Comments on: Visitors as Pleasant Distractions

By: On Parents and Physicists | Cosmic Variance

On Parents and Physicists | Cosmic Variance — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:13:17 +0000

[...] First Clifford and then JoAnne have recently written about what their families think of them being physicists and whether they understand what it is their children actually do. These are interesting questions, not only because they explore the personal side of being a physicist, but also because a close look at physicists’ parents might shed some light on the kinds of backgrounds that help kids to succeed in science. [...]

By: Jackie M.

Jackie M. — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:25:12 +0000

Apparently they also eat dung. Yuk, dung.

By: ellroon

ellroon — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:05:02 +0000

Thanks. Appreciate knowing the difference.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:02:34 +0000

ellroon: Thanks. Two cents are welcome. If everybody contributes a little like that we'll all be the richer. fig-eater beetle vs fig beetle. Both names are in use. See the wikipedia entry, and the narrative on adults of the species they link to near the end. Oh, and it should not be confused with the Japanese beetle*. Cheers, -cvj *I love Google.

By: ellroon

ellroon — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:53:15 +0000

Wandered on to your site. Hope you don’t mind if I add my two cents.

Here in Southern California the beetle is known as a fig beetle and I’ve heard someone say ‘Japanese beetle’ as well.

I bought both versions of Harry Potter in the beginning (we had a friend in England at the time). One term that delighted us: popping your clogs translated to American as kicking the bucket.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:57:04 +0000

jackie M – It is indeed Cotinis mutabilis – fig-eater beetle! Thanks! ….and now I know who’s been getting to some of the delicious figs I’ve been growing before I do!!

Thanks again!

-cvj

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:54:22 +0000

Me too. And I certainly could not squish something so huge and so beautiful, even if I wanted to.

-cvj

By: Lil

Lil — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:09:59 +0000

Quote:
>Changing it is kind of like changing “the immaculate conception” to “the clean conception” because “immaculate” is just too difficult a word.
>

. . . the church of the conception without messy exchange of bodily fluids . . .
—
Having once indulged in amateur entolmology in my youth, I continue to find insects and arachnids to be beautiful and interesting. I try to do my part to educate the young people who cross my path about appreciation for insects and the lack of necessity for summarily squashing some of them.

By: Cosmic Variance

Cosmic Variance — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:42:06 +0000

On Parents and Physicists

First Clifford and then JoAnne have recently written about what their families think of them being physicists and whether they understand what it is their children actually do. These are interesting questions, not only because they explore the persona…

By: janet

janet — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:26:30 +0000

Actually, it’s not clear to me that the later books weren’t messed with (much if at all) because of complaints. I think a lot of it probably had to do with the editorial cycle and the imperative to bring the book out everywhere simultaneously — less time for fiddling in the process of getting the book into print. (The fourth and fifth books were really poorly edited to begin with, IMO.) This was not an issue with the first book because it didn’t come out in the US until it after it had come out in the UK. With the first book, there was a lot of concern about making the book “accessible” to Americans because the publishers weren’t sure it would take off as it had in the UK. Once the books became so popular in the US, that became less of an issue.

As for their rationale for making the changes, the editors have talked about that — basically they wanted to make it easier for American kids to understand what in the books is part of the world Rowling created, rather than thinking that ordinary British idioms and vocabulary were things that were made up for the books. I’m not sure the changes they made helped much with that, or that it’s even a reasonable goal, but that was the explanation. Rowling approved the changes at the time, though now that she has more clout she might not be willing to do that.

The thing that bothers me about changing “philospher’s stone” to “sorcerer’s stone” is that the philosopher’s stone is a concept with a very specific history in alchemy. Changing it is kind of like changing “the immaculate conception” to “the clean conception” because “immaculate” is just too difficult a word.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:10:28 +0000

“Something like 35 words were changed in the first book, and in later books most if not all of the British idioms remain â€” there is a great deal of snogging in the most recent one, they wear trainers and jumpers and so forth, the Quidditch pitch is a pitch, not a field, etc.”

Clearly the reason that the later boos were not messed with is because people complained loudly about it. So the point still stands: why do those people feel the need to have attempted those changes in the first place?

Covers I have no issue with.

-cvj

By: janet

janet — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:57 +0000

Clifford, I think the degree to which the text of the Potter books has been changed for the American market has been exaggerated, mainly by people who were (rightly, I think) aggravated by the change of the first book’s title. Something like 35 words were changed in the first book, and in later books most if not all of the British idioms remain â€” there is a great deal of snogging in the most recent one, they wear trainers and jumpers and so forth, the Quidditch pitch is a pitch, not a field, etc. My husband, purist that he is, always insists on getting the British editions. I haven’t gone through any of them with a fine-toothed comb to compare them to the American editions, but as far as I can tell the main difference is that the spelling and punctuation have been changed to the American style, something that is done with virtually all British books published in the US (and the same is done in reverse).

The differences in covers and the change of the first book’s title are the kinds of decisions that are made by sales & marketing, whereas changes in the book’s text are generally made by editors, so I’m not sure that it’s fair to conflate them. It’s very amusing to analyze the differences in the cover art â€” my favorite covers for the books are the German ones, because they are just so German! See: http://www.carlsen-harrypotter.de/basic1/buecher/content.html

By: Clifford

Clifford — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:12:27 +0000

Matrix: Thanks, sis! -cvj

By: Matrix

Matrix — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:39:28 +0000

Well as Clifford’s sister I am immensely proud of what he has achieved and I am guilty of not understanding exactly what it is that he is researching and doing. I can remember in 1986 when he tried to explain what he was doing at the start of his first degree and I began to understand why he chose that particular field of science and I can understand the fascination while not understanding the subject. What appears to be happening over here in the UK is that with the lack of support for science, the exposure on the radio is greater so there are various discussions I can tune into and get a measure of understanding of what he is doing over there! Reading the postings on this blog site also helps me understand what is going on in the physics world – naturally it was my most hated subject at school. I will never get it all but with the help of the level of exposure via the media in general I will get some of it. Bring it on and don’t stop trying to explain, when the glazed look in the eyes come to your audience, change the subject but tackle it again later and yes speak about what you are working on and your students etc, what we do in our careers are perhaps not even remotely interesting so if you give us the time of day when we are blabbing about what we do then we are honour bound to do the same – black holes, D-branes whatever!!

By: A Day in the Life | Cosmic Variance

A Day in the Life | Cosmic Variance — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:48:05 +0000

[...] My family and friends are constantly trying to figure out just what it is that I do. As noted in the comments on Clifford’s recent post, our loved ones – loving as they are – just don’t get it. They all seem to understand that we have accomplished something, but really don’t have a clue as to what that something is, or even how we spend our time. My best friend’s husband summed it up best: “Just what is it that you do during the day?” he asked. I tried to explain, but his eyes glazed over quickly. I now have a neat one-liner, meant to answer such inquiries: “I get paid to think.” For me, that seems to sum it up fairly well. [...]

By: Athena

Athena — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:15:38 +0000

Me too! Thanks to spyder’s comment, I remembered to watch the bio. Kept my interest for the entirety; I appreciated the framing of the story around the equation. A touch melodramatic at times, but not totally hateful. ; )

By: Clifford

Clifford — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 02:15:23 +0000

spyder: THanks for the reminder, I’d completely forgotten about it….. I’ll have a look. Saw a preview and it looks like it won’t be totally hateful.

-cvj

By: zevatron

zevatron — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:28:33 +0000

Clifford, I suppose I knew the answers before I asked the question but it still burns me. I mean, can you imagine the same thing done for music? I may waste the rest of my evening imagining “dumbed-down” titles for US versions of Beatles or Led Zeppelin album titles. I haven’t run across the re-writing phenomenon yet; I’m too scared to look and see what lurks in the US version of “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time”.

By: spyder

spyder — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:27:44 +0000

Maybe you could watch the Einstein bio with your mum tonight on PBS and let her see how you are connected to that.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:17:10 +0000

zevatron…..Ooooooh this is a topic close to my heart. It relates to my other pet peeve of which I have spoken before: Editors (etc) have decided to protect the public from thiings that are “unfamiliar” or “difficult”, and in doing so seve only to reinforce the problems they percieve to be there. This happens so much in science journalism, and you see it elsewhere too. It’s just so stupid and hypocritical.

So:

- Nobody will understand “philosopher’s stone”, so use “sorcerer’s stone”. (Potter)
- Nobody will understand “license revoked” so use “license to kill” (James Bond is in incredibly stupid alternative choice, actually)

…and it goes on. The question arises: If what the editor (or marketing person) says is true and these thigns are too “difficult” for the public – and I mostly don’t think it is so…..it is such an arrogant position to take – how will those people ever understand these “new words” if they are not exposed to them?

Same thing about science concepts in the media. Sigh.

-cvj

P.S. Janet: It is not just about marketing, or they would only have changed the covers. There are several examples of parts of the actual text of books being rewritten for a US audience. And it hardly ever happens for US books going to the UK market, by the way.