Francesco,
> This sounds a little bit worrying to me. It seems that you guys
> bought those 3-tier stories "only" because you had pocked-sized
> books, and not because they were good and needed to be published
> anyway.
Is it worrying to you that these 3-tier stories were commissioned by
their original publishers as pocket-sized stories in the first place,
and "only" to fill their pocket books? (Hmm?did I just commit a
double-entendre?) Well, that aside...
In editing the pocket books - all of the DDAs, most of the MMAs - my
focus was, and had to be, on their requirements. One unassailable
requirement was that the material be formated for pocket books. After
that, and only after that, was it worthwhile to evaluate the quality
of the material. It was that process that determined the stories I
ordered, including the ones that largely make up the present stockpile.
However, some 3-tier stories intended for pocket books do get ordered
because they are stories that we feel Gemstone should publish in some
form, and that practice will continue. It will never be entirely
satisfactory to us that they will not appear in the format for which
the original publishers intended them, but them's the breaks, as they
say.
Gary
Author
Topic: 200706
(97 messages)
Gary Leach
Worried about 3-tiers
Message 46 -
2007-06-17 at 00:22:23
Jerryblake2
Translators: To Tweak or not to Tweak
Message 47 -
2007-06-17 at 16:25:20
I have to agree with Francesco on this translating issue. When I was younger, I used to enjoy the cross-references to Barks and Rosa stories that David Gerstein and Geoffrey Blum would toss into their translations of European stories, and the various literary allusions, but now I dislike it on principle. I think the tendency to regard European stories as a blank slate for a translator to write on is a bad one, no matter how good the Americanized dialogue might be. For instance, I got several laughs out of David Gerstein's scripting of The Delta Dimension, particularly the Scarlet Pimpernel reference, but I always had the nagging thought at the back of my mind that such allusions were probably not in the author's original script. I particularly was bothered by David's insertion of his own "Mickey dialect" into the Mouse's dialogue, and by what seemed to me attempts to make Scarpa's Mickey conform to his own ideas of the hesitant, indecisive Mickey (one thing I like about Scarpa's Mickey in other stories is that he's determined and resourceful but never boring)--I'm thinking especially of Mickey telling Bleep-Bleep to "Attack th' raygun--whatever works!"
Geoff Blum is probably responsible for starting this trend, but I don't think it was quite as reprehensible for him to "punch up" stories by anonymous Egmont staff writers (as he generally did during Gladstone's first run) as it is for Markstein, Gerstein, Gray, and others to tweak the stories of a genius like Scarpa. The Scarpa translations in Gladstone's first run, by Byron Erickson, Dwight Decker, and others, seemed to me to do a much better job of "Americanizing" the dialogue while leaving the translators' personalities out of it. A translator should be seen and not heard.
I don't think of comics as just "casual entertainment," as Donald Markstein seems to--they're literature of a type, and when foreign literature is translated it should be treated respectfully. I wouldn't like it if someone decided to insert contemporary references into Dante or Edmond Rostand to make them more "entertaining," and I don't like to see the same thing done to Scarpa. In addition, references to stuff like Bill Clinton's cat will make the American translation just as badly dated as the Italian original may or may not have been in years to come--is Markstein suggesting that we re-dialogue Scarpa's stories with every reprinting in order to keep bringing them up to date? No one would ever suggest doing such a thing with Barks, Herriman, Roy Crane, or other American comics geniuses, so why should we do it with European comic geniuses? I suppose this makes me a "musty old antiquary," but I prefer to think that I just happen to have some respect for creative independence. Translators, no matter how talented they might be as writers, are mere moving men when they're translating stories, and they shouldn't tweak the work of art they're transporting at the expense of its creator.
Geoff Blum is probably responsible for starting this trend, but I don't think it was quite as reprehensible for him to "punch up" stories by anonymous Egmont staff writers (as he generally did during Gladstone's first run) as it is for Markstein, Gerstein, Gray, and others to tweak the stories of a genius like Scarpa. The Scarpa translations in Gladstone's first run, by Byron Erickson, Dwight Decker, and others, seemed to me to do a much better job of "Americanizing" the dialogue while leaving the translators' personalities out of it. A translator should be seen and not heard.
I don't think of comics as just "casual entertainment," as Donald Markstein seems to--they're literature of a type, and when foreign literature is translated it should be treated respectfully. I wouldn't like it if someone decided to insert contemporary references into Dante or Edmond Rostand to make them more "entertaining," and I don't like to see the same thing done to Scarpa. In addition, references to stuff like Bill Clinton's cat will make the American translation just as badly dated as the Italian original may or may not have been in years to come--is Markstein suggesting that we re-dialogue Scarpa's stories with every reprinting in order to keep bringing them up to date? No one would ever suggest doing such a thing with Barks, Herriman, Roy Crane, or other American comics geniuses, so why should we do it with European comic geniuses? I suppose this makes me a "musty old antiquary," but I prefer to think that I just happen to have some respect for creative independence. Translators, no matter how talented they might be as writers, are mere moving men when they're translating stories, and they shouldn't tweak the work of art they're transporting at the expense of its creator.
Francesco Spreafico
Translation and censorship
Message 48 -
2007-06-18 at 02:01:11
Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> How ironic to read the second "no matter what" in the paragraph
> immediately following the first! What is an absolute, unequivocal
> statement of what MUST NOT be in something, if not an attempt at
> censorship?
Let me think... an attempt at leaving things as good as they are? 8-)
> My sole mandate in this work is to make it entertaining. Usually,
> that's done by remaining faithful to the story as a whole, but
> playing fast and loose with details. If I think of a good gag that
> can be slipped in
> without damage to the original, I have no qualms about doing so.
Of course there's no big problem in doing this with, let's say, "poor"
plots, or scripts. They can even be improved this way and that's good.
But we're talking Scarpa here. If anyone here today tried to do the same
with Barks or Gottfredson, they'd be publicly executed! (metaphorically
speaking, of course 8-) )
> If there's a reference in the original that may strike a modern reader
> as dated, you can bet it'll be modernized in the American script.
Well, if it's not understandable, I agree. But I'd add that it should be
modernized in a "transparent" way. I mean, not using (I'm simplifying
here!) neologisms made up last year.
> if
> I can insert a reference into the script, that modern American readers
> will get, I'll do so in a heartbeat. In a Scarpa story published by
> Gladstone during the '90s, I needed an anology to fit into the
> reader's cultural context, so I made a passing reference to President
> Clinton's
> cat. It was perfectly apolitical, so no problems there -- just a thing
> everybody had heard of, which was therefore available for use --
> which,
> to an American audience, the European equivalent was not, even if a
> "faithful" translation would have used one.
