# Measurements



## Kevin (Jun 17, 2012)

I was wondering how well standard American measurements translate when read by 'others'. When I write "He was six-foot six" or "...hit the ground at a hundred miles per hour.." how does it register? What I mean is that if someone said to me "..he weighed 47 stone.."  without research, I'd have no clue.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 17, 2012)

I always find specifics soften the blows of your writing, when you could leave it more open to the reader by using simile, metaphor, or other techniques. But it might depend what style you're writing in, and the genre.

For me:

six-foot six = tall
hundred miles per hour = fast
47 stone = fat

The need for the specific statistics will be determined by what you're writing. So, what are you writing?

(I'm writing surreal suspense fiction, so I'm unlikely to use measurements for detail)


----------



## Robdemanc (Jun 17, 2012)

It would only become an issue of translation.  If the book was published elsewhere those things would be changed.

I didn't know the US used feet and inches, or miles.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 17, 2012)

It will require that I do things differently. I tend to communicate using measurements. It's how I talk. If it doesn't work, well then I guess I should drop them, but there's a difference between tall and "...a full hand taller than the average man." How fat is "fat"? Are we talking like 'struggles to button his pants' fat, or 'so enormous that he bends the floor boards'? It's so much easier if I just say "...five-foot five, two hundred eighty-five." If I use these type of specifics I know one audience will get it but I was wondering who wouldn't. Maybe I just shouldn't use them...


----------



## garza (Jun 17, 2012)

Feet, inches, and miles are English measurements, not American. The U.S. system is officially metric but few people realise that and English measurements are commonly used, a carryover from the days when that part of North America was made up of English colonies. 

Most of the rest of the Americas use metric. An exception is Belize, which is the former colony of British Honduras and so uses English measurements, though metric is becoming more common.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 17, 2012)

Canada is a former British colony -- and they started going metric back in the 70's.


----------



## Tiamat (Jun 17, 2012)

garza said:


> The U.S. system is officially metric but few people realise that and English measurements are commonly used, a carryover from the days when that part of North America was made up of English colonies.


Official to whom?  Doctors, pharmacists, and other members of the scientific community yeah, but the overwhelming majority of the citizens don't even know what a deciliter is.  If I start telling people I'm 1.65 meters tall, they're going to look at me like I just spoke Swahili.  

But, to answer the OP, I would say it depends on who your target audience is.  If you're an American, hoping to publish your work in this country, I see nothing wrong with it if such specifics are needed.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jun 17, 2012)

garza said:


> Feet, inches, and miles are English measurements, not American. The U.S. system is officially metric but few people realise that and English measurements are commonly used, a carryover from the days when that part of North America was made up of English colonies.
> 
> Most of the rest of the Americas use metric. An exception is Belize, which is the former colony of British Honduras and so uses English measurements, though metric is becoming more common.



Imperial measurements are human dimensions, metric are an artificial construct which makes them harder for non-numeric people to use. A foot was the length of an average foot, quelle surprise; a yard was the distance from the nose to the tips of the fingers with the arm held out to the side; an inch was the length from the tip of the thumbnail to the first knuckle, or the length of 3 barleycorns; the distance from centre to centre of ceiling joists was the length of a forearm; an acre was the area that could be ploughed by one horse in one day - All these were easy measurements for the common man to use, and had nothing to do with colonialism. When using millimetres or centimetres one has to cast about for a reference as they don't naturally exist.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 17, 2012)

The metric system makes a hell of a lot more sense and is much easier to use. The old English measurements are a mess. I can’t believe we’re still laboring under that ridiculous system while the rest of the world has moved on. It’s embarrassing.


----------



## Tiamat (Jun 17, 2012)

Think of it like the penny.  Obsolete, costly, and rather irritating--and yet we cling to it as a part of our history.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 17, 2012)

Kevin said:


> I was wondering how well standard American measurements translate when read by 'others'. When I write "He was six-foot six" or "...hit the ground at a hundred miles per hour.." how does it register? What I mean is that if someone said to me "..he weighed 47 stone.." without research, I'd have no clue.



