". That would be アース (aasu), which sounds quite different. And you may be aware, but "Aeris" is not the preferred rendering today, which is "Aerith".
Don't have an opinion on your examples in general, just wanted to correct a misconception.
I’ve read that for Samurai Pizza Cats, they didn’t have the original scripts, and so made up the dialogue based on the animation. If that’s true, it was brilliant!
That's not americanisation, that's translation.
The Yellow Ranger was a man in the original Japanese, but a woman in the American version.
Power Rangers is probably the weirdest East/West thing to ever happen, yet still work out. The amount of "translation" that occurred is nearly nil, it was pretty much a wholesale reinvention of the entire plot.
Power Rangers is probably the weirdest East/West thing to ever happen, yet still work out. The amount of "translation" that occurred is nearly nil, it was pretty much a wholesale reinvention of the entire plot.
There's an interesting meta phenomenon here I think. A lot of the language in this letter by Douglas Adams implies that it's Americans that are the problem. Whether or not he actually believes that is, I think, beside the point. What seems more likely is that the profit chasing publishers have created the problem by placing too much emphasis on the results of surveys and focus groups. In other words, Americans aren't really that stupid, it's just that big business executives think they are. And then they run their business accordingly in such a way that makes the whole world think Americans are stupid. Which is annoying because I'm an American and I know I'm not stupid. And I also feel weirdly inclined to give the average American the benefit of the doubt here. Sometimes, giving people a choice creates a dilemma out of thin air. They might choose one thing even if they would have been just as happy with the other.
Update: Actually, upon reading Adams's letter again more carefully, I'm seeing that he's probably making this very point! So I'll just leave my original comment as a more general one about where I think the issue originates.
Update: Actually, upon reading Adams's letter again more carefully, I'm seeing that he's probably making this very point! So I'll just leave my original comment as a more general one about where I think the issue originates.
e.g., Philosopher's stone -> sorcerer's stone.
Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too, which is another example of the same weird parochialism of the U.S. publishing industry as it was.
My probably unpopular opinion is that it's a reflection of a more general, largely un-self-aware New York City parochialism, which was where most of the big publishing firms were based, at least until the last decade or so.
Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too, which is another example of the same weird parochialism of the U.S. publishing industry as it was.
My probably unpopular opinion is that it's a reflection of a more general, largely un-self-aware New York City parochialism, which was where most of the big publishing firms were based, at least until the last decade or so.
The book cover thing is really insane, too. It's gotten a little better over the last decade, but the early 2000s period was crazy (source: moved from UK to USA at that time).
It's interesting that your pet theory is New York City parochialism. Mine is gerontocracy: the (mostly New York based) publishers of SF & Fantasy have been run by the same aristocracy for ~70 years. And those folks cut their teeth on serialized pulp fiction, comic books, and magazines, which culminated in a certain art style that (imo) peaked in the 1980s.
If you browse wikipedia, you will see that many, many, many roads lead back to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_Books
Outside of the US market, newer publishing shops were started & run by younger folks with more modern artistic visions.
It's interesting that your pet theory is New York City parochialism. Mine is gerontocracy: the (mostly New York based) publishers of SF & Fantasy have been run by the same aristocracy for ~70 years. And those folks cut their teeth on serialized pulp fiction, comic books, and magazines, which culminated in a certain art style that (imo) peaked in the 1980s.
If you browse wikipedia, you will see that many, many, many roads lead back to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_Books
Outside of the US market, newer publishing shops were started & run by younger folks with more modern artistic visions.
The Harry Potter book cover art change was not nearly as bad as what they did to video game box art.
Original (Japan): https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/5b/d9/225bd9e4fda8aee8ed0c...
Americanized: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/351430897872-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
Original (Japan): https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/5b/d9/225bd9e4fda8aee8ed0c...
Americanized: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/351430897872-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
The Americanized one is much cooler to me. I would have gone for that as a kid.
The Japanese one is washed out and the art kinda looks amateur and crayola. I assumed that was the one you were complaining about because it minimizes the demon-looking Blanka and just looks boring.
Kinda like how my mom (US) wouldn't buy me Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans because the large green orc on the cover looked like a demon, and you just couldn't be doing that in the 90s with all the stories of children worshipping Satan coming out on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
The Japanese one is washed out and the art kinda looks amateur and crayola. I assumed that was the one you were complaining about because it minimizes the demon-looking Blanka and just looks boring.
Kinda like how my mom (US) wouldn't buy me Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans because the large green orc on the cover looked like a demon, and you just couldn't be doing that in the 90s with all the stories of children worshipping Satan coming out on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
This whole thread seems to be in agreement, but I don't personally know anyone who didn't think the UK covers we're absolutely terrible.
Especially the first book. My impression when I first saw it was. It looks like it was done by a talented middle schooler for a community center assignment. Something to pin on a wall with a blue ribbon.
Granted I was in elementary at the time
I think you all in this thread (and I) are under appreciating how much of that opinion is just pure nostalgia.
Especially the first book. My impression when I first saw it was. It looks like it was done by a talented middle schooler for a community center assignment. Something to pin on a wall with a blue ribbon.
Granted I was in elementary at the time
I think you all in this thread (and I) are under appreciating how much of that opinion is just pure nostalgia.
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
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
For anyone wondering what that bizarre cover might look like: https://www.mytolkienbooks.com/tolkien-books/middle-earth/th...
