More Bonus LOLs

Cidu Bill on Jul 6th 2012




Filed in B.C., Bill Bickel, Bill Whitehead, Comics That Made Us Laugh Out Loud, Cornered, Dave Blazek, Frazz, Free Range, Happle Tea, Harry Potter, Loose Parts, Mike Baldwin, comic strips, comics, humor, lol | 22 responses so far

22 Responses to “More Bonus LOLs”

  1. Mark in Boston Jul 6th 2012 at 05:32 pm 1

    So is Caulfield Goofus or Gallant? “Gallant politely raises his hand and informs the teacher of the dentist appointment. Goofus stands up and runs out of the room with not even a by-your-leave.”

    Caulfield is a very strange kid indeed if he thinks Highlights for Children is a “good magazine”.

  2. Morris Keesan Jul 6th 2012 at 05:36 pm 2

    It’s Frazz, not Caulfield, who’s implying that the dentist has Highlights for Children. My guess is that Caulfield is going to the dentist’s waiting room to read something like The Economist.

  3. Gg83 Jul 6th 2012 at 06:17 pm 3

    I always needed a note from a parent to get out of class for a doctor’s appointment, and I wasn’t nearly as much of a well-known troublemaker as Caulfield is. After some consideration, I figured that Mrs. Olsen may suspect that he doesn’t have an appointment, but doesn’t really care as long as he’s out of her class. That actually makes it funnier for me.

  4. Logan Jul 7th 2012 at 12:36 am 4

    To this day, it irritates me to no end that the American publisher of Harry Potter changed the title to The “Sorcerer’s” Stone. It’s The Philosopher’s Stone, and you are throwing away hundreds of years of fascinating legends from alchemy by calling it something that isn’t even a thing. I actually went out of my way and spent a pretty penny to import the U.K. editions of the Harry Potter books, because I refuse to read something that was “translated” from British to American.

  5. Kilby Jul 7th 2012 at 12:59 am 5

    @ Logan - I have to agree with you about the title, but as for the rest of the translation, have a little pity on the target audience. The vast majority of American teenagers would be rather puzzled by some of the quirky differences between British and American usage (such as “torch” or “jumper”).

  6. jjmcgaffey Jul 7th 2012 at 05:22 am 6

    “porridge” was the one that drove me nuts - not because I didn’t understand it, but because I did and couldn’t believe they had to change it for Americans. Yeah, yeah, I had a trans-Atlantic upbringing…but still!

  7. Ooten Aboot Jul 7th 2012 at 06:44 am 7

    Kilby, those delicate American teenagers would be no more puzzled than I was by Frazz’s reference to Goofus and Gallant. I know the words, but had manged to escape the characters for over six decades.

  8. Molly J Jul 7th 2012 at 08:13 am 8

    I remember, even as a kid, wanting to push Gallant down a flight of stairs.

  9. furrykef Jul 7th 2012 at 11:25 am 9

    @ Logan - I have to agree with you about the title, but as for the rest of the translation, have a little pity on the target audience. The vast majority of American teenagers would be rather puzzled by some of the quirky differences between British and American usage (such as “torch” or “jumper”).

    I remember being caught by this one in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
    “I went down to the basement.”
    “That’s the display department.”
    “With a torch!”
    “The lights had probably gone…”

    It took me much longer than it should have (I’d already read/watched this scene several times) for me to realize the “torch” was merely what I’d call a flashlight. There’s another bit not much later on where Brits and Americans tend to imagine very different things (though, surprisingly, both fit the context) upon reading or hearing the phrase “zebra crossing”.

    One bit in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe was ruined by localization. It went something like this.
    “I’m in the parking lot.”
    “What are you doing there?”
    “Parking cars. What else does one do in a parking lot?”

    This joke made much more sense to me when I watched the British TV version and it went like this:
    “I’m in the car park.”
    “What are you doing there?”
    “Parking cars. What else does one do in a car park?”

    I was once in a chat room where I brought this up and I was told I was overanalyzing. Seriously? It’s not overanalyzing, it’s the essence of the joke. It’s wordplay. You can’t have wordplay if you screw with the central words of it.

    I’ve also read a very strange edition of Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency. It used American spellings, but kept all British idioms. If I had realized the edition I was reading was only partially Americanized sooner, it wouldn’t have taken me so long to realize that “pissed” meant “drunk” and not “angry”, and so forth.