Stick with what you normally use, is what my advice would be.

It's the same thing with currency. Are you going to go through the trouble of translating any monetary transactions from your characters into different world currencies for the benefit of your international readers? Hopefully not!

I just grabbed one of Haruki Murakami's novels (translated from Japanese to English), and it says this, "I took a hundred-yen coin from my pocket and dropped it into the bank."

I don't know how much a hundred yen are. I could probably google it if I felt like knowing the answer. But it doesn't affect the story for me so I don't mind. I like seeing the cultural differences. It reminds me that I'm reading something unique. The character understands yen, so yen is what he uses.

The way I see it: if your characters--or you as the narrator--understand feet and inches, that's what should be used.

H.G. Wells sometimes whipped out United Kingdom vernacular, which I don't understand as an American, but I forgive him and like his stories regardless.


----------



## patskywriter (Jun 17, 2012)

JosephB said:


> The metric system makes a hell of a lot more sense and is much easier to use. The old English measurements are a mess. I can’t believe we’re still laboring under that ridiculous system while the rest of the world has moved on. It’s embarrassing.



I remember way back in the fifth grade (1965 or 6) being told that we were on the brink of adopting the metric system. There was a *huge* flurry of activities geared to prepare us for the big switch-over, and then … nothing. Only the kids who were into drugs took it seriously. I always thought that they'd be way ahead of the rest of us should we ever start using the metric system—unless they OD'd first, LOL.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jun 18, 2012)

Please tell me what is the logic of, for the man or woman measuring curtains, a metre being the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄  299,792.458 of a second? Logical would have been 1/100,000,000 or 1/250,000,000 of a second, but no, they cut the time to fit an existing arbitrary measurement.

The metre was created by the French on the logical grounds that the English had the yard so they must be different. Logical? The DIN system (Deutsches Institut für Normung) varies its number bases to suit applications, just as Imperial measurements do - For instance the standard hole centre distance on circuit boards is 1.2mm, counting in 12s like inches. Metric, we are told, is logical because it counts in 10s, we have 10 fingers - we also have 2 hands, so 12 is as logical, or 20s as we have 10 toes, 12s are the most economical way to pack and stack things, they use the volume and area most efficiently, 10s are wasteful of materials - But hold on, nature does not count in 10s, it tends towards the logarithmic; it counts in 2s (cell division), fractals, in Fibonacci numbers, sizes of successive rings of petals in flowers increase in size according  to the Golden Proportion, as do leaf sizes and spacing up a branch, see here: ( The Golden Proportion, Beauty, and Dental Aesthetics ); no there is nothing specially logical in the metric system. What you are really saying is, that you find it easier to count on your fingers. I have always held the view, the right tool for the right job, the metric system is as arbitrary as any other, its only advantage is that it counts in fingers...


----------



## garza (Jun 18, 2012)

Bloggs - The fact that the English, or Imperial, system was adopted in places like the U.S. and Belize had everything to do with colonialism. The system was devised in England in the way you describe, and then carried to the colonies. Are you suggesting that settlers in the colonies just happened to come up with the same system? No. They used the system of measurement they brought with them.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 18, 2012)

patskywriter said:


> I remember way back in the fifth grade (1965 or 6) being told that we were on the brink of adopting the metric system. There was a *huge* flurry of activities geared to prepare us for the big switch-over, and then … nothing. Only the kids who were into drugs took it seriously. I always thought that they'd be way ahead of the rest of us should we ever start using the metric system—unless they OD'd first, LOL.