I can't find the lion...
I can't find the lion...
Here's a variation with the lion, they removed it after his complaints
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IZy3SQYu8bQ/T3ByGLMH9BI/AAAAAAAAE...
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IZy3SQYu8bQ/T3ByGLMH9BI/AAAAAAAAE...
I like how the answer to the whole discussion was "eh, let's remove the lion, that'll be fine".
Cover and book jacket art was better for all books, because what happened is that (especially in the US) instead of letting art directors have creative freedom, they started focus grouping it relentlessly. This, unsurprisingly, creates bland art.
> Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too
Same with video games back in the day. The Japanese versions had much cooler box art than the Western ones. But they were often abandoned because they used a style that wasn't as popular in the West.
Same with video games back in the day. The Japanese versions had much cooler box art than the Western ones. But they were often abandoned because they used a style that wasn't as popular in the West.
Adams was brilliant, of course, but to me part of the appeal of Hitchhiker's was its deep Britishness. Absurdity is funnier against a backdrop of English inhibition. Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" is only funny because it's so English. Spinal Tap took on fake English accents because it's funnier that way. Comedy is about contrasts you see.
Americanising is building a language an accent bubble around the US.
I am a non native speaker with an accent and I am often surprised to see that some US citizens have a very hard time with my accent while non native speakers have no problem understanding me. I suspect it is due to some US citizen not being used to dealing with a variety of sounds and inflexions.
I am a non native speaker with an accent and I am often surprised to see that some US citizens have a very hard time with my accent while non native speakers have no problem understanding me. I suspect it is due to some US citizen not being used to dealing with a variety of sounds and inflexions.
By far the stupidest Americanization I've encountered is when Netflix changed "The Great British Bake Off" to "The Great British Baking Show".
They are honestly recording 2 versions of every intro for this?
They are honestly recording 2 versions of every intro for this?
Sadly, that's due to a trademark issue in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_British_Bake_Off
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_British_Bake_Off
This Captain Disillution video shows the lengths the producers went to apply that title change to the show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OEwbocwYF8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OEwbocwYF8
I saw a current events comedy show filmed live in the UK (The Last Leg), and they filmed two intros because the Australian network which bought the rights to rebroadcast couldn't afford the rights for the theme music. It was bizarre.
A single version, with digital replacement of visuals. And that's due to a trademark issue in the US, unfortunately.
In the newer shows, the hosts actually say “The Great British Baking Show” during the intro.
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 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.
The current Western Godzilla from 2024 on fared better with Japanese audiences, but they consider him too fat or something.
I think they were referring to the heavy edits the original 1954 Godzilla film underwent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla,_King_of_the_Monsters!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla,_King_of_the_Monsters!
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.
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.
"Philosopher's Stone" also refers to a relevant part of alchemy, whereas "Sorcerer's Stone" has no poetic or referential weight to it. Sad.
To be fair, everybody in that world is a wizard, not a sorcerer.
These are fictional classification of fictional magic users anyway. Actually did she ever clarify what exactly a sorcerer is in her universe?
(In the D&D model her wizards seem to operate more like sorcerers, but of course D&D doesn't make the rules for everyone).
(In the D&D model her wizards seem to operate more like sorcerers, but of course D&D doesn't make the rules for everyone).
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 philosopher's stone was a specific historical idea, the catalyst that would allow alchemists to create the elixir of life.
Or transmute base metals into gold.
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.
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.
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 fact that Americans like the title and Europeans do not... it's an excellent argument for that particular localization.
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).
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).
This is some good irony right here!
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.
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.
Your comment refutes itself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> because America is an English colony
I thought we settled that particular dispute a while back.
I thought we settled that particular dispute a while back.
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!
[deleted]
Sorcerer's Stone is particularly annoying i agree. Not like philosophers' stone is an existing mythos highly relevant to the story or anything.
Another that bugged me was Northern Lights -> The Golden Compass. Apparently NL was too abstract for American audiences?
Oh and Harlequin -> The Archer's Tale.
Another that bugged me was Northern Lights -> The Golden Compass. Apparently NL was too abstract for American audiences?
Oh and Harlequin -> The Archer's Tale.
>Northern Lights -> The Golden Compass
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.
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.
Oh thats interesting, cheers
re: The Golden Compass (sic)
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.
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.
I never noticed that! Did they really change it to gold?
Moreover, "The Golden Compass" was illustrated with the wrong type of compass.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Well, they didn't translate the pun in the title of 1Q84, at least, so they at least have some respect for the reader.
One of the things I like so much about the movie Rounders is that it respects its audience enough to drop unexplained references throughout without elaborate explanation (in a way you hardly ever see in mass media). Many about poker, but many other little gems, too.
Consider the line, "Like Papa Wallenda said, 'Life is on the wire, the rest is just waiting." If you don't get the reference, you aren't missing much, but for those who do it's such a delightful little moment in the film, made better by its lack of supporting explanation. Thank god they didn't add clunky exposition to inform the viewer about the Wallendas.
Another favorite: when Michael is walking back into KGB's place, the place where he previously lost all his money, he says: "I feel like Buckner walking back into Shea." Who is Bucker, what is Shea, and what does it have to do with KGB? The film takes the chance you'll get it.
There are lots and lots of poker terms and references, too, most introduced without elaborate fanfare on the theory that a smart audience will pick them up as they go, but it's these random lines -- "In the legal sense, can fuckin' Steinbrenner move the Yankees?" -- that have always stuck with me.