I'd have understood better had been there a reference to somebody's cat
in the original. Or not even a cat, anything at all with the same
meaning... as long as it was untranslatable (but even in this case, I'd
have tried to find someone who'd been around a little bit more than
Clinton).
> in their languages, whatever that took. We're all familiar with the
> idea of
> things being "lost in translation". That's inevitable. But the
> translator can also put something in to replace it.
Of course! But *adding* references (as opposed to changing
untranslatable references) is not something "inevitable", it is
something done on purpose. And it doesn't make the story any better. At
best, it leaves it as it is... but then, why do it?
> There's no reason
> a translated version can't be as good as the original, provided the
> translator, who presumably is as good a writer in his own language as
> editors seem to think I am in mine, is given a free hand.
This is very true... when we're talking about untraslatable stuff. And
there's a lot of it. But I'm not talking about that, of course.
> As for "censoring" things like references to hunting or (one of my
> favorite things to drop) tobacco smoking, bear in mind that while
> these stories, churned out like yard goods for the voracious appetite
> of a
> weekly comic book, may indeed be deathless art -- that's not how
> publishers see them.
Of course, it's the publishers' fault. But I need to stress that it's
wrong. No matter what, as I said. It can't be condoned. This doesn't
mean I'm stopping buying Gemstone stuff, or advertising it on my site or
anything at all, of course. But it's something that must be noted.
> They're just trying to sell funnybooks. If a
> racial stereotype, perhaps perfectly acceptable in some bygone era,
> would cost
> him circulation by offending some modern readers -- he'd be a darned
> fool not to soften or eliminate it. It's not a matter of right and
> wrong. It's what the audience is likely to buy.
And why would anyone be offended by Mickey hunting a rabbit? *As a
reader* I feel offended by censorship, not by rabbit-hunting. And it's
not like we see him kill the rabbit and eat it... it just runs away, for
God's sake... (Of course general readers don't know about censorship, so
they won't be offended).
I understand that publishers do that because they think it'll be bad for
sales or image (and they're wrong, but all publishers do that, so I get
it), but I see no point in defending their position.
> In an ideal world, there would be separate editions for quaint, musty
> antiquarians who want it precisely as it was, and modern readers who
> just want to be entertained -- the antiquarian edition, of course,
> available only privately, so as to avoid unnecessary
> circulation-damaging controversy -- but we don't happen to live in an
> ideal world.
I don't see how that can be considered quaint. As I said, it's not Dante
we're talking about here, it's Scarpa, his stories are just as modern as
Barks's and Gottfredson's... and I don't see a change of language or
tone in *their* American reprints. Nor censorship, luckily. (Well, okay,
we saw a lot of censorship with Gottfredson, but we all agree in
condemning that. At least I hope so).
> P.S. Translating Herriman?!! Since much of his appeal lies in his
> inventive use of the English language, that must be a daunting task!
> Hats off to anyone who can evoke a similar response in another
> language! But I'll bet a good job of it would be nothing like the
> original.
Not even remotely! But I try and do my best, of course!
Best,
Francesco
> How ironic to read the second "no matter what" in the paragraph
> immediately following the first! What is an absolute, unequivocal
> statement of what MUST NOT be in something, if not an attempt at
> censorship?
Let me think... an attempt at leaving things as good as they are? 8-)
> My sole mandate in this work is to make it entertaining. Usually,
> that's done by remaining faithful to the story as a whole, but
> playing fast and loose with details. If I think of a good gag that
> can be slipped in
> without damage to the original, I have no qualms about doing so.
Of course there's no big problem in doing this with, let's say, "poor"
plots, or scripts. They can even be improved this way and that's good.
But we're talking Scarpa here. If anyone here today tried to do the same
with Barks or Gottfredson, they'd be publicly executed! (metaphorically
speaking, of course 8-) )
> If there's a reference in the original that may strike a modern reader
> as dated, you can bet it'll be modernized in the American script.
Well, if it's not understandable, I agree. But I'd add that it should be
modernized in a "transparent" way. I mean, not using (I'm simplifying
here!) neologisms made up last year.
> if
> I can insert a reference into the script, that modern American readers
> will get, I'll do so in a heartbeat. In a Scarpa story published by
> Gladstone during the '90s, I needed an anology to fit into the
> reader's cultural context, so I made a passing reference to President
> Clinton's
> cat. It was perfectly apolitical, so no problems there -- just a thing
> everybody had heard of, which was therefore available for use --
> which,
> to an American audience, the European equivalent was not, even if a
> "faithful" translation would have used one.
I'd have understood better had been there a reference to somebody's cat
in the original. Or not even a cat, anything at all with the same
meaning... as long as it was untranslatable (but even in this case, I'd
have tried to find someone who'd been around a little bit more than
Clinton).
> in their languages, whatever that took. We're all familiar with the
> idea of
> things being "lost in translation". That's inevitable. But the
> translator can also put something in to replace it.
Of course! But *adding* references (as opposed to changing
untranslatable references) is not something "inevitable", it is
something done on purpose. And it doesn't make the story any better. At
best, it leaves it as it is... but then, why do it?
> There's no reason
> a translated version can't be as good as the original, provided the
> translator, who presumably is as good a writer in his own language as
> editors seem to think I am in mine, is given a free hand.
This is very true... when we're talking about untraslatable stuff. And
there's a lot of it. But I'm not talking about that, of course.
> As for "censoring" things like references to hunting or (one of my
> favorite things to drop) tobacco smoking, bear in mind that while
> these stories, churned out like yard goods for the voracious appetite
> of a
> weekly comic book, may indeed be deathless art -- that's not how
> publishers see them.
Of course, it's the publishers' fault. But I need to stress that it's
wrong. No matter what, as I said. It can't be condoned. This doesn't
mean I'm stopping buying Gemstone stuff, or advertising it on my site or
anything at all, of course. But it's something that must be noted.
> They're just trying to sell funnybooks. If a
> racial stereotype, perhaps perfectly acceptable in some bygone era,
> would cost
> him circulation by offending some modern readers -- he'd be a darned
> fool not to soften or eliminate it. It's not a matter of right and
> wrong. It's what the audience is likely to buy.
And why would anyone be offended by Mickey hunting a rabbit? *As a
reader* I feel offended by censorship, not by rabbit-hunting. And it's
not like we see him kill the rabbit and eat it... it just runs away, for
God's sake... (Of course general readers don't know about censorship, so
they won't be offended).
I understand that publishers do that because they think it'll be bad for
sales or image (and they're wrong, but all publishers do that, so I get
it), but I see no point in defending their position.
