Could the phrase ‘Inviolable Rule’ (or ‘Ironclad Regulation’), mean something different (to an english speaking person) from what tessoku means to a Japanese person?

The characters taken separately mean ‘iron’ and ‘rule’ (or possibly ‘follow’, ‘based on’). Even at a subconscious level, I think the choice of word is not ideal.

It may well be that the meaning is intended to convey that these lessons are things that really should be followed, but even that is missing the point of the book (as I understand it) – given that some of these things work in some situations and not others, or that each should be applied (or not) as is appropriate to the situation you find yourself in.

I think in this case the choice was a poor one. One might argue that it might appeal more to testers – especially ‘factory school’ types, and those that know enough about context-driven testing would know enough about the authors to get it, but I wonder – is being misrepresented okay if it ends up getting your message across?

[James’ Reply: They don’t consult the authors about that.]

FWIW, I’m not reviewing for any particular publication, I’m actually using it to help me study language, particularly from a tester’s point of view, given that I’m working as a tester in Japan.

I have the Authors’ permission (but not the publisher’s) to post excerpts on my site. I was going to wait until I found something particularly interesting in the translation before I posted, but given that the text I’ve read so far remains faithful to the original (apart from the creative translation of the title and the word they substitute for ‘lesson’), I may just post the bits that I find interesting from a language point of view.