Consider the line, "Like Papa Wallenda said, 'Life is on the wire, the rest is just waiting." If you don't get the reference, you aren't missing much, but for those who do it's such a delightful little moment in the film, made better by its lack of supporting explanation. Thank god they didn't add clunky exposition to inform the viewer about the Wallendas.
Another favorite: when Michael is walking back into KGB's place, the place where he previously lost all his money, he says: "I feel like Buckner walking back into Shea." Who is Bucker, what is Shea, and what does it have to do with KGB? The film takes the chance you'll get it.
There are lots and lots of poker terms and references, too, most introduced without elaborate fanfare on the theory that a smart audience will pick them up as they go, but it's these random lines -- "In the legal sense, can fuckin' Steinbrenner move the Yankees?" -- that have always stuck with me.
I used to grow up watching Danger Mouse, one of the most British cartoon shows. I still have fond memories of it and the dialog holds up well, acquiring nuance that went over my head as a kid, that I can appreciate as an adult. I learned about London landmarks -- Baker Street, Willesden Green, the Tower of London -- through this show, and even things like what a pillarbox is. Britishisms like that were always namechecked, and everything seems to have been made with a sense of British pride.
Danger Mouse got a "modern" reboot in 2015, and by comparison it's awful. It's more colorful and garish, the dialogue is more rapid fire and less funny, and though it sometimes features new landmarks like the Gherkin, it has less of a British identity. Later on I found out that the producers copped to making a more American style cartoon, which is what the market seems to want.
Danger Mouse got a "modern" reboot in 2015, and by comparison it's awful. It's more colorful and garish, the dialogue is more rapid fire and less funny, and though it sometimes features new landmarks like the Gherkin, it has less of a British identity. Later on I found out that the producers copped to making a more American style cartoon, which is what the market seems to want.
I LOVE Danger Mouse. It still totally holds up.
Also Count Duckula! David Jason (who is very English) did an American accent in that. Which I don't recall finding odd at the time, as a child.
Also Count Duckula! David Jason (who is very English) did an American accent in that. Which I don't recall finding odd at the time, as a child.
The irony of this is that by 1992 large numbers of Americans had already listened to the radio series, read the novels, watched the BBC show, etc., with all of their UK references and language in place. Why would anyone have thought the US audience wouldn't accept it? THey already had.
For the ultimate in retro digital calculator watches:
https://watchranker.com/best-calculator-watches/
10-year battery life! Far superior to the Apple Watch and similar knockoffs.
https://watchranker.com/best-calculator-watches/
10-year battery life! Far superior to the Apple Watch and similar knockoffs.
The example of digital watches is interesting. I found the digital version exponentially easier to read than the watch hands one.
Digital easier to read, but I personally think analog is easier to “feel”. I get a much larger 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.
For the past decade I've worn a series of watches that combine analog hands and a digital display, which I find to be the best compromise between anticipating the passage of time and getting a quick, accurate reading. Casio makes some pretty good combo watches, and there are a range of smartwatch faces that combine the analog movement with the digital readout.
Edit: I noticed you (and the article) mentioned pie charts, and one of my favorite smart watch faces is "Old Fogies Can't See Worth S**" by m3tropolis[0]. It's a literal pie chart showing % of the hour elapsed vs. remaining, with the hour number in the middle. I find it extremely easy to understand, but tend to use other faces when I need to know exact minutes.
[0] https://apps.rebble.io/en_US/application/558782c83ae5e507fc0...
Edit: I noticed you (and the article) mentioned pie charts, and one of my favorite smart watch faces is "Old Fogies Can't See Worth S**" by m3tropolis[0]. It's a literal pie chart showing % of the hour elapsed vs. remaining, with the hour number in the middle. I find it extremely easy to understand, but tend to use other faces when I need to know exact minutes.
[0] https://apps.rebble.io/en_US/application/558782c83ae5e507fc0...
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.
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.
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.
I know a lot of American children and families that have similar associations with Wallace and Gromit. I think even for relatively young children, the fact that something is "international" can make it more entertaining and interesting.
Bluey is a fantastic show, and the fact that it's unapologetically Australian is part of what's so fun about it. I think it's just the choice of nervous higher-ups to localize things like this, and not actually what people want. Like Douglas Adams says, people can survive hearing references they don't understand. And they might even learn something about another culture.
My kids (ages 6 and 3) LOVE Bluey. We are American and (sadly) English-only speakers. The fact that the show is full of Australian accents has not impacted their ability to understand or enjoy the show in any way at all.
The exposure to places that are not-America is good for them!
The exposure to places that are not-America is good for them!
I didn't even realize it but when Bluey, Bingo, and dad go to watch Chunky Chimp (the kids' movie with a big storm) the characters' accents are American.
"it's just a bunch of singing monkeys I wouldn't read too much in to it"
"it's just a bunch of singing monkeys I wouldn't read too much in to it"
>English-only speakers
I mean most of native speakers won't have much trouble understanding Australian accents. It's the ESL people that would have a hard time without having enough exposure.
I mean most of native speakers won't have much trouble understanding Australian accents. It's the ESL people that would have a hard time without having enough exposure.
It's not really the accents that are hard to understand in Australia, it's the slang.