> In an ideal world, there would be separate editions for quaint, musty
> antiquarians who want it precisely as it was, and modern readers who
> just want to be entertained -- the antiquarian edition, of course,
> available only privately, so as to avoid unnecessary
> circulation-damaging controversy -- but we don't happen to live in an
> ideal world.
I don't see how that can be considered quaint. As I said, it's not Dante
we're talking about here, it's Scarpa, his stories are just as modern as
Barks's and Gottfredson's... and I don't see a change of language or
tone in *their* American reprints. Nor censorship, luckily. (Well, okay,
we saw a lot of censorship with Gottfredson, but we all agree in
condemning that. At least I hope so).
> P.S. Translating Herriman?!! Since much of his appeal lies in his
> inventive use of the English language, that must be a daunting task!
> Hats off to anyone who can evoke a similar response in another
> language! But I'll bet a good job of it would be nothing like the
> original.
Not even remotely! But I try and do my best, of course!
Best,
Francesco
Francesco Spreafico
DCML Digest, Vol 52, Issue 12 (MouseWorks)
Message 49 -
2007-06-18 at 02:08:59
kimba1962 at comcast.net wrote:
> There was an occasional sequence (not much more than that) included
> as part of the late-90s Disney TV show MouseWorks, in which Mickey
> was attempting to save Minnie from the clutches of Pete. Pete's
> trademark line in the sequence was: "Scream all you want, my dear...
> Mickey Mouse will NEVER rescue you!" The funny thing about Jon's
> reference, of course, was that MICKEY was the character in peril this
> time! :-)
But this is good! The original script goes "Scream all you want, nobody
will hear you!", so this is one of those smooth transitions that fit
perfectly! This is actually good, and not at all one of the things I was
talking about. 8-)
Francesco
> There was an occasional sequence (not much more than that) included
> as part of the late-90s Disney TV show MouseWorks, in which Mickey
> was attempting to save Minnie from the clutches of Pete. Pete's
> trademark line in the sequence was: "Scream all you want, my dear...
> Mickey Mouse will NEVER rescue you!" The funny thing about Jon's
> reference, of course, was that MICKEY was the character in peril this
> time! :-)
But this is good! The original script goes "Scream all you want, nobody
will hear you!", so this is one of those smooth transitions that fit
perfectly! This is actually good, and not at all one of the things I was
talking about. 8-)
Francesco
John Lustig
DCML Digest, Vol 52, Issue 13
Message 50 -
2007-06-18 at 03:01:54
Wow. It's been years since I've written anything on this mailing list,
but I want to say that I agree completely with what Don Markstein just
posted regarding re-writes of translations. First of all, sometimes
jokes just don't translate. So you have to add something. You have to
make changes. I've never re-written any European Disney scripts, but I
did do a re-write for a five-book Viz series, Ultra Maniac. In that
case, I think one of the reasons I was hired was that the editor knew I
could write new gags.
I also agree with Don about my own Disney/Egmont scripts. I want the
people who translate and re-script my stories to make me look good. Of
course, I want them to remain true to the spirit of my story. But
there's no way they can do that if they try to go with a literal
translation and don't add references and terms that make sense in that
language.
John Lustig
www.lastkisscomics.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Translation and censorship
> From:
> "Donald D. Markstein" <ddmarkstein at cox.net>
> Date:
> Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:26:29 -0700
> To:
> dcml at nafsk.se
>
> To:
> dcml at nafsk.se
>
>
>
>> I'm not sure I'd like it, though... just as I did not like the
>> Flintstone reference... this is 1957, the Flintstone still had to
>> air! But besides that... if there is no reference in the original,
>> then there must be no reference in the translation, no matter what.
>> Not even the Phantom Blot reference later on in the story, there is
>> no such thing in the original.
>>
>> I'm also sorry to see that censorship in the first two pages (about
>> hunting). I know that many Italian reprints of this story were just
>> as censored (actually, even more), but that's not a good reason.
>> Censorship is always wrong, no matter what.
>
>
> How ironic to read the second "no matter what" in the paragraph
> immediately following the first! What is an absolute, unequivocal
> statement of what MUST NOT be in something, if not an attempt at
> censorship?
>
> Being a typical monolingual American, I don't do translation work. But
> I've written new dialog for both Gladstone and Gemstone when the
> original writer has made a good story, but his non-native skill with
> English has rendered the actual words on the page less than ideal.
> It's a lot like translating from English to American. In the credits,
> it's called "American script".
>
> My sole mandate in this work is to make it entertaining. Usually,
> that's done by remaining faithful to the story as a whole, but playing
> fast and loose with details. If I think of a good gag that can be
> slipped in without damage to the original, I have no qualms about
> doing so. I've even inserted entire subplots that weren't there
> before, tho the opportunity for anything as radical as that doesn't
> come up very often.
>
> If there's a reference in the original that may strike a modern reader
> as dated, you can bet it'll be modernized in the American script. And
> if I can insert a reference into the script, that modern American
> readers will get, I'll do so in a heartbeat. In a Scarpa story
> published by Gladstone during the '90s, I needed an anology to fit
> into the reader's cultural context, so I made a passing reference to
> President Clinton's cat. It was perfectly apolitical, so no problems
> there -- just a thing everybody had heard of, which was therefore
> available for use -- which, to an American audience, the European
> equivalent was not, even if a "faithful" translation would have used one.
>
> I took some flak from this very list for something else in that same
> story. "How would you like a translator to do that to one of your
> Egmont stories?" I was asked, tho it came more in the form of a
> challenge. I responded by asking the translators to make me look good
> in their languages, whatever that took. We're all familiar with the
> idea of things being "lost in translation". That's inevitable. But the
> translator can also put something in to replace it. There's no reason
> a translated version can't be as good as the original, provided the
> translator, who presumably is as good a writer in his own language as
> editors seem to think I am in mine, is given a free hand.
>
> As for "censoring" things like references to hunting or (one of my
> favorite things to drop) tobacco smoking, bear in mind that while
> these stories, churned out like yard goods for the voracious appetite
> of a weekly comic book, may indeed be deathless art -- that's not how
> publishers see them. They're just trying to sell funnybooks. If a
> racial stereotype, perhaps perfectly acceptable in some bygone era,
> would cost him circulation by offending some modern readers -- he'd be
> a darned fool not to soften or eliminate it. It's not a matter of
> right and wrong. It's what the audience is likely to buy.
>
> In an ideal world, there would be separate editions for quaint, musty
> antiquarians who want it precisely as it was, and modern readers who
> just want to be entertained -- the antiquarian edition, of course,
> available only privately, so as to avoid unnecessary
> circulation-damaging controversy -- but we don't happen to live in an
> ideal world. In the here-and-now, only one edition of the average,
> routine story is going to see print, and it's going to be the one with
> mass audience appeal. End of story.
