Chocolate, Vanilla or Swirl?

[sinnesspiel]

So as I work with the Kakizawa video, I have a few problems. First and foremost, I don't know who to credit for the video; is the 4GB version a condensed version of the one by Magnet from AsiaFull? I used the torrent (and am uploading the 4GB version for DDL presently since I don't think one exists yet) but I don't know who originated the torrent to credit either. Got them credited properly now!

But the more pressing one at the moment is the translation matter.


It's natural you'd try to translate a line to the feel. But Kakizwa-Light happens to do the same lines with a notably rougher feel than Urai who was a preppy Light. I'm torn between leaving the lines the same unless it's a distinct script change and shifting them to fit this Light's verbal inflection. The latter is obviously highly subjective, but word choice for the initial script was too. Must I try to just think of the lines completely removed from either delivery and make a middle-of-the-road sub as I would with a novel? (Even with Manga, you get a feel from visual cues--which of course isn't always a perfectly safe choice as sometimes you get cases like Allen from DGM who picked up another character's speech style and whose speech style does *not* actually match his personality--and it's a plot point!) Or should I make SIX scripts; middle road (+Otaku), Urai Tone (+Otaku) and Kakizawa Tone (+Otaku)?

For a list of actual changes in what's explicitly said in the script, look here. Otherwise, changes are only about tone.

Here you can view Light's solo song and the scene leading up to it first with neutral subs, then with subs slanted towards each actor's portrayal (and also those same subs on the other actor for good measure).

"Death Note Musical Actor and Translation Comparison." (Watch on YouTube)

I don't know that the middle of the road rewrite would be doing a disservice or if translating an admittedly subjective (more so than even the impression of the "flavor" of purely written word) take on the show ultimately helps on some level a translator is responsible for helping on. Is it overstepping a translator's bounds, or is there something linguistic in their delivery that a translator can bring to the table that IS related to an auditory familiarity with the language? Maybe that sense of preppiness in Urai comes from a familiarity with the language to have a jist of what's slurred and what's ennunciated clearly, what words he emotes on, of stereotypes in speech styles, etc. Maybe it's something viewers with functioning eyes and ears can get for themselves.

While I want to do what I can to help fans appreciate the flavor each actor brings across the language barrier, I do not want to add my own flavor to the script more than absolutely necessary.
So my question is, are translations which consider auditory and visual cues in picking the translated tone...

A. Necessary? (For example, does failing to do so mute the impression of the performance to the reading audience, even with the same visual and auditory cues available?)
B. Helpful? (For example, does it provide information those not as familiar with the original language might not pick up, such as word emphasis, speed, or pronunciation differences?)
C. Invasive? (By nature of being ultimately the translator's subjective impression forced on the translation viewing audience, unnecessarily or inaccurately affecting whatever impression they may form?)

Comments

[andeatit]

I'm not a Japanese speaker in any shape or form so feel free to take this with a grain of salt. From what I understand about Japanese to English, it's a bit of a loose translation. It doesn't fit perfectly so going by feel isn't unique to musicals.

If that much is true, I think having a version for each is fine as long as the translation still fits (which I know it will; I enjoyed the first musical). The way something is said changes it's meaning in English too. Sarcasm, dead-pan, taunting, condescending: all these intentions bring inflictions to words that matter.

'Good job.' That could be said in earnest and be meant as a compliment. It could be said like 'good enough' in a condescending way. With sarcasm, it would mean something closer to 'you failed'. I think it would be worse to ignore the feel of the lines.

I hope that helped! I'm fine with discussing it so don't hesitate to correct me!

[sinnesspiel]

My concern is that while the way it's said would change the meaning, "Good job" is still "Good job." It's a question of how much to trust to the actor's inflections and how much to change textually.

Let's say the line were in fact "good job" in the original language. Let's also say Urai was condescendingly sarcastic while Kakizawa was brusquely sarcastic. Let's also say the language we're translating to doesn't have a perfect equivalent to "good job."

Translating Urai as saying "Well done" works. It sounds quite condescending as "well" isn't often used for "good" in casual middle-class conversation outside of "get well." "Well" is frequently the realm of the proper, grammar school teachers or decently bred folk who were taught the difference between "can I?" and "may I?" and "I'm doing good" (as in good works) vs. "I'm doing well" (in terms of how I feel or such).