Which is why non-localised US media can be so successful in other countries, even places where English isn't the first language.
Bluey is the only show that made my kid want to turn the TV off so he could play whatever game Bluey and her sister were playing himself. We still play Silly Hotel from time to time.
It’s very different tonally (much more serene), but fans of Bluey should check out the BBC kids’ show Sarah & Duck, which is aimed at a similar age range and also contains much for parents to love as well as children. It’s gentle and surreal, and I’d have been happy to watch it on its own merits even if I didn’t have a kid who loved it as well.
It’s very different tonally (much more serene), but fans of Bluey should check out the BBC kids’ show Sarah & Duck, which is aimed at a similar age range and also contains much for parents to love as well as children. It’s gentle and surreal, and I’d have been happy to watch it on its own merits even if I didn’t have a kid who loved it as well.
The first planet earth wasn't just given different voiceover for American audiences, it was recut. The brass called the Attenborough cut "excruciatingly slow-paced", so once they decided to re-edit, it was probably easier to recast the narration than to try and edit down Attenborough's own speech.
The Attenborough cut is my personal preference too.
The Attenborough cut is my personal preference too.
If you watch them side-by-side it's like they took all the long words out of the US narration.
UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onELlblAI0U
US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zt4wmjOpr0
UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onELlblAI0U
US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zt4wmjOpr0
Replacing Attenborough as the narrator on a nature documentary is a crime against humanity, and should be treated as such ;-)
What we need to do is feed all of his narrations from the last 60 years into an AI and get it to process them; then we can use this corpus to have all nature documentaries narrated by him forever more.
I am, of course, joking... but would it really be that bad an idea? ;-)
What we need to do is feed all of his narrations from the last 60 years into an AI and get it to process them; then we can use this corpus to have all nature documentaries narrated by him forever more.
I am, of course, joking... but would it really be that bad an idea? ;-)
Once wr did this it should be part of the UN charter that the Attenborough narration AI is the acceptable use of AI from that point onwarda into eternity.
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.
These days, if you say you're English, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail.
Is "ZoomZoomZoom" your legal name? :)
I didn't even know there was a version that wasn't Attenborough. Where is this other version found (not that I'll watch this "other")?
It blows my mind that Attenborough would ever be replaced as a narrator because he is the best of the best vis-à-vis nature documentaries.
Or to provide an Americanized analogy, you wouldn’t replace Morgan Freeman in a situation where you needed the sage reflections of an old man in voiceover form.
Or to provide an Americanized analogy, you wouldn’t replace Morgan Freeman in a situation where you needed the sage reflections of an old man in voiceover form.
Agree in general that the UK/Attenborough cut is preferable, but the American intro sequence is fantastic and dramatic. Gave me chills the first time I watched it.
I kind of hate the dramatization in newer nature documentaries, rife with cuts of sweeping landscape views set to loud, epic music. I'm probably just getting old, but it feels like they're trying too hard to keep my attention. I don't need blaring horns and pounding timpani to keep me watching.
The problem is it's a race to the bottom with these kinds of things, comparable to the over-salt-&-sugar-ing of American foods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G77ev9pks4I
"..until eventually, they’re shipping hamburger buns with exactly three sesame seeds artfully arranged in a triangle, and nobody buys their hamburgers any more."
-- https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/09/11/theres-no-place-li...
"..until eventually, they’re shipping hamburger buns with exactly three sesame seeds artfully arranged in a triangle, and nobody buys their hamburgers any more."
-- https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/09/11/theres-no-place-li...
When my son was little we used to watch "Bob the Builder" together, but apparently the producers didn't feel the same as the Bluey ones or didn't have as much sway. Our local station switched to a dubbed version with American accents and it was just awful and pointless. So now they say "soccer" instead of "football", so what? It lost most of its charm.
Honest question: how did it lose charm by switching to American accents and localisms?
I'm not disagreeing (I'm a bit too old for Bob the Builder and I don't have kids), I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not disagreeing (I'm a bit too old for Bob the Builder and I don't have kids), I'm genuinely curious.
I think it was mostly because we were used to the voice actors they had been using. The new ones just didn't fit the characters as well. I'm not sure it was an American vs British thing, I think it was more likely 1) you like what you were introduced to, and 2) they hired less qualified voice actors and re-writers to do the cheap dubbing than they originally did when they cast the show.
Sounds like watching The Simpsons with dubbing - interesting for a brief moment, but then you want the original.
The French-Canadian dub of The Simpsons is at least as good as the original.
https://twitter.com/matttomic/status/1158910781964083201
The Japanese dub from what I've seen is surprisingly okay, but also kind of wordy, which they make up for by speaking faster than usual. (But they have the guy who does all the anime priests as Rev. Lovejoy.)
https://twitter.com/matttomic/status/1158910781964083201
The Japanese dub from what I've seen is surprisingly okay, but also kind of wordy, which they make up for by speaking faster than usual. (But they have the guy who does all the anime priests as Rev. Lovejoy.)
Not everybody is a xenophile, some people are nationalist types who get annoyed (rather than aroused) whenever they hear a foreign accent, and may even have trouble understanding them. You're not going to change channels if you hear an American accent, but they very much will if they hear an Australian one.
One out of every six big US movies would be black if it were proportionate to population, but they're not. The reason is because black people will watch white movies, but white people don't watch black movies. It's the people willing to walk away that make the decision.
It's very expensive to redub a series just to change the accent; they're getting a return on that.
One out of every six big US movies would be black if it were proportionate to population, but they're not. The reason is because black people will watch white movies, but white people don't watch black movies. It's the people willing to walk away that make the decision.
It's very expensive to redub a series just to change the accent; they're getting a return on that.
> The reason is because black people will watch white movies, but white people don't watch black movies.
What happened to "people just want to be represented in movies"? Simply put, since there are more whites than blacks in the U.S., then every film-maker has an incentive to represent them more to reach a broader audience.
This is absolutely not because "white people are more bigoted", which is laughable when you consider that they are surely, in proportion, the most xenophile people on the planet.
What happened to "people just want to be represented in movies"? Simply put, since there are more whites than blacks in the U.S., then every film-maker has an incentive to represent them more to reach a broader audience.
This is absolutely not because "white people are more bigoted", which is laughable when you consider that they are surely, in proportion, the most xenophile people on the planet.
I don't understand the argument that you're making. Black people expect not to be represented in movies, and so seeing someone like themselves is not essential to appreciate them (although a token certainly helps.) White people are alienated from movies they don't see themselves in. Therefore movies made for white people will not lose black audiences, but movies made for black people will lose white audiences.
You seem to be supporting that opinion, but angrily.
You seem to be supporting that opinion, but angrily.
[deleted]
> surely
Would you mind substantiating this?
Would you mind substantiating this?
I don't believe there an exact measurable statistic that captures this, however it'd be interesting to:
- reflect on how many white people have made a social virtue out of countersignaling their own group;
- point out how low the bar is in the rest of the world, and how easy this comparison really is.
- reflect on how many white people have made a social virtue out of countersignaling their own group;
- point out how low the bar is in the rest of the world, and how easy this comparison really is.
Discovered Bluey and use it as a treat/distraction when needed with my 10-month-old. I legitimately enjoy watching it and love the subtle jokes made for parents. A big part of the charm is the Australianisms.
We don't need more Americanized stuff. If anything it should be the reverse: USA needs more international content, accents, etc.
We don't need more Americanized stuff. If anything it should be the reverse: USA needs more international content, accents, etc.
As an Aussie I think of Bluey as one our proudest exports.
But some episodes I wonder if overseas audiences get the same tensions. IE Curry Quest, walk for a curry swap but have to deal with a magpie.
Do people really understand how "out to get you" magpies can be in Spring? As a kid, they can be vicious bastards.. when I realised they were dealing with one I was anxious over how it was going to go.
But some episodes I wonder if overseas audiences get the same tensions. IE Curry Quest, walk for a curry swap but have to deal with a magpie.
Do people really understand how "out to get you" magpies can be in Spring? As a kid, they can be vicious bastards.. when I realised they were dealing with one I was anxious over how it was going to go.
In my experience, some people in the US/Canada struggle to understand a British accent and this might be one reason to dub it into another accent.
My brother tried to order an apple pie fritter in Canada and the woman didn't understand what he was asking for. When he proncounced it fridder, she did :-) I understood both ways perfectly well but hey!
My brother tried to order an apple pie fritter in Canada and the woman didn't understand what he was asking for. When he proncounced it fridder, she did :-) I understood both ways perfectly well but hey!
I had this too when I was in the US. A waitress didn't understand "bottle of water" so I had to point to it, to which she replied "Oh you mean a boddle of warder"
That’s unfortunate… variations in American accents can differ as much or more than that, so it’s a little surprising she struggled. I hope you don’t judge all Americans by that experience :)
From my experience, even people used to variation still struggle when it is the wrong kind of variation. It's a bit difficult to explain but I have seen it happening regularly, including once when I tried to say something about Vancouver and it took a writing down to get it across. The other person was used to one southern American accent, Estuary English and European Globish at least.
I know I shouldn't but I still do find it surprising how someone speaking English can't understand a well spoken English person!
Not understanding an accent is purely due to lack of exposure - so if that's the reason producers choose to dub everything then it's a self perpetuating cycle of ignorance.
If we're going to be using eye dialect, did he order an "fritter" or a "fri'uh"?
I think there’s something about British narration of nature docs that makes them more relaxing and engaging for American audiences. Especially those who grew up in an era of Discovery Channel and PBS where the narration was usually British, or South African, or Australian, or in the Commonwealth-tinged flavor of English of that location. Perhaps it’s nostalgia.
I agree and I think part of it is nostalgia for a time when educational channels actually broadcast informative content, not semi-scripted, over edited, over dramatized reality tv. Did anyone else notice the slow boil of channels like History, Discovery, Animal Planet? Just irresponsible to coast on their reputation and start showing nothing but junk TV 24/7 to people who thought they were learning.
I think it started with Pawn Stars and went downhill from there. MBAs saw $$$ and had no qualms about dumbing down their national audience and trashing the reputations of the channels in the process. American TV is unwatchable IMO.
I think it started with Pawn Stars and went downhill from there. MBAs saw $$$ and had no qualms about dumbing down their national audience and trashing the reputations of the channels in the process. American TV is unwatchable IMO.
I used to watch Discovery’s “Wild Discovery” animal series every night. Then they spun out Animal Planet, which was cool. Then they started putting filler programming on AP. Now it’s all gone Honey Boo Boo TLC with scripted reality shows that are animal-adjacent. Have to catch reruns of Blue Planet and Planet Earth on BBCAmerica if I want to unwind with a nature doc in the evening
It really is painful to watch. It's been so long since I watched anything that wasn't a streaming service that when I see old fashioned TV with commercials and horrible editing it drives me up a wall.
