Isekai Meikyuu de Harem o - Vol. 6 Ch. 32 - Soap (3)
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2019
- Messages
- 446
Well shit.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
- Messages
- 89
wait
what was this manga about again?
what was this manga about again?
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 27
@crocolligator dungeon grinding, sex, buy slave. Repeat
@Soseki Listen, mate. Regardless what you understand typesetting to be, the result is still shit. English words aren't line-broken like that, there's no discussion and no excuse for not observing it.
Let's just, for the sake of argument, assume that typesetting is the process of putting text into bubbles without the result looking stupid, breaking the flow of reading, and foregoing orthography. It may not be that in your understanding, but indulge me. Either way, this typesetting (or any typesetting, mind) isn't done for typesetting's sake. After all, it takes time and effort, so there must be some desirable benefit that makes doing it worthwhile, no? Hint: It's done to end up with text that doesn't look stupid, doesn't break the flow of reading, and doesn't forego orthography. To make it easily digestible, to make it pleasant to read, to keep readers considering the (commercial) product worthwile purchasing. So, regardless whatever you are (or aren't) calling typesetting, you evidently aren't using it properly, otherwise none of your results would look stupid, would break the flow of reading, or would forego orthography, and not just some of it. Instead, you're trying to excuse your stupid-looking, reading-flow-breaking, orthography-foregoing result by slapping some jargon in front of it as if it were some fundamentally unsolvable problem imposed by the laws of physics or somesuch. Rather than, you know, not striving to not have stupid-looking (etc.) text.
I get it, it's challenging to translate between languages and writing systems that relate with explosively variable character count while maintaining the message under unchanged size limits. But blaming your tools for your mediocre results? Please, you're only insulting yourself.
Let's just, for the sake of argument, assume that typesetting is the process of putting text into bubbles without the result looking stupid, breaking the flow of reading, and foregoing orthography. It may not be that in your understanding, but indulge me. Either way, this typesetting (or any typesetting, mind) isn't done for typesetting's sake. After all, it takes time and effort, so there must be some desirable benefit that makes doing it worthwhile, no? Hint: It's done to end up with text that doesn't look stupid, doesn't break the flow of reading, and doesn't forego orthography. To make it easily digestible, to make it pleasant to read, to keep readers considering the (commercial) product worthwile purchasing. So, regardless whatever you are (or aren't) calling typesetting, you evidently aren't using it properly, otherwise none of your results would look stupid, would break the flow of reading, or would forego orthography, and not just some of it. Instead, you're trying to excuse your stupid-looking, reading-flow-breaking, orthography-foregoing result by slapping some jargon in front of it as if it were some fundamentally unsolvable problem imposed by the laws of physics or somesuch. Rather than, you know, not striving to not have stupid-looking (etc.) text.
I get it, it's challenging to translate between languages and writing systems that relate with explosively variable character count while maintaining the message under unchanged size limits. But blaming your tools for your mediocre results? Please, you're only insulting yourself.