Yeah – only the kids on drugs took it seriously. I’m sure it happened just like that.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 18, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> Please tell me what is the logic of, for the man or woman measuring curtains, a metre being the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄  299,792.458 of a second? Logical would have been 1/100,000,000 or 1/250,000,000 of a second, but no, they cut the time to fit an existing arbitrary measurement.
> 
> The metre was created by the French on the logical grounds that the English had the yard so they must be different. Logical? The DIN system (Deutsches Institut für Normung) varies its number bases to suit applications, just as Imperial measurements do - For instance the standard hole centre distance on circuit boards is 1.2mm, counting in 12s like inches. Metric, we are told, is logical because it counts in 10s, we have 10 fingers - we also have 2 hands, so 12 is as logical, or 20s as we have 10 toes, 12s are the most economical way to pack and stack things, they use the volume and area most efficiently, 10s are wasteful of materials - But hold on, nature does not count in 10s, it tends towards the logarithmic; it counts in 2s (cell division), fractals, in Fibonacci numbers, sizes of successive rings of petals in flowers increase in size according  to the Golden Proportion, as do leaf sizes and spacing up a branch, see here: ( The Golden Proportion, Beauty, and Dental Aesthetics ); no there is nothing specially logical in the metric system. What you are really saying is, that you find it easier to count on your fingers. I have always held the view, the right tool for the right job, the metric system is as arbitrary as any other, its only advantage is that it counts in fingers...



And basing measurements on a human body parts and barleycorns makes perfect sense. If you’re going to be arbitrary – and any unit you might initially choose would be arbitrary – at least do it increments that make sense. In case you haven’t noticed – the numeric system we all use is decimal -- based on tens. What’s logical is having a corresponding system of measurement.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jun 18, 2012)

garza said:


> Bloggs - The fact that the English, or Imperial, system was adopted in places like the U.S. and Belize had everything to do with colonialism. The system was devised in England in the way you describe, and then carried to the colonies. Are you suggesting that settlers in the colonies just happened to come up with the same system? No. They used the system of measurement they brought with them.



No - What I am saying is that natural/human based measurement was used all over the known world, the pound weight was even used in France, cloth was measured by holding the free end to your nose, and stretching to arm's length, from Nottingham to Nanking, from Nantucket to Nagano; the English happened to call it a yard. The French, resenting the English as they do, decided that they must have their own measurement based on something other than the existing one, and came up with the metre. Metrology, as a science ,was invented by the industrialist Armstrong in order to improve transferability of parts and technology between his various factories, the French, in their inimitable, not to say, insatiable lust for creating a bureau for every activity under the sun, set up the International centre for codifying measurement and ignored as far as possible every English measurement extant; they can't help themselves, it's in their psyche this need. The British, who invented most games, regarded them as exactly that; the French said no. no, we can't have that, so an amazing number of headquarters for international sports are in Paris. Look at the activites of _The Acadamie Francais_, they still refuse to accept any word that smacks of Englishness, and will not allow words or phrases such as sandwich, week-end, jumbo jet to be used in official documents.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 18, 2012)

@ JoB- for some reason "how many grams to an ounce" was of major importance


----------



## JosephB (Jun 18, 2012)

Kevin said:


> @ JoB- for some reason "how many grams to an ounce" was of major importance



Heh. But you soon learn how to eyeball a dime without knowing any of that.



Bloggsworth said:


> cloth was measured by holding the free end to your nose, and stretching to arm's length



And for the best deal, the idea was to find a tailor with really long arms.


----------



## patskywriter (Jun 18, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Yeah – only the kids on drugs took it seriously. I’m sure it happened just like that.



That statement was made tongue in cheek. Sorry if you misunderstood. I probably should have typed one of these:


----------



## patskywriter (Jun 18, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> … Look at the activites of the_ Académie Française_, they still refuse to accept any word that smacks of Englishness, and will not allow words or phrases such as sandwich, week-end, jumbo jet to be used in official documents.



How interesting! Can't they have a tête-à-tête or something, and try to come to an amicable agreement?


----------



## JosephB (Jun 18, 2012)

patskywriter said:


> That statement was made tongue in cheek.  Sorry if you misunderstood. I probably should have typed one of these:



Well, I knew you were trying to be funny. Most humor is based at least partly on truth. As a bona fide former school-age drug user, it didn’t make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 18, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Heh. But you soon learn how to eyeball a dime without knowing any of that.
> 
> 
> 
> And for the best deal, the idea was to find a tailor with really long arms.