>
> Quack, Don
>
> P.S. Translating Herriman?!! Since much of his appeal lies in his
> inventive use of the English language, that must be a daunting task!
> Hats off to anyone who can evoke a similar response in another
> language! But I'll bet a good job of it would be nothing like the
> original.
but I want to say that I agree completely with what Don Markstein just
posted regarding re-writes of translations. First of all, sometimes
jokes just don't translate. So you have to add something. You have to
make changes. I've never re-written any European Disney scripts, but I
did do a re-write for a five-book Viz series, Ultra Maniac. In that
case, I think one of the reasons I was hired was that the editor knew I
could write new gags.
I also agree with Don about my own Disney/Egmont scripts. I want the
people who translate and re-script my stories to make me look good. Of
course, I want them to remain true to the spirit of my story. But
there's no way they can do that if they try to go with a literal
translation and don't add references and terms that make sense in that
language.
John Lustig
www.lastkisscomics.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Translation and censorship
> From:
> "Donald D. Markstein" <ddmarkstein at cox.net>
> Date:
> Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:26:29 -0700
> To:
> dcml at nafsk.se
>
> To:
> dcml at nafsk.se
>
>
>
>> I'm not sure I'd like it, though... just as I did not like the
>> Flintstone reference... this is 1957, the Flintstone still had to
>> air! But besides that... if there is no reference in the original,
>> then there must be no reference in the translation, no matter what.
>> Not even the Phantom Blot reference later on in the story, there is
>> no such thing in the original.
>>
>> I'm also sorry to see that censorship in the first two pages (about
>> hunting). I know that many Italian reprints of this story were just
>> as censored (actually, even more), but that's not a good reason.
>> Censorship is always wrong, no matter what.
>
>
> How ironic to read the second "no matter what" in the paragraph
> immediately following the first! What is an absolute, unequivocal
> statement of what MUST NOT be in something, if not an attempt at
> censorship?
>
> Being a typical monolingual American, I don't do translation work. But
> I've written new dialog for both Gladstone and Gemstone when the
> original writer has made a good story, but his non-native skill with
> English has rendered the actual words on the page less than ideal.
> It's a lot like translating from English to American. In the credits,
> it's called "American script".
>
> My sole mandate in this work is to make it entertaining. Usually,
> that's done by remaining faithful to the story as a whole, but playing
> fast and loose with details. If I think of a good gag that can be
> slipped in without damage to the original, I have no qualms about
> doing so. I've even inserted entire subplots that weren't there
> before, tho the opportunity for anything as radical as that doesn't
> come up very often.
>
> If there's a reference in the original that may strike a modern reader
> as dated, you can bet it'll be modernized in the American script. And
> if I can insert a reference into the script, that modern American
> readers will get, I'll do so in a heartbeat. In a Scarpa story
> published by Gladstone during the '90s, I needed an anology to fit
> into the reader's cultural context, so I made a passing reference to
> President Clinton's cat. It was perfectly apolitical, so no problems
> there -- just a thing everybody had heard of, which was therefore
> available for use -- which, to an American audience, the European
> equivalent was not, even if a "faithful" translation would have used one.
>
> I took some flak from this very list for something else in that same
> story. "How would you like a translator to do that to one of your
> Egmont stories?" I was asked, tho it came more in the form of a
> challenge. I responded by asking the translators to make me look good
> in their languages, whatever that took. We're all familiar with the
> idea of things being "lost in translation". That's inevitable. But the
> translator can also put something in to replace it. There's no reason
> a translated version can't be as good as the original, provided the
> translator, who presumably is as good a writer in his own language as
> editors seem to think I am in mine, is given a free hand.
>
> As for "censoring" things like references to hunting or (one of my
> favorite things to drop) tobacco smoking, bear in mind that while
> these stories, churned out like yard goods for the voracious appetite
> of a weekly comic book, may indeed be deathless art -- that's not how
> publishers see them. They're just trying to sell funnybooks. If a
> racial stereotype, perhaps perfectly acceptable in some bygone era,
> would cost him circulation by offending some modern readers -- he'd be
> a darned fool not to soften or eliminate it. It's not a matter of
> right and wrong. It's what the audience is likely to buy.
>
> In an ideal world, there would be separate editions for quaint, musty
> antiquarians who want it precisely as it was, and modern readers who
> just want to be entertained -- the antiquarian edition, of course,
> available only privately, so as to avoid unnecessary
> circulation-damaging controversy -- but we don't happen to live in an
> ideal world. In the here-and-now, only one edition of the average,
> routine story is going to see print, and it's going to be the one with
> mass audience appeal. End of story.
>
> Quack, Don
>
> P.S. Translating Herriman?!! Since much of his appeal lies in his
> inventive use of the English language, that must be a daunting task!
> Hats off to anyone who can evoke a similar response in another
> language! But I'll bet a good job of it would be nothing like the
> original.
Deanmary
More comments and questions on 3 panel stories
Message 51 -
2007-06-18 at 08:52:45
I meant to write to the list sooner more about this issue, but my computer was out of commission for a few days. :( Boy, when you don't have it for a bit, you can see how much you miss the Internet!
Gary, you said that you have a "fair stockpile" of 3 panel stories that were acquired for DDA and MMA before they were cancelled. Could you give us a ballpark figure of how many you are talking about?
I agree that since there isn't a way to return these stories that it would not make sense economically for Gemstone to never print them. Since DDA and MMA are gone, Gemstone is choosing to print them in US and WDC&S. Isn't there a chance that a third way would be better? I am mostly thinking of the B/W "Shonen Jump" style format that Gemstone first talked about in late 2006 when so many titles got cancelled. I would still prefer to have DDA and MMA being published, but a B/W title is better than nothing at all. And if the only other option is putting these 3 panel stories in US and WDC&S, I would *really* prefer there to be a B/W title and save the two monthly prestige format tiles to traditional 4 panel stories. How do others on the list feel about this issue?
It has been so long since we have heard anything about such a B/W title that I am not sure it is being considered anymore. Can you update us on this? If not a B/W title, perhaps Gemstone can come up with a better idea! Now I know the next part has gone beyond "beating a dead horse" into probably turning the dead horse to glue! :) However, can you give us *any* hints about Gemstone's plans for 2008? If you can't, can you tell us about when you might be able to? Yeah, give me some credit for trying! :)
I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed in Gemstone in 2007. Many things were mentioned as coming up when many of the titles were cancelled, and over all, I don't think we have seen many come to pass. The B/W title has gone nowhere, at least as of yet. We were supposed to get many more TPBs but it looks like there will only be 2 this year. I realize that these things we were told were not "promises" in any sense of the word, but just what were your ideas at that time. I just hope that 2007 was a transitional year and that we get many of these new titles and/or different titles, formats, ideas, etc. in 2008. Even the briefest glance into Gemstone's "crystal ball" for 2008 would be *very* much appreciated!
