Translation and censorship

[Francesco Spreafico]

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