Let's say by contrast Kakizawa said it dry and deadpan; we could translate it as "Nice work." It's phrased in a way that most people wouldn't use the phrase WITHOUT being sarcastic and helps emphasize whatever factor of his pronunciation or drawl makes it seem sarcastic but also from a lower level as opposed to a condescending level from above.

"Nicely done." is a happy medium that could go either way. Maybe it doesn't emphasize either's position well; does that mean something's lost? Or are all audible cues entirely available to a viewer regardless of familiarity with the language?

I suspect that might even change based on the nature of the audience--someone who's even just used to hearing a lot of Japanese will have a certain sense of speech stereotypes even without being able to speak more than ten words of it.

[andeatit]

In my example, I was assuming there was no hard, fast translation for 'good job'. Or, it could fairly be translated in different ways. Obviously, there could be for that specific example, but I meant for words in general. Using boredom for example: in the original, you kept boredom and the other word for boredom which escapes me, and that probably makes me lose points here. Ennuai or something. I think you know what I mean. You kept the Japanese word.

I am really rambling here.

So, applying that, the lines can be translated differently, right? So, pretending 'good job' is one of those words, it could be translated as different things depending on how it was used.

If there's a hard, fast, true translation I would stick that and trust audio cues. I've been assuming there's wiggle room in there. In that case, I would go with the one that fits the acting. As someone who already has to multi-task in reading the words and watching the action, some audio cues are lost if they're more subtle.

[sinnesspiel]

Bitch, you think you ramble? I'll show you a ramble.

Taikutsu's the Japanese word that in every manga/anime translation I've seen has been translated as "boredom." That's not an inaccurate translation by any means, though it loses a bit of context. "Ennui" is an English word (or to be precise a French word closer to "annoyance" that we've kidnapped for our own nefarious purposes) that means a specific kind of boredom. Since you're a roleplayer, think of ennui like being bored with the same memes over and over on Bakerstreet that lead to the same empty threads that don't go anywhere. This is compared to the boredom of having nobody to play with anywhere.

Now while ennui is an English language word, it's not one most people use casually.

Light: "Then why'd you drop the Note?"
Ryuk: "Because of ennui. Why'd you start killing criminals?"
Light: "Because I have ennui too."

...That feels unnatural doesn't it? Espcially for Ryuk. It's accurate, and if somehow there were fewer context cues to tell us that their motivation is, I'd eschew how unnatural it sounds and go with the one that conveys the necessary meaning, ennui (or more likely fed up, but we'll get to that). In the anime, driving the point home a little harder is Light/Ryuk's opening overlap lines being "Day after day, the same thing over and over..." ("...This world is rotten.") That's Ryuk's first line in the manga and musical too.

Because the context makes it absolutely clear that when the two start talking "taikutsu" that their actions are not the equivalent of building a paperclip sculpture at work because there's nothing else to do, I can go with "bored." Though actually in the musical, I went with "fed up" at some junctures. I also went with bored at others--Ryuk whining "I'm bored!" feels more natural as something a person would shout out after rolling around above the orchestra pit. "Fed up" fits his lower tone and flows better into his song, so I translated the same word there differently. If taikutsu were more of a catchphrase, however, I'd use it the same way every time to establish it as a character/arc word; I think Death Note drops it quickly enough after Ryuk's intro to justify not pushing to repeat the word in English. The concept is more present when it comes up again than the word itself.

In English from most to least froofy: Ennui. Boredom. Fed up.
Taikutsu has no particular "feel" to it, whereas in English, ennui has a "high" feel (academic, snooty), bored has no particular feel, and fed up is a touch informal (and also carries a hint of annoyance that sparks a drive to do something or lash out, which I don't think is as present in ennui). I'd say taikutsu could accurately be translated in any of these ways, with bored being the best "tone" choice, but also the one that loses the most raw information in translation. Ennui and fed up both keep the more specific implications but necessarily add a "flavor" to the translation--one you can determine to fit or not based on other cues in the media for the character/scene.