Kriton mentioned the apparent "disconnect" between my dislike for 3 panel stories and the fact that I like Scarpa stories and that most of his are 3 panel stories. I will try to explain. First off I am not saying all of the modern 3 panel stories we were getting in DDA and MMA were awful. I was saying that on average though they did not seem to be of the same quality of the modern 4 panel stories seen in the other titles. Also, most of the modern 3 panel stories seem as if they were written for a younger audience and on the whole do not have the quality of story and art as the 4 panel stories do. However, that is only my opinion and it is only a general opinion. There have been a few modern 3 panel stories that I have liked quite a bit.
Another thing is *where* these 3 panel stories are published. A 40 or 50 page story in a 120+ pages title like MMA or DDA is much different that having a 30+ page 3 panel story in a title that only has 64 pages to begin with. Plus since we are down to only 128 pages each month, I really would like the two prestige titles not to contain these modern 3 panel stories as I think with only 128 pages a month that these two titles should contain the "cream of the crop". And in my own opinion, modern 3 panel stories usually just aren't that great.
I do realize that Scarpa produced mostly 3 panel stories. However, from the Scarpa stories I have read, there is a *big* difference in quality in his classic 3 panel stories than in the more modern 3 panel stories! After all, Scarpa is considered to be among the all time great Disney comic creators. I don't think most of the modern writers/artists would be hurt by hearing that their 3 panel stories just do not rank as high as many of Scarpa's. Once again, that is just my opinion though. What do others of you think?
Finally I would be willing to lose even Scarpa 3 panel stories from the two remaining monthlies *if* they were presented in another format, say some Scarpa TPBs? How does that sound? See how many possibilities Gemstone has for the future! So Gary, David, Travis, etc., if you ever need someone to come up with ideas for Gemstone I would be happy to do the work for free! Aw, who I am kidding -- I would *pay* Gemstone to do such "work"! :)
Dean Rekich
Gary, you said that you have a "fair stockpile" of 3 panel stories that were acquired for DDA and MMA before they were cancelled. Could you give us a ballpark figure of how many you are talking about?
I agree that since there isn't a way to return these stories that it would not make sense economically for Gemstone to never print them. Since DDA and MMA are gone, Gemstone is choosing to print them in US and WDC&S. Isn't there a chance that a third way would be better? I am mostly thinking of the B/W "Shonen Jump" style format that Gemstone first talked about in late 2006 when so many titles got cancelled. I would still prefer to have DDA and MMA being published, but a B/W title is better than nothing at all. And if the only other option is putting these 3 panel stories in US and WDC&S, I would *really* prefer there to be a B/W title and save the two monthly prestige format tiles to traditional 4 panel stories. How do others on the list feel about this issue?
It has been so long since we have heard anything about such a B/W title that I am not sure it is being considered anymore. Can you update us on this? If not a B/W title, perhaps Gemstone can come up with a better idea! Now I know the next part has gone beyond "beating a dead horse" into probably turning the dead horse to glue! :) However, can you give us *any* hints about Gemstone's plans for 2008? If you can't, can you tell us about when you might be able to? Yeah, give me some credit for trying! :)
I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed in Gemstone in 2007. Many things were mentioned as coming up when many of the titles were cancelled, and over all, I don't think we have seen many come to pass. The B/W title has gone nowhere, at least as of yet. We were supposed to get many more TPBs but it looks like there will only be 2 this year. I realize that these things we were told were not "promises" in any sense of the word, but just what were your ideas at that time. I just hope that 2007 was a transitional year and that we get many of these new titles and/or different titles, formats, ideas, etc. in 2008. Even the briefest glance into Gemstone's "crystal ball" for 2008 would be *very* much appreciated!
Kriton mentioned the apparent "disconnect" between my dislike for 3 panel stories and the fact that I like Scarpa stories and that most of his are 3 panel stories. I will try to explain. First off I am not saying all of the modern 3 panel stories we were getting in DDA and MMA were awful. I was saying that on average though they did not seem to be of the same quality of the modern 4 panel stories seen in the other titles. Also, most of the modern 3 panel stories seem as if they were written for a younger audience and on the whole do not have the quality of story and art as the 4 panel stories do. However, that is only my opinion and it is only a general opinion. There have been a few modern 3 panel stories that I have liked quite a bit.
Another thing is *where* these 3 panel stories are published. A 40 or 50 page story in a 120+ pages title like MMA or DDA is much different that having a 30+ page 3 panel story in a title that only has 64 pages to begin with. Plus since we are down to only 128 pages each month, I really would like the two prestige titles not to contain these modern 3 panel stories as I think with only 128 pages a month that these two titles should contain the "cream of the crop". And in my own opinion, modern 3 panel stories usually just aren't that great.
I do realize that Scarpa produced mostly 3 panel stories. However, from the Scarpa stories I have read, there is a *big* difference in quality in his classic 3 panel stories than in the more modern 3 panel stories! After all, Scarpa is considered to be among the all time great Disney comic creators. I don't think most of the modern writers/artists would be hurt by hearing that their 3 panel stories just do not rank as high as many of Scarpa's. Once again, that is just my opinion though. What do others of you think?
Finally I would be willing to lose even Scarpa 3 panel stories from the two remaining monthlies *if* they were presented in another format, say some Scarpa TPBs? How does that sound? See how many possibilities Gemstone has for the future! So Gary, David, Travis, etc., if you ever need someone to come up with ideas for Gemstone I would be happy to do the work for free! Aw, who I am kidding -- I would *pay* Gemstone to do such "work"! :)
Dean Rekich
Francesco Spreafico
Worried about 3-tiers
Message 52 -
2007-06-18 at 10:31:36
Gary Leach wrote:
> However, some 3-tier stories intended for pocket books do get ordered
> because they are stories that we feel Gemstone should publish in some
> form, and that practice will continue. It will never be entirely
> satisfactory to us that they will not appear in the format for which
> the original publishers intended them, but them's the breaks, as they
> say.
This is what I wanted to hear, thanks! My "worry" was only because you
don't publish pocket books anymore.
Francesco
> However, some 3-tier stories intended for pocket books do get ordered
> because they are stories that we feel Gemstone should publish in some
> form, and that practice will continue. It will never be entirely
> satisfactory to us that they will not appear in the format for which
> the original publishers intended them, but them's the breaks, as they
> say.
This is what I wanted to hear, thanks! My "worry" was only because you
don't publish pocket books anymore.