  10. Lola Jul 7th 2012 at 11:55 am 10

    For crying out loud, it’s not rocket science - these things can be figured out by context - and what’s wrong with that? Do we all need to remain ignorant about other cultures? What’s wrong with expanding vocabularies? With few exceptions, surely it’s a travesty to change the editions for a target market speaking essentially the same language.

    Glad for the tip, though. I’d been planning on reading the Harry Potter series when I had some free time. Now I know to make sure I get the first language editions.

  11. Morris Keesan Jul 7th 2012 at 12:09 pm 11

    This kind of thing (British vs. American usage) has been bothering me recently while listening to the BBC. There’s a radio drama that’s ongoing right now, set in Seattle, with American characters, with reasonably good BBC approximations of what they imagine a generic American accent to be, saying things like “different to” where an American would say “different from”, and “meant to be” where any American would say “supposed to be”. Not the sort of thing most of their target audience of BBC ratepayers would notice, but glaringly obvious to an American.

  12. furrykef Jul 7th 2012 at 12:46 pm 12

    Lola — I largely agree with you, but context is not necessarily sufficient to figure these things out. I refer you again to my confusion regarding “torch”, “zebra crossing”, and “pissed”. Instead of relying on context I think there should be footnotes when context is insufficient. That way the original text is unaltered, while clarity is uninhibited.

  13. Mark in Boston Jul 7th 2012 at 10:33 pm 13

    We Americans never even noticed that the Beatles sang with fake American accents on their first few records.

    They did!

  14. Dave in Boston Jul 8th 2012 at 01:10 am 14

    Footnotes are aggravating too. You see one, you wonder if there’s some extra meaning you weren’t aware of, you look down to the bottom of the page, and of course no, there isn’t, it’s just that the editor assumes you’re an ignoramus, and then you’ve lost the rhythm of the story for no reason. One of the common editions of Shakespeare does this and it drives me bats. (The editors have apparently not realized that 35 years of fantasy novels and gaming have brought a lot of once moribund words back into circulation, like “greaves”.)

    As for things like “torch” and “jumper”, kids pick these up from reading C.S. Lewis and/or dozens of other authors, and then forget by the time they’re grown up.

    I too have a full set of unbowdlerized Harry Potter.

  15. George P. Jul 8th 2012 at 07:31 am 15

    Napkin, zucchini, eggplant, cookie. I enjoy these differences, and I especially like that the English equivalents are French words.

  16. Lola Jul 8th 2012 at 08:52 am 16

    The others I know, but what’s the French word for zucchini, which, BTW, is already Italian.

  17. George P Jul 8th 2012 at 09:01 am 17

    Courgette. The difference is that we don’t have a reputation for being disdainful of Italians.

  18. somebody else Jul 8th 2012 at 10:12 am 18

    And the day I was late for class, and was called on just as I took my seat, so ended up doing an unprepared “sight reading” of our French translation passage. It was about a small countryside inn, with its innkeeper, and his wife, the eggplant.

  19. furrykef Jul 8th 2012 at 11:09 am 19

    and of course no, there isn’t, it’s just that the editor assumes you’re an ignoramus, and then you’ve lost the rhythm of the story for no reason.

    What if I am an ignoramus?

  20. Winter Wallaby Jul 9th 2012 at 02:59 am 20

    Dave #14: When I read C.S. Lewis, I was confused by his use or “torch.” I didn’t know it was British for flashlight. If the word had been completely familiar I would have thought to look it up, but it was a word I thought I was familiar with, and was vaguely appropriate for the situation (trying to see in the dark), which left me wondering what sort of weirdos carried burning sticks on a train.

    And I don’t know what “greaves” are. Of course, I can always look it up, but if I have to consult an external source for definitions too many times it disrupts the flow of the story worse than a footnote.

  21. Dave in Boston Jul 9th 2012 at 04:09 am 21

    Winter Wallaby: me too, but I was like 8 at the time. I figured it out not long after, although I no longer remember exactly how. But that sort of thing’s normal at that age: you run into something you don’t understand, you hang a question mark on it and remember it for later. Or not. And with something like Harry Potter you’d likely get the explanation from some older kid in the schoolyard anyhow.

    (Greaves are part of a suit of plate armor. I would estimate that most people who’ve done much fantasy gaming or play WoW probably know this, at least vaguely, even if they may not be clear on exactly what part they are. But maybe I’m being optimistic.)

  22. bookworm Jul 9th 2012 at 12:34 pm 22

    @Logan #4, I totally agree. I also got my books from England. I have a favorite bookstore there that I order from. I’d love to go see it in person, but until then, I enjoy ordering from there, like in the movie 84 Charing Cross Road, one of my faves.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply