12-12-2023, 09:04 PM
There's a lot of controversy around this subject and nothing very intelligent being said.
The recent issue in short. Cabals of transsexuals and other such debris of the western world are deliberately invading the connecting joints between Japanese pop culture and the rest of the world to leave their own distinct marks upon these highly desired and prestigious works. When called out or criticised they alternate between saying that they are perfectly faithful, and saying that being perfectly faithful is actually impossible so changes do not matter.
It's Knights v Trannies, round 500.
As is always the case, the knight's angles of approach are wrong. He doesn't really get art or nice things, but just knows there's a certain class of person he should be angry at. He's right about that much, but wrong about everything else.
Certain egregious cases like this, painting weird western fringe identities on top fictional characters, creates a false impression of the problem. I don't read Japanese, but I'm taking the translation on the right as an attempt at being barebones literal. If anybody wants to correct please do. But point is that I believe that is the intention of this comparison image (made for non japanese readers). When some outright freak (despite seeing the issue of localisation as ambiguous I do not sympathise with these people at all) does something as obviously extreme and political in intentions to a work it makes one want to take up the reactive contrary position. That people should keep themselves out of localisation. "Just give me it in English".
Attempts at robotic translation would actually be fine I believe, better than the above (certain people even use GPT to translate now). But it would probably be awkward due to a machine's lack of nuance and humanity. Which is to say, things tend to read better when a straight interpretation is filtered through somebody and contains traces of their character. That is the first bare point that I'll make. But not the point.
As a general rule, we're interested in these particular foreign works to experience the work of the original creators, not this new person. It might sound impossible that things could possibly be otherwise, but this has happened. On the extreme end we have something like Ezra Pound's translations of Chinese works. People do not read Chinese translated by Ezra Pound to appreciate the original Chinese works. They read them to appreciate Pound. And the original work as refracted through Pound. There is obviously a very distinct and idiosyncratic element of interpretation in his "translation" work. He is giving you what is unmistakably a new version of something that already existed... And nobody minds. For two reasons of course. One being, that Ezra Pound is very interesting and many people like him, and so will also like impressions of his character. And the other being, that attempts at more or less straight translation exist and are even more accessible than Pound's work.
The current problems in localisation are who is doing the translation, a lack of clarity or consistency with regard to what they believe their job is, and the centralised one-off nature of how these works are distributed, and generally their size, tending to mean that only one localisation will ever be made for any given work.
From this understanding of the issue I think that answers are simple too.
First being more credit for localisers. This will both make their influence understood more clearly, and make them more accountable. And of course when they do a good job, will get good work more credit. I think they should be an upfront credit. Like on the title screen. Capcom's Resident Evil, Presented by [whoever]. Something like that. Japanese Man's Game, as interpreted by [some nerd who is hopefully not trans and insane]. If it's good. You can know why. If it's bad, you know why. Make it known who does these. And make it known that there is always an intermediary influence.
Secondly, clarity on what the job is. I do not mean we pin down one definition. I just think that with a bit of conceptual awareness here we can prevent people from dodging the matter. There is not a right way to do this. One can be a naive orientalist almost making their own work out of a thing like Pound, or one can do a chatGPT impersonation and try to do things direct. Another benefit of pinning names to the front of localised works would be that people could recognise intentions through the people doing the work. If your japanese game mentions a tranny, you can look at the front of the box and, if you know your localisers, make an informed guess as to whether you're reading the japanese man's vision, or some psycho neo-missionary trying to undermine them on purpose.
What I would do to fix the purpose issue, would be to try to get a mission statement out of each localiser, which we can maybe burn down to a word for the stupids. "Personal" localisation, when the translator is deliberately making their own personal impression upon the thing, "straight" for the people who want to be chatGPT and try to leave as little of an intermediary mark as possible. From those two we'd be pretty much set.
And as for the third, this is the most difficult one. Re-localising a big game would be a lot of work. Redubbing an anime. Translating a manga. Or a book. Lots of work to do. Depending on the medium maybe a lot more production in addition to getting the new words down. I believe that smaller and simpler works in this direction being pulled off by fans would be a good start just to send the message that options can be valuable and appreciated, and that there are people who might like something one way that they wouldn't like another, so choices matter for the big time, and maybe multiples could be worth it in some cases. For an example of fan work, certain old video games have "undubs" that you might see around if you're into emulation. People combining Japanese voice acting with english text to create new versions of old games that never existed. I played Evergrace this way.
And that leads into the maybe obvious example of audience choice in localisation. The eternal one. Subs v dubs. Subtitles of course being their own localisation. This argument tends to take on its own knightly character, the focus is on perceived purity when either way you're getting the thing as interpreted by an intermediary. But of course through new performances (and perhaps a more altered script, common argument) you are getting more of the intermediary. So yes, a less pure work. But that doesn't mean worse.
There are some dubs I greatly enjoy. I enjoy them because they are so heavily localised that I can feel a new creative presence asserting itself within the work. A point that never seems to get raised, if that new voice is really good I don't mind. And because this is an anime people only watch over the internet now the original dub and subtitles of the original script are also readily available. I can watch Cyber City Oedo according to its original creators online. Or I can watch Cyber City Oedo as presented by Manga Entertainment. And I prefer the latter. Because Manga Entertainment are cool.
What it all comes back to is associating the localisation process with the individuals behind it, and then judging them individually as good or bad influences. The knight mistake is to act like personal influence is the problem.
Last thought I'll get out for some perspective. I accidentally created a localisation conflict recently and like hearing what people think of it.
Top image is an original, high quality, faithfully scanned panel from the manga Gunslinger Girl. Below it, is the same panel from the first scanlation that I read. The text is slightly different, but far more significantly, it looks strikingly different. The scanning process has crushed the darker sheeds into deep blacks, the fine details are rendered harsher. The lines look thicker. The clean, digital quality is lost to an ink-like blurring. Guess which one I'd rather read?
A Japanese friend who recommended the manga to me was not pleased with my choice, but my answer to him is my answer on all questions of localisation. I am aware of it. I am aware that I am not reading the pure Gunslinger Girl. I am reading a Gunslinger Girl which has been manipulated and distorted by the different hands it has passed through. I like the distortions as distortions. The creative intentions of the artist are something I appreciate. But I am also fascinated by the manipulation of those same intentions. There is more to appreciate now. And if I feel like at any point there is so much that I'm losing some vital element of the original, I can always go back.
Does this illuminate the point at all? I like sharing the comparison images but hope it was somewhat useful.
To summarise.
The problem with left is not that the localisation is unfaithful. It's that it is idiotic.
The recent issue in short. Cabals of transsexuals and other such debris of the western world are deliberately invading the connecting joints between Japanese pop culture and the rest of the world to leave their own distinct marks upon these highly desired and prestigious works. When called out or criticised they alternate between saying that they are perfectly faithful, and saying that being perfectly faithful is actually impossible so changes do not matter.
It's Knights v Trannies, round 500.
As is always the case, the knight's angles of approach are wrong. He doesn't really get art or nice things, but just knows there's a certain class of person he should be angry at. He's right about that much, but wrong about everything else.
Certain egregious cases like this, painting weird western fringe identities on top fictional characters, creates a false impression of the problem. I don't read Japanese, but I'm taking the translation on the right as an attempt at being barebones literal. If anybody wants to correct please do. But point is that I believe that is the intention of this comparison image (made for non japanese readers). When some outright freak (despite seeing the issue of localisation as ambiguous I do not sympathise with these people at all) does something as obviously extreme and political in intentions to a work it makes one want to take up the reactive contrary position. That people should keep themselves out of localisation. "Just give me it in English".
Attempts at robotic translation would actually be fine I believe, better than the above (certain people even use GPT to translate now). But it would probably be awkward due to a machine's lack of nuance and humanity. Which is to say, things tend to read better when a straight interpretation is filtered through somebody and contains traces of their character. That is the first bare point that I'll make. But not the point.
As a general rule, we're interested in these particular foreign works to experience the work of the original creators, not this new person. It might sound impossible that things could possibly be otherwise, but this has happened. On the extreme end we have something like Ezra Pound's translations of Chinese works. People do not read Chinese translated by Ezra Pound to appreciate the original Chinese works. They read them to appreciate Pound. And the original work as refracted through Pound. There is obviously a very distinct and idiosyncratic element of interpretation in his "translation" work. He is giving you what is unmistakably a new version of something that already existed... And nobody minds. For two reasons of course. One being, that Ezra Pound is very interesting and many people like him, and so will also like impressions of his character. And the other being, that attempts at more or less straight translation exist and are even more accessible than Pound's work.
The current problems in localisation are who is doing the translation, a lack of clarity or consistency with regard to what they believe their job is, and the centralised one-off nature of how these works are distributed, and generally their size, tending to mean that only one localisation will ever be made for any given work.
From this understanding of the issue I think that answers are simple too.
First being more credit for localisers. This will both make their influence understood more clearly, and make them more accountable. And of course when they do a good job, will get good work more credit. I think they should be an upfront credit. Like on the title screen. Capcom's Resident Evil, Presented by [whoever]. Something like that. Japanese Man's Game, as interpreted by [some nerd who is hopefully not trans and insane]. If it's good. You can know why. If it's bad, you know why. Make it known who does these. And make it known that there is always an intermediary influence.
Secondly, clarity on what the job is. I do not mean we pin down one definition. I just think that with a bit of conceptual awareness here we can prevent people from dodging the matter. There is not a right way to do this. One can be a naive orientalist almost making their own work out of a thing like Pound, or one can do a chatGPT impersonation and try to do things direct. Another benefit of pinning names to the front of localised works would be that people could recognise intentions through the people doing the work. If your japanese game mentions a tranny, you can look at the front of the box and, if you know your localisers, make an informed guess as to whether you're reading the japanese man's vision, or some psycho neo-missionary trying to undermine them on purpose.
What I would do to fix the purpose issue, would be to try to get a mission statement out of each localiser, which we can maybe burn down to a word for the stupids. "Personal" localisation, when the translator is deliberately making their own personal impression upon the thing, "straight" for the people who want to be chatGPT and try to leave as little of an intermediary mark as possible. From those two we'd be pretty much set.
And as for the third, this is the most difficult one. Re-localising a big game would be a lot of work. Redubbing an anime. Translating a manga. Or a book. Lots of work to do. Depending on the medium maybe a lot more production in addition to getting the new words down. I believe that smaller and simpler works in this direction being pulled off by fans would be a good start just to send the message that options can be valuable and appreciated, and that there are people who might like something one way that they wouldn't like another, so choices matter for the big time, and maybe multiples could be worth it in some cases. For an example of fan work, certain old video games have "undubs" that you might see around if you're into emulation. People combining Japanese voice acting with english text to create new versions of old games that never existed. I played Evergrace this way.
And that leads into the maybe obvious example of audience choice in localisation. The eternal one. Subs v dubs. Subtitles of course being their own localisation. This argument tends to take on its own knightly character, the focus is on perceived purity when either way you're getting the thing as interpreted by an intermediary. But of course through new performances (and perhaps a more altered script, common argument) you are getting more of the intermediary. So yes, a less pure work. But that doesn't mean worse.
There are some dubs I greatly enjoy. I enjoy them because they are so heavily localised that I can feel a new creative presence asserting itself within the work. A point that never seems to get raised, if that new voice is really good I don't mind. And because this is an anime people only watch over the internet now the original dub and subtitles of the original script are also readily available. I can watch Cyber City Oedo according to its original creators online. Or I can watch Cyber City Oedo as presented by Manga Entertainment. And I prefer the latter. Because Manga Entertainment are cool.
What it all comes back to is associating the localisation process with the individuals behind it, and then judging them individually as good or bad influences. The knight mistake is to act like personal influence is the problem.
Last thought I'll get out for some perspective. I accidentally created a localisation conflict recently and like hearing what people think of it.
Top image is an original, high quality, faithfully scanned panel from the manga Gunslinger Girl. Below it, is the same panel from the first scanlation that I read. The text is slightly different, but far more significantly, it looks strikingly different. The scanning process has crushed the darker sheeds into deep blacks, the fine details are rendered harsher. The lines look thicker. The clean, digital quality is lost to an ink-like blurring. Guess which one I'd rather read?
A Japanese friend who recommended the manga to me was not pleased with my choice, but my answer to him is my answer on all questions of localisation. I am aware of it. I am aware that I am not reading the pure Gunslinger Girl. I am reading a Gunslinger Girl which has been manipulated and distorted by the different hands it has passed through. I like the distortions as distortions. The creative intentions of the artist are something I appreciate. But I am also fascinated by the manipulation of those same intentions. There is more to appreciate now. And if I feel like at any point there is so much that I'm losing some vital element of the original, I can always go back.
Does this illuminate the point at all? I like sharing the comparison images but hope it was somewhat useful.
To summarise.
The problem with left is not that the localisation is unfaithful. It's that it is idiotic.