I remember when my complaint about the History Channel was that it was WWII all the time. It was still massively better than today; at least I learned about the Battle of the Bulge over and over and over.
I remember when my complaint about the History Channel was that it was WWII all the time. It was still massively better than today; at least I learned about the Battle of the Bulge over and over and over.
I didn’t have cable growing up, but by the time I was in college History channel had already given up on history and was just running “Ancient Aliens” and its ilk along with reality TV. As far as I know, there is nowhere to find good documentary content on a regular basis (whether by streaming or legacy media). PBS gets close, but even their Nova and Nature programs have degraded in quality.
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, 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.
That's an understatement.
or: Tats en oonderstatement.
or maybe: Thaaats and aaandastatement.
or maybe: Thaaats and aaandastatement.
Removing all the Australian idioms from Bluey would have been a travesty!
It's fascinating to see the number of Bluey fans. My kids love it too. Making it American would just ruin it.
I grew up reading Paddington books, and about 90% of what I know about British money came from those books. Re-interpreting it to American dollars would have ruined the immersion into the story, IMO. I was very glad when the Paddington movies were unapologetically British.
I grew up reading Paddington books, and about 90% of what I know about British money came from those books. Re-interpreting it to American dollars would have ruined the immersion into the story, IMO. I was very glad when the Paddington movies were unapologetically British.
I guess David Attenborough probably isn't so well-known in the US? It's apparently much harder to get people to show up for something without a big name attached.
Edit:
> Actress and conservationist Sigourney Weaver was brought in to replace David Attenborough as narrator, as it was thought her familiarity to American audiences would attract more viewers.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(2006_TV_series)
Edit:
> Actress and conservationist Sigourney Weaver was brought in to replace David Attenborough as narrator, as it was thought her familiarity to American audiences would attract more viewers.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(2006_TV_series)
David Attenborough is by far the most famous nature documentarist in the world. No one comes close. I'm not sure what name would be regarded as bigger.
I would put Jacques Cousteau and Felix Rodríguez de la Fuente in the same league. If we take in mind the risks that they suffered to film nature I would say that they score higher in the epic factor.
I'm not denying that Attenborough is a category in himself and a wonderful narrator of course.
Freeman and Sigourney are in a different category. Both are excellent actors and narrators in films directed by another people. Freeman is "the" voice in the anglosphere, but Rodriguez de la Fuente was "the" voice in the latinosphere. Everybody was trying to imitate their style and accent decades after their death. He was the leader in a wolf pack when nobody was doing that, and don't hesitate to escalate a clift to take a good shot of a vulture nest. He was not an actor that just arrives to a set, say their lines and go.
I'm not denying that Attenborough is a category in himself and a wonderful narrator of course.
Freeman and Sigourney are in a different category. Both are excellent actors and narrators in films directed by another people. Freeman is "the" voice in the anglosphere, but Rodriguez de la Fuente was "the" voice in the latinosphere. Everybody was trying to imitate their style and accent decades after their death. He was the leader in a wolf pack when nobody was doing that, and don't hesitate to escalate a clift to take a good shot of a vulture nest. He was not an actor that just arrives to a set, say their lines and go.
Some people's work is of a sort that it doesn't get Americanized so much as alter American culture. I'd put both Adams and Cousteau in that class. How could Cousteau be understood through that accent? How could anyone not pay close attention once the accent was decrypted?
By the end of his life, Jacques Cousteau seemed a caricature of himself. The red cap, the thick accent--the Cousteau aesthetic was so overripe that director Wes Anderson used it as the template for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/water-activi...
By the end of his life, Jacques Cousteau seemed a caricature of himself. The red cap, the thick accent--the Cousteau aesthetic was so overripe that director Wes Anderson used it as the template for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/water-activi...
Morgan Freeman as a runner up
Ken Burns is a candidate, though not strictly natural world stuff.
If Americans don’t know his name, they know his voice. And we would know it better if we could get more BBC nature content licensed for display in the US.
Or when Mary Beard was cut from the American release of Civilisation.
She, a world-renowned scholar and classicist, was replaced by Liev fucking Schreiber.
She, a world-renowned scholar and classicist, was replaced by Liev fucking Schreiber.
Bluey is one of the few kids shows a parent can watch without having their brain melt.
And it gives great ideas for playing with the kids.
And it gives great ideas for playing with the kids.
You should check out Gravity Falls, and the 2017 DuckTales.
I would also suggest the Storybots series. There are some amazing cameos by Snoop Dog and Weird All Yancovic among others.
I don't care one direction or the other, but for example Doctor Who is just fine without having to be redone and loved by people in America regardless of the accents. Is there a reason you'd love to see it redone outside of just having the show have more exposure in America? I can understand the sentiment.
Oh, no I definitely do _not_ want it redone. It's better this way. I love Puffin Rock too (an Irish show) and can't fathom that with American accents.
Thank you for clarifying I just lost what you were conveying.
Speaking of Doctor Who, David Tennant is the same role in the American remake of Broadchurch and he has the worst American accent I've ever heard. It's set in California and he sounds like he's from everywhere else at the same time.