 I remember that soon after Reagan took office, there was a high demand for scales, and a bunch of people became at home 'pharmacists'.  It was an interesting time. I watched from the periphery. The 'little entrepenuers' drove leased ferraris(before getting busted by the feds)


----------



## Cefor (Jun 18, 2012)

Back to the OP... I'm pretty sure sticking to Imperial measurements would be fine. In every novel I've read that mentions someone's height, they'll use feet and inches. 

I've never been great at judging distance, but I feel that I have a better grasp of it than some authors... when someone says something like "He was stood right in front of him, only fifteen feet between him and revenge", I want to find the author and ask him what the hell he thinks a foot is; in my head, 'right in front of him' would be within arm's reach, or a step away. Honestly, this writer had no concept of distance, what so ever... another example was using two hundred yards, which again he thought was no distance at all. I think he made a character shoot someone at that distance, with a pistol. Yeah, good luck with that one, buddy. At two hundred yards I can't make out people's faces... but that could be due to my glasses prescription being rather inadequate.

What I'm trying to say is: if you're going to use exact measurements, make sure they're sensible. Have a tape-measure to hand when writing and double check the distances you're using. I stopped reading that novel... and the crappy distances was part of why I did, sort of. Haha.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jun 19, 2012)

Kevin said:


> How fat is "fat"? Are we talking like 'struggles to button his pants' fat, or 'so enormous that he bends the floor boards'?



Who cares? Your readers are going to create their own image of the characters anyway, and it's almost certain to be different than what you envision.  What does it matter that they don't have the exact same vision you do?



Kevin said:


> It's so much easier if I just say "...five-foot five, two hundred eighty-five." If I use these type of specifics I know one audience will get it but I was wondering who wouldn't. Maybe I just shouldn't use them...



That's specific, but it doesn't actually help the reader.  Specific weights are so vague.  Is he 285 because he's rippling with muscle, or is he just grossly obese? Is he somewhere in the middle?

I've used myself as an example before, but I'll do it again.  I'm 6'2" and weigh 230 pounds.  Any BMI calculator will tell you that's in the obesity range (30 something BMI).  And yet, I'm probably in better shape than almost anyone you'll meet.  Muscle is heavy, and athletic people are often going to weigh more than couch potatoes.

So, if you feel the need to specify height and weight, feel free, but understand that it's still not going to give your reader the same picture that it does you.


----------



## Moose.H (Jan 9, 2020)

Cape feet or english feet. It is interesting to get the point of view of people who can't read or write as they see the world very personally. Imperial is a system derived from quarters, thirds and multiples of such. Much easier to mentally calculate when you deal in proportions and bits. Mix metric and imperial can cause interesting issues in critical situations.


----------



## Moose.H (Jan 9, 2020)

I am loath to use direct measurements and would prefer to use an analogy. He walked through the doorway and had to stoop to pass under, or his hair brushed the lintel etc. He stepped over...


----------



## Aldarion (Jan 9, 2020)

Kevin said:


> I was wondering how well standard American measurements translate when read by 'others'. When I write "He was six-foot six" or "...hit the ground at a hundred miles per hour.." how does it register? What I mean is that if someone said to me "..he weighed 47 stone.."  without research, I'd have no clue.



It is not just an issue of translation either. It is also context. Even if you are from "metric" country, when you are writing pre-modern _anything_ (medieval fantasy, historical fiction etc.), metric system simply does not work, as it was not in existence back then. Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, medieval French... all of them used measurements based on body parts. So writing "he was six feet tall" is _much_ better than writing "he was 1,8 meters tall". And if you worry the audience will not understand... well, you can always use footnotes, Appendices, Codex etc. Or, as already suggested, you may simply write in general terms, or compare character's height and weight to approximately known value. Even if it is an exaggeration (e.g. he was taller than a doorway and with girth of a large wine barrel). You may look at _Hobbit_ - Tolkien IIRC manages to give us a good idea of how tall both Bilbo and Beorn are without using any concrete measurements.


----------