Francesco
Francesco Spreafico
DCML Digest, Vol 52, Issue 13
Message 53 -
2007-06-18 at 13:09:36
John Lustig wrote:
> Wow. It's been years since I've written anything on this mailing
> list, but I want to say that I agree completely with what Don
> Markstein just posted regarding re-writes of translations. First of
> all, sometimes jokes just don't translate. So you have to add
> something. You have to make changes.
But of course, *that* was never the issue!
Francesco
> Wow. It's been years since I've written anything on this mailing
> list, but I want to say that I agree completely with what Don
> Markstein just posted regarding re-writes of translations. First of
> all, sometimes jokes just don't translate. So you have to add
> something. You have to make changes.
But of course, *that* was never the issue!
Francesco
Francesco Spreafico
3-tier stories
Message 54 -
2007-06-18 at 13:16:22
Ole R Nielsen wrote:
> Besides Scarpa and apparently Fecchi, who seem to have the readers'
> approval, are there other writers/artists in the lot yet to appear
> for the first time in American comic books?
It seems by looking at this page http://www.bokfynd.nu/1888472642.html
that tey were going to publish something by Casty. I do hope that,
whatever story it was, it's one of those that will find their place
elsewhere, for, boy, he /is/ good.
Francesco
> Besides Scarpa and apparently Fecchi, who seem to have the readers'
> approval, are there other writers/artists in the lot yet to appear
> for the first time in American comic books?
It seems by looking at this page http://www.bokfynd.nu/1888472642.html
that tey were going to publish something by Casty. I do hope that,
whatever story it was, it's one of those that will find their place
elsewhere, for, boy, he /is/ good.
Francesco
Frank Stajano
Translators: To Tweak or not to Tweak
Message 55 -
2007-06-18 at 13:16:50
jerryblake2 at juno.com wrote:
> I don't think of comics as just "casual entertainment," as Donald
> Markstein seems to--they're literature of a type, and when foreign
> literature is translated it should be treated respectfully. I wouldn't
> like it if someone decided to insert contemporary references into Dante
> or Edmond Rostand to make them more "entertaining," and I don't like to
> see the same thing done to Scarpa. In addition, references to stuff like
> Bill Clinton's cat will make the American translation just as badly
> dated as the Italian original may or may not have been in years to
> come--is Markstein suggesting that we re-dialogue Scarpa's stories with
> every reprinting in order to keep bringing them up to date? No one would
> ever suggest doing such a thing with Barks, Herriman, Roy Crane, or
> other American comics geniuses, so why should we do it with European
> comic geniuses? I suppose this makes me a "musty old antiquary," but I
> prefer to think that I just happen to have some respect for creative
> independence. Translators, no matter how talented they might be as
> writers, are mere moving men when they're translating stories, and
> they shouldn't tweak the work of art they're transporting at the expense
> of its creator.
Let's sculpt the above in marble!
I am 100% behind what Jerry (and Francesco) wrote.
A good translator is
- one who lets the original author shine through
- one who understands all the nuances of what the original author meant
- one capable of carrying as much of that as possible to the target language
- one who is humble enough to recognize that he is NOT THE AUTHOR and
that the original creation deserves faithful respect
Note that this is not just because it was "our" Scarpa: we are equally
vocal when translators take liberties with the Barks and Rosa stories in
European publications---it's just that you Americans on DCML usually
don't get to hear about it.
--
Frank Stajano http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/fms27/
> I don't think of comics as just "casual entertainment," as Donald
> Markstein seems to--they're literature of a type, and when foreign
> literature is translated it should be treated respectfully. I wouldn't
> like it if someone decided to insert contemporary references into Dante
> or Edmond Rostand to make them more "entertaining," and I don't like to
> see the same thing done to Scarpa. In addition, references to stuff like
> Bill Clinton's cat will make the American translation just as badly
> dated as the Italian original may or may not have been in years to
> come--is Markstein suggesting that we re-dialogue Scarpa's stories with
> every reprinting in order to keep bringing them up to date? No one would
> ever suggest doing such a thing with Barks, Herriman, Roy Crane, or
> other American comics geniuses, so why should we do it with European
> comic geniuses? I suppose this makes me a "musty old antiquary," but I
> prefer to think that I just happen to have some respect for creative
> independence. Translators, no matter how talented they might be as
> writers, are mere moving men when they're translating stories, and
> they shouldn't tweak the work of art they're transporting at the expense
> of its creator.
Let's sculpt the above in marble!
I am 100% behind what Jerry (and Francesco) wrote.
A good translator is
- one who lets the original author shine through
- one who understands all the nuances of what the original author meant
- one capable of carrying as much of that as possible to the target language
- one who is humble enough to recognize that he is NOT THE AUTHOR and
that the original creation deserves faithful respect
Note that this is not just because it was "our" Scarpa: we are equally
vocal when translators take liberties with the Barks and Rosa stories in
European publications---it's just that you Americans on DCML usually
don't get to hear about it.
--
Frank Stajano http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/fms27/
Donald D. Markstein
Translation and censorship
Message 56 -
2007-06-18 at 17:30:59
> I have to agree with Francesco on this translating issue. When I was
> younger, I used to enjoy the cross-references to Barks and Rosa
> stories that David Gerstein and Geoffrey Blum would toss into their
> translations of European stories, and the various literary allusions,
> but now I dislike it on principle.
>
Well now, isn't that the whole controversy in a nutshell! Kids enjoy the
stuff that's adapted to their time and culture (which includes Barks and
Rosa references, of course). But when they get old enough to develop
ideas about what's "good" in some abstract way, "beyond" mere
entertainment (which is all the real purpose a story has), they get
picky about what might have been the "intent" of the original author
(which, of course, they can only speculate about -- for all they know,
Scarpa may have, and probably did because he was a professional
entertainer and not a sensitive "artiste" demanding that every jot and
tittle be exactly as he created it, have taken my own attitude toward
translation) and object on "principle" to such tampering.
But let's try to remember that despite our own love of the material,
it's intended for the entertainment of children. It stands or falls on
whether kids, not adult aficionados such as you and me, enjoy it. If the
grown-ups like it -- great! But if catering to us requires even the
tiniest compromise of its main mission, then it's wrong. Sorry if that
offends anybody's mature, sophisticated sensibilities, but that's the
way it is.
If you want to appreciate Scarpa's work precisely as he originally made
it -- read it in Italian. Of course, a comic book story undergoes a pile
of revision and compromise before it ever sees print, much less
translation (and the compromises start before the first line goes on the
paper), but at least you can fool yourself into believing it's pure.