That's kind of odd, they should just let him have his accent, it's not like anybody is going to question why anybody from another country would ever live in America... I've not seen Broadchurch though so I don't know how out of character it would be.
Fun fact which is strangely on point for this thread: Dave Mccormack, the voice of Dad on Bluey, was previously known for his band Custard. One of their most popular songs was "I feel like Ringo". Ringo Starr was famously the narrator of Thomas the Tank Engine.
Somewhat famously, Mad Max was dubbed into “American” for distribution in the USA. I have an old DVD that has both soundtracks and it can be fun to switch back and forth.
And you get to learn new words like dunny and dobber.
My personal favorite story in this genre is that the set-top box that my employer-at-the-time imported into the US called the schedule "TV Guide."
PM: "TV Guide" is a Registered Trademark. You can't call it that! Non-US-folks: "Uhm, TV guide is just, ehhm, what it says" PM: "We'll be sued! We'll be wiped out" Non-US-folks: "Uhm, OK, so what about 'TV Listings'" PM: "Oh, yeah, that will be OK"
How any of this makes any difference still eludes me, but yeah...
PM: "TV Guide" is a Registered Trademark. You can't call it that! Non-US-folks: "Uhm, TV guide is just, ehhm, what it says" PM: "We'll be sued! We'll be wiped out" Non-US-folks: "Uhm, OK, so what about 'TV Listings'" PM: "Oh, yeah, that will be OK"
How any of this makes any difference still eludes me, but yeah...
For some reason, in Ireland and possibly the UK, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were instead called The Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles. 'Ninja' may have been too violent
I think that's right!
Incidentally, I was recently very surprised to discover, via my young nephew, that the Turtles are still very much a thing. Who'd have thought of the Ninja Turtles as a piece of 90s culture that would endure?
Incidentally, I was recently very surprised to discover, via my young nephew, that the Turtles are still very much a thing. Who'd have thought of the Ninja Turtles as a piece of 90s culture that would endure?
To my recollection they were called Ninja in UK to start with but renamed.
The mythology for the rename was that kids copied them and hurt themselves, but that seems an unlikely reason as changing the name wouldn't change kids copying from them??
The mythology for the rename was that kids copied them and hurt themselves, but that seems an unlikely reason as changing the name wouldn't change kids copying from them??
>So digital watches were mere technological toys rather than significant improvements on anything that went before. I don’t happen to think that’s true of cellular comms technology.
I think it's funny how for a brief moment there the digital watches joke became a thing again when everyone started pushing smart watches.
Funny enough, I kind of agree with adams that displaying a pictorial representation of time is better than it's numeric value, but honestly I find the classic representation too easy to trip up on.
>Incidentally, I noticed a few years ago, when we still had £1 notes, that the Queen looked very severe on £1 notes, less severe on five pound notes, and so on, all the way up to £50 notes. If you had a £50 the queen smiled at you very broadly
no way... https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/withdrawn-banknote...
oh my god it's kinda there! Go to 1992, What the hell?!?!
Edit: Oh I see. In 1992 they were rotating in new notes for 5 pound and above, but the series D pound notes were still in circulation, in those the queen was more demure, and in the new notes she's much happier.
I think it's funny how for a brief moment there the digital watches joke became a thing again when everyone started pushing smart watches.
Funny enough, I kind of agree with adams that displaying a pictorial representation of time is better than it's numeric value, but honestly I find the classic representation too easy to trip up on.
>Incidentally, I noticed a few years ago, when we still had £1 notes, that the Queen looked very severe on £1 notes, less severe on five pound notes, and so on, all the way up to £50 notes. If you had a £50 the queen smiled at you very broadly
no way... https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/withdrawn-banknote...
oh my god it's kinda there! Go to 1992, What the hell?!?!
Edit: Oh I see. In 1992 they were rotating in new notes for 5 pound and above, but the series D pound notes were still in circulation, in those the queen was more demure, and in the new notes she's much happier.
If you like Hitchhiker's, try "Year Zero" by Rob Reid. Very similar style IMO. Also "After On" by the same author is also fantastic.
* Americanize
Someone had to say it ;-)
The '-ize' prefix is official International English - OED English. No partisanship (for example) necessary (in fact, '-ize' in OED is a Graecism, not, say, an Americanism).
Trying anyway to link the idea to the context: there is no need to translate a Local Language work into an International Language transposition - no need already per se. But especially, it is most normal for works of arts to written using specific localisms, well in a deliberate concept from the author - it is normally the duty of a translator to try and convey those choices, which makes it below absurd to suppose to instead nullify those features in a standardized relative of the same language.
Trying anyway to link the idea to the context: there is no need to translate a Local Language work into an International Language transposition - no need already per se. But especially, it is most normal for works of arts to written using specific localisms, well in a deliberate concept from the author - it is normally the duty of a translator to try and convey those choices, which makes it below absurd to suppose to instead nullify those features in a standardized relative of the same language.
'-ize' might be preferred by Oxford, but '-ise' is preferred by Cambridge. So I think it needs no explanation which DNA would prefer.
Gotta love HN.
> The '-ize' prefix...
Since we're doing flagrant pedantry, let's go all in: don't you mean suffix?
> The '-ize' prefix...
Since we're doing flagrant pedantry, let's go all in: don't you mean suffix?
Oops! Of course I do. I'm just quite tired.
