That Year, Under the Starry Sky - Ch. 6 - Fate works in mysterious ways

[MangaDex]

 

[Oeconomist]

Okay, some clown was using an espresso maker to pour something through a drip-brewing filter stuck without proper housing on top of a pot. It's as if the artist was trying to look especially ignorant.

 

[Oeconomist]

…and I'm betting that this clown is going to be the guy who wins the heart of Lin Yin.

 

[aquariumtourmaline]

@Oeconomist as someone who doesn't drink coffee i saw absolutely no problem 😂 it did drive me crazy though that the artist misspelled the name of the café as Autunm instead of Autumn on the signboard

 

[Oeconomist]

@aquariumtourmaline—

The real problem isn't that the artist didn't know how to make coffee; it was that he tried to depict something about which he was ignorant, without recognizing his ignorance. He should either have learned how to use the equipment, or avoided attempting to depict its use. Regular ignorance is an unavoidable condition of being human; ignorance of one's ignorance is another matter.

A transpositional error in the original art might be seen as authentic. When an attempt is made to use English in labelling a product for non-Anglophonic customers, the results are often incompetent, much as the use of French or somesuch in labelling products for Anglophones.

 

[aquariumtourmaline]

@Oeconomist You're assuming a lot by saying the artist purposely chose to draw the coffee being made incorrectly. You can't simply expect everyone in the world to know how a specialized task is performed and condemning the artist for not conforming to your expectations is more than a little unfair. The artist has tight deadlines to conform to and it is very clear what is being depicted, especially for a panel that the average reader will spend no more than a few seconds glancing at, so I would say that the depiction was more than adequate and performs the intended function.

Also I would have an easier time believing that the spelling mistake was intentional if the artist hadn't been misspelling "to be continued" in every single chapter

 

[Oeconomist]

@aquariumtourmaline—

I'm not assuming that the misspelling of the sign were deliberate. I'm noting that, deliberate or not, it conforms to real-world practice (an authentic depiction of Asian businesses would offer many misspelled English words), whereas the use of coffee-making equipment does not.

A huge share of readers know how to make coffee, even if you do not. And, as I noted, he didn't need to show what he imagined to be the process of making coffee. He didn't screw-up because of a deadline; he screwed-up because he didn't recognize his ignorance.

 

[skytempest]

Thanks for all the translations! I wonder why she's hiding from him. I'm guessing she in love with him.

 

[mukade]

I can't believe this, why do people get mad over the most stupid crap?
Dude, who cares if the author doesn't know how to make coffee? It changes nothing. It has no impact on the story and it's not like someone is gonna see that scene and try to copy what the character was doing.
You're probably the only person in the whole world that's gotten mad over this lmao

 

[Oeconomist]

@mukade—

If you're going to try to argue, then tag the person with whom you're arguing.

Pay attention: I already said that I didn't care whether the artist knew how to make coffee. I cared that he tried to draw something with almost no clue about that thing. It's like drawing someone playing baseball, except that the batter is holding a tennis racket. I wouldn't care that the artist didn't know how to play baseball; I'd care that he tried to draw something with almost no clue.

He didn't have to draw the preparation of the coffee; he could have showed the guy behind the counter filling a cup, or simply handling equipment without using it. But, instead, he drew some idiotic images.

I didn't get mad at the idiotic attempt to portray coffee-making. If being moved to comment were proof of being mad, then we'd have to conclude that you were mad about my comment, and that your “lmao” were not an expression of amusement but instead a childish attempt to ventilate your anger with ridicule … which it might be, but we certainly have no proof.

 

[SoloSera]

Eww, Oeconomist is one of those dirty taggers. Tagging people just feels rude. Don't push your tag-fetish on me. 🤬 When you respond, please don't tag me.

 

[Oeconomist]

@SoloSera—

I promise not to continue tagging you when responding if you'll not fail to tag me when responding to me. In any case, I hope that you'll make it past psychological adolescence someday.