John Lustig gets it. Of course, he's a professional, and has not only
seen first-hand how stories get twisted and tweaked by many people in
being prepared for print -- he's also experienced, in his own work, the
fact that every word and every line is contingent on an incredible
variety of factors, conscious and un-, up to and including what the
writer and artist had for breakfast.
I hate to get all elitist on you guys, but it does seem to boil down to
a professional's point of view versus that of those who don't work in
the field and therefore have only a hazy knowledge of how the field
itself works. Many people have creative input; and while the story is
primarily the writer's, his "vision", if you will, is only one of those
that affect what you read on the page.
Like it or not, the translator is part of the creative process. If the
final product isn't influenced by his creative input, then he's not
doing his job.
> The Scarpa translations in Gladstone's first run, by Byron Erickson,
> Dwight Decker, and others, seemed to me to do a much better job of
> "Americanizing" the dialogue while leaving the translators'
> personalities out of it. A translator should be seen and not heard.
>
I don't know about Byron's Gladstone work (tho I do know he's a very
creative person and the fact shows up in his editing of my own stories
for Egmont -- to the stories' benefit, let me add -- so it seems likely
to turn up in his re-dialoguing too). But this contradicts conversations
I've had with Dwight. If you had access to the originals, you'd see that
there's a great deal of him in his translations -- not just in comics,
but in prose as well.
This is because Dwight is a good translator. He understands that if you
simply go word-for-word, you won't convey the flavor of the whole, which
was created for the foibles and idiosyncracies of another language. This
may be a virtue in translating a technical manual, but not for anything
that's intended to be enjoyed.
And being enjoyed is the bottom line. In comic books of all types, the
story's the thing -- not a tedious and inevitably futile attempt to
duplicate a version that, in many fundamental ways, is alien to the reader.
Quack, Don
> younger, I used to enjoy the cross-references to Barks and Rosa
> stories that David Gerstein and Geoffrey Blum would toss into their
> translations of European stories, and the various literary allusions,
> but now I dislike it on principle.
>
Well now, isn't that the whole controversy in a nutshell! Kids enjoy the
stuff that's adapted to their time and culture (which includes Barks and
Rosa references, of course). But when they get old enough to develop
ideas about what's "good" in some abstract way, "beyond" mere
entertainment (which is all the real purpose a story has), they get
picky about what might have been the "intent" of the original author
(which, of course, they can only speculate about -- for all they know,
Scarpa may have, and probably did because he was a professional
entertainer and not a sensitive "artiste" demanding that every jot and
tittle be exactly as he created it, have taken my own attitude toward
translation) and object on "principle" to such tampering.
But let's try to remember that despite our own love of the material,
it's intended for the entertainment of children. It stands or falls on
whether kids, not adult aficionados such as you and me, enjoy it. If the
grown-ups like it -- great! But if catering to us requires even the
tiniest compromise of its main mission, then it's wrong. Sorry if that
offends anybody's mature, sophisticated sensibilities, but that's the
way it is.
If you want to appreciate Scarpa's work precisely as he originally made
it -- read it in Italian. Of course, a comic book story undergoes a pile
of revision and compromise before it ever sees print, much less
translation (and the compromises start before the first line goes on the
paper), but at least you can fool yourself into believing it's pure.
John Lustig gets it. Of course, he's a professional, and has not only
seen first-hand how stories get twisted and tweaked by many people in
being prepared for print -- he's also experienced, in his own work, the
fact that every word and every line is contingent on an incredible
variety of factors, conscious and un-, up to and including what the
writer and artist had for breakfast.
I hate to get all elitist on you guys, but it does seem to boil down to
a professional's point of view versus that of those who don't work in
the field and therefore have only a hazy knowledge of how the field
itself works. Many people have creative input; and while the story is
primarily the writer's, his "vision", if you will, is only one of those
that affect what you read on the page.
Like it or not, the translator is part of the creative process. If the
final product isn't influenced by his creative input, then he's not
doing his job.
> The Scarpa translations in Gladstone's first run, by Byron Erickson,
> Dwight Decker, and others, seemed to me to do a much better job of
> "Americanizing" the dialogue while leaving the translators'
> personalities out of it. A translator should be seen and not heard.
>
I don't know about Byron's Gladstone work (tho I do know he's a very
creative person and the fact shows up in his editing of my own stories
for Egmont -- to the stories' benefit, let me add -- so it seems likely
to turn up in his re-dialoguing too). But this contradicts conversations
I've had with Dwight. If you had access to the originals, you'd see that
there's a great deal of him in his translations -- not just in comics,
but in prose as well.
This is because Dwight is a good translator. He understands that if you
simply go word-for-word, you won't convey the flavor of the whole, which
was created for the foibles and idiosyncracies of another language. This
may be a virtue in translating a technical manual, but not for anything
that's intended to be enjoyed.
And being enjoyed is the bottom line. In comic books of all types, the
story's the thing -- not a tedious and inevitably futile attempt to
duplicate a version that, in many fundamental ways, is alien to the reader.
Quack, Don
Francesco Spreafico
Translation and censorship
Message 57 -
2007-06-18 at 17:46:34
Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> But let's try to remember that despite our own love of the material,
> it's intended for the entertainment of children. It stands or falls on
> whether kids, not adult aficionados such as you and me, enjoy it. If
> the grown-ups like it -- great! But if catering to us requires even
> the tiniest compromise of its main mission, then it's wrong. Sorry if
> that offends anybody's mature, sophisticated sensibilities, but
> that's the way it is.
The point is that we don't really think that it gets better for kids
with this changes. Actually we're strongly convinced of the opposite
(well, at least I am)... the story was written mainly for kids, and it's
still good for them, exactly as it was way back then. Adding a reference
to the Phantom Blot or to Peg-Leg Pete (glad to see him called like
that, though) won't make it any better.
> I hate to get all elitist on you guys, but it does seem to boil down
> to
> a professional's point of view versus that of those who don't work in
> the field and therefore have only a hazy knowledge of how the field
> itself works.
You're forgetting we DO work in the field, so there's something wrong in
that sentence, isn't there?
> This is because Dwight is a good translator. He understands that if
> you simply go word-for-word
Nobody (NOBODY) is saying that you should go word-by-word. Who ever said
or even thought that?
> And being enjoyed is the bottom line. In comic books of all types, the
> story's the thing -- not a tedious and inevitably futile attempt to
> duplicate a version that, in many fundamental ways, is alien to the
> reader.
It's not. But I'm starting to think you don't know exactly what we're
talking about, not having read the original. If you had, you'd know that
you're completely missing the point here.
I'd actually like to hear from Jonathan, since he /has/ read it!
Francesco
> But let's try to remember that despite our own love of the material,
> it's intended for the entertainment of children. It stands or falls on
> whether kids, not adult aficionados such as you and me, enjoy it. If
> the grown-ups like it -- great! But if catering to us requires even
> the tiniest compromise of its main mission, then it's wrong. Sorry if
> that offends anybody's mature, sophisticated sensibilities, but
> that's the way it is.
The point is that we don't really think that it gets better for kids
with this changes. Actually we're strongly convinced of the opposite
(well, at least I am)... the story was written mainly for kids, and it's
still good for them, exactly as it was way back then. Adding a reference
to the Phantom Blot or to Peg-Leg Pete (glad to see him called like
that, though) won't make it any better.
> I hate to get all elitist on you guys, but it does seem to boil down
> to
> a professional's point of view versus that of those who don't work in
> the field and therefore have only a hazy knowledge of how the field
> itself works.
You're forgetting we DO work in the field, so there's something wrong in
that sentence, isn't there?
> This is because Dwight is a good translator. He understands that if
> you simply go word-for-word
Nobody (NOBODY) is saying that you should go word-by-word. Who ever said
or even thought that?
> And being enjoyed is the bottom line. In comic books of all types, the
> story's the thing -- not a tedious and inevitably futile attempt to
> duplicate a version that, in many fundamental ways, is alien to the
> reader.
It's not. But I'm starting to think you don't know exactly what we're
talking about, not having read the original. If you had, you'd know that
you're completely missing the point here.
I'd actually like to hear from Jonathan, since he /has/ read it!
Francesco
Gary Leach
3-tiers
Message 58 -
2007-06-18 at 20:56:49
Dean, Ole:
To my recollection, I may have paginated out to six volumes of DDA
when I ordered up my last batch of material for that title. That
would have amounted to about 18 stories, give or take. I probably
have some records on that hereabouts, but my filing system is not one
to be ventured into without considerable advanced preparation and at
least a week's supply of rations.
As for providing a list of the actual stories, I feel I must decline.
Not only because of the above, but I don't really see bringing in
reader opinion on stories we haven't yet published. Yes, they've
already been published per se, but our versions need their chance to
go out without the advanced reader prejudice - for good or ill - this
sort of thing could engender. (That's my view. David or Travis may
see it differently.)
Gary
To my recollection, I may have paginated out to six volumes of DDA
when I ordered up my last batch of material for that title. That
would have amounted to about 18 stories, give or take. I probably
have some records on that hereabouts, but my filing system is not one
to be ventured into without considerable advanced preparation and at
least a week's supply of rations.
As for providing a list of the actual stories, I feel I must decline.
Not only because of the above, but I don't really see bringing in
reader opinion on stories we haven't yet published. Yes, they've
already been published per se, but our versions need their chance to
go out without the advanced reader prejudice - for good or ill - this
sort of thing could engender. (That's my view. David or Travis may
see it differently.)
Gary
Francesco Spreafico
Translators: To Tweak or not to Tweak
Message 59 -
2007-06-19 at 00:44:30
jerryblake2 at juno.com wrote:
> A translator should be seen and not heard.
I agree with what you said (of course), and that's what I try to do all
the time!
But I'd also like to put a word in defence of Jonathan's translation in
this particular case. Besides the (very few!) things I noticed and that
got a little bit blown up beyond proportion here, this "Campionissimo"'s
translation is a good one!
My remarks about censorship weren't headed to him (nor to anyone in
particular), who, as a translator, has very little to do with it, they
were in general against censorship. The Italian censorship of those two
pages is a lot heavier... at least here Mickey *is* hunting, and not
"trying to save the hare from the birds" (?!?).
And back to that MouseWork reference, as I already said, it turned out
to good, an invisible reference that translates the original
"word-by-word", even, and does the job right. So let me actually praise
Jonathan's translation, it was not my intention to bash it.
Let's let the talk get back to translation in general, that's an
interesting topic.
Best,
Francesco
> A translator should be seen and not heard.
I agree with what you said (of course), and that's what I try to do all
the time!
But I'd also like to put a word in defence of Jonathan's translation in
this particular case. Besides the (very few!) things I noticed and that
got a little bit blown up beyond proportion here, this "Campionissimo"'s
translation is a good one!
My remarks about censorship weren't headed to him (nor to anyone in
particular), who, as a translator, has very little to do with it, they
were in general against censorship. The Italian censorship of those two
pages is a lot heavier... at least here Mickey *is* hunting, and not
"trying to save the hare from the birds" (?!?).
And back to that MouseWork reference, as I already said, it turned out
to good, an invisible reference that translates the original
"word-by-word", even, and does the job right. So let me actually praise
Jonathan's translation, it was not my intention to bash it.
Let's let the talk get back to translation in general, that's an
interesting topic.
Best,
Francesco
Gary Leach
Rewriting
Message 60 -
2007-06-19 at 09:27:58
The subject of rewriting (not translating, as some have erroneously
referred to it) has always been a touchy one. Those who find it
disagreeable that rewriters add things to stories that aren't in the
original versions have my sympathy, for I've found some of that to be
rather disagreeable, too. However, as a rewriter myself, I've
committed similar offenses, so I'm probably not one to talk.
But I will anyway, because Don Markstein and John Lustig pointed out
what rewriting is about. Don boiled it down nicely: "My sole mandate
in this work is to make it entertaining." I'll punch that up by
saying that this isn't a mere mandate, but what Gemstone absolutely
requires. We don't pay people to make things readable - any competent
editor can do that - but to do whatever they can think of - whatever
it takes - to make 'em crackle, make 'em sing, make 'em everything
they can possibly be. And just so rewriters aren't twisting in the
wind out there by themselves, not a word of what they produce gets
into print without the approval of Gemstone's editors, who have the
same job every editor on the globe has - making sure the material IS
everything it can be.
Gary
referred to it) has always been a touchy one. Those who find it
disagreeable that rewriters add things to stories that aren't in the
original versions have my sympathy, for I've found some of that to be
rather disagreeable, too. However, as a rewriter myself, I've
committed similar offenses, so I'm probably not one to talk.
But I will anyway, because Don Markstein and John Lustig pointed out
what rewriting is about. Don boiled it down nicely: "My sole mandate
in this work is to make it entertaining." I'll punch that up by
saying that this isn't a mere mandate, but what Gemstone absolutely
requires. We don't pay people to make things readable - any competent
editor can do that - but to do whatever they can think of - whatever
it takes - to make 'em crackle, make 'em sing, make 'em everything
they can possibly be. And just so rewriters aren't twisting in the
wind out there by themselves, not a word of what they produce gets
into print without the approval of Gemstone's editors, who have the
same job every editor on the globe has - making sure the material IS
everything it can be.
Gary