By the way: no pedantry involved (unless you mean the "educating" value of information passed here where "intellectual curiosity" is the criterion for exchange). The purpose and implicit messages in your original post were unclear (many readings were possible).
By the way: no pedantry involved (unless you mean the "educating" value of information passed here where "intellectual curiosity" is the criterion for exchange). The purpose and implicit messages in your original post were unclear (many readings were possible).
Only positive, warm humor intended by any of it.
I actually hosted Shaun Usher at Google [1]. We had an experiment, not sure if it was successful but it seemed like a good idea at the time, where Googlers read some of the letters.
He courted his wife entirely by letters on paper. This was not pre-Internet days, either; it was around 2000.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg7LRg2NAfM&list=PL4ugKP-T4L...
He courted his wife entirely by letters on paper. This was not pre-Internet days, either; it was around 2000.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg7LRg2NAfM&list=PL4ugKP-T4L...
I am young so take my answer with a grain of salt but a digital watch number is instantly recognizable to me, more so then an analog watch.
My children would concur: they prefer digital time I think because that's what computers generally give. Also they prefer to have subtitles on but that's by the by.
I enjoyed Douglas Adam's letter though I can't help thinking it was meant for publication.
I enjoyed Douglas Adam's letter though I can't help thinking it was meant for publication.
I liked the movie, but Adams wasn't around to prevent the filmmakers from Americanising it, casting Ford Prefect and Trillian with American actors. If I remember correctly, Trillian is supposed to be Arabic in the book.
I was amused by the praise at the end. The Monty Python team must have had a time machine because they managed to parody Nadine Dorries tweeting exactly the same thing as Boris Johnson decades before it actually happened lol
[deleted]
This is shocking. To rewrite somebody's work should be immediately regarded as a fraud. I fear for those who died and cannot contrast such insanities.
This line makes me recall Roger Ebert talking about the transformers, which seems to me to epitomize american cgi-heavy movie producing:
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/the-fall-of-the-reven...
"The movie is pretty much all climax. The Autobots® and Decepticons® must not have read the warning label on their Viagra. At last we see what a four-hour erection looks like."
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/the-fall-of-the-reven...
"The movie is pretty much all climax. The Autobots® and Decepticons® must not have read the warning label on their Viagra. At last we see what a four-hour erection looks like."
Marks and Spencer’s is such a dumb name for a supermarket though.
The Uk is full of dumb nonsensical names.
Curries is an electric store.
Oh yes, perfect sense.
The Uk is full of dumb nonsensical names.
Curries is an electric store.
Oh yes, perfect sense.
> Marks and Spencer’s is such a dumb name for a supermarket though.
It's named after its founders (Michael Marks and Thomas Spencer).
Doesn't the US have a supermarket called Trader Joe's, also named after its founder?
It's named after its founders (Michael Marks and Thomas Spencer).
Doesn't the US have a supermarket called Trader Joe's, also named after its founder?
You're not alone.
In Australia we have Bunnings:a pallet-shelving style hardware(paints/tools/wood/whatever else) store.
WTF is a bunning anyway?
With no proper definition the Urban Dictionary definition(NSFW) makes shopping much more amusing...
In Australia we have Bunnings:a pallet-shelving style hardware(paints/tools/wood/whatever else) store.
WTF is a bunning anyway?
With no proper definition the Urban Dictionary definition(NSFW) makes shopping much more amusing...
I Don't understand why publishers localize a book, instead to add a footnote..
And translations are even worst.. .
And translations are even worst.. .
> Please don’t let anyone Americanize it
TFTFY
TFTFY
Amen!
It's interesting, I actually do think there is value in regionalizing media to an extent, primarily low-level word change between dialects. For example, changing "Go throw the wellies in the boot of the car parked on the pavement before we get petrol" to "Go throw the rainboots in the trunk of the car parked on the sidewalk before we get gas" for an American audience. Higher-level changes are less justifiable, like the potential of changing landmarks, etc.
That being said, "disused lavatory" is reasonable to change, although "unused lavatory" is entirely the wrong way to do it! That translation both changes the meaning of the phrase and doesn't even get rid of the obvious Britishism. I would have gone for "derelict bathroom" maybe? Maybe "dilapidated"?
That being said, "disused lavatory" is reasonable to change, although "unused lavatory" is entirely the wrong way to do it! That translation both changes the meaning of the phrase and doesn't even get rid of the obvious Britishism. I would have gone for "derelict bathroom" maybe? Maybe "dilapidated"?
> Go throw the wellies in the boot of the car parked on the pavement before we get petrol
When I first read HGTTG in 5th-6th grade, it was exactly this kind of language that drew me to it. It enhanced the humor for me, and it would feel dead to regionalize it, and lose an integral part of the character.
When I first read HGTTG in 5th-6th grade, it was exactly this kind of language that drew me to it. It enhanced the humor for me, and it would feel dead to regionalize it, and lose an integral part of the character.
My thoughts exactly. The Britishisms add extra color and absurdity while simultaneously bringing the characters more to life. Besides, archaic and excessively formal language is almost a hallmark of British humor as I interpret it.
This would be reasonable if the audience is under 12 years old.
I expect any American older than this to cope with a few less familiar words.
I expect any American older than this to cope with a few less familiar words.
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." But a clock face is not really a pie chart. It does not indicate distribution among categories, as a pie chart does. The arms are not delimiters; they merely indicate position.