The question is, since all script cues are identical, the words are written exactly the same, and all differential cues are visual and auditory rather than linguistic, should we do a high and low translation for each? Or should we do a middle of the road translation and trust that the cues that lead me to pick the flavors I do are something a viewing audience with no Japanese fluency will pick up on too?

Assuming it's *always* secondary to accuracy and that both options are the same aside from tone ("let's pass judgment on the wicked" vs. "let's pass judgment on evil" for example; no change in meaning, only feeling) is subbing to non-textual character cues NECESSARY? In not doing so or doing so wrongly, would that hurt a viewer's perception of the character or performance? Is it HELPFUL? Say a viewer CAN read all details into verbal and visual cues in a foreign language. Do subs that are too neutral undermine that? Do subs that try to match that when possible add to the experience or do people generally just not notice? It's entirely possible only I am this pedantic.

And most importantly, is it only MY impression I'm putting in place? Viewers have said they feel the Kakizawa rewrite fits him more, but they're also all friends and people tend to cluster about people who think similarly to them. Then again, you who does not like Kakizawa's performance at all, I who so far enjoy him but think Urai better fits my perception of animanga "Light," and another Light player who prefers Kakizawa's performance are all of that opinion.

In summary, those are my three big questions.

1. Is it NECESSARY to sub based on non-linguistic cues? If so, obviously I will. If not, it depends on the next question.
2. Is it HELPFUL? If so, I will. If not, I think I'm obliged to do a neutral one since my Urai subs were definitely done with his take on the character as an influence.
3. Is it inserting my subjective tastes as a translator unnecessarily? If so, I'm obligated to do neutral subs. If not, then it's necessary to do so and is, while perhaps unfortunate (I loathe translators who take liberties and excuse themselves with "translation's an art, not a science" even if it's at least somewhat true), it is unavoidable.

[andeatit]

Address me like the lady I am! Lady-sama is also acceptable.

I'll reply to your summary:

1. Necessary? I wouldn't say so. I would get the same overall story without two sets of subs.

2. Helpful? Yes.

3. I'm a little confused by this question (surprise, huh?). You have to make a judgment call when translating. I don't think you're doing this anymore than what translating normally calls for.

I don't think it's just the way he speaks that builds a different Light. His standing, his facial expressions all seem to match his tone. I feel haughtiness from Urai that I don't from him. Since I skimmed through without subs, I was able to see this because I was focusing on the actors. When watching with subs, I'll be focusing more on reading so I might miss this. When I say might, i mean almost definitely.

[sinnesspiel]

To some degree it's impossible not to put the translator's impression into things--sometimes, surely, a translator isn't even aware that there's another way to take something. Obviously, as much as possible I'd like to avoid telling people how to think of a line, character, or scene. I wonder if, helpful as it is, I'm only helping them to get the impression I do, rather than supporting what's inherent in the performance. Even with neutral subs people would feel a distinct difference in the performance. If everyone agrees they're different, does that mean subs emphasizing that are telling the audience what to think, when that's the actor's jobs?

i love ur subtitles

[(Anonymous)]

Any plans to do the subtitles for naruto live spectacles?

[sinnesspiel]

Probably not since I'm not into Naruto and would be missing an awful lot of context and key words that fans expect.

Throw me a link to it and I can maybe put it on the backburner. I have one person I talk with that I know follows Naruto, I can try to use them, I guess. It'd be low-priority and Nartuo's pretty popular so I'd be surprised if nobody does it eventually or doesn't beat me to the punch.

Thank you very much

[(Anonymous)]

Since it is a stage live, it is unlikely ever to be sub...the links are
http://jpmediablog.com/movies-%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%96%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9A%E3%82%AF%E3%82%BF%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AB-naruto-%E3%83%8A%E3%83%AB%E3%83%88-dvdripmp42-38gb/

[(Anonymous)]

Are you still going to be working on Shiki?

[sinnesspiel]

Yes. But I mostly did that at work, and there's a few circumstances that leave that as a complicated matter for now. I'll pick it back up within the month here if not at the start of the year.

Thanks for your interest!

[justicewillprevail]

Well this might be a little late since you already have the Kakizawa subs out...

It looks like WOWOW filed a copyright claim and the video is down. :/ Nonetheless, I understand what's going on, and I have the two copies of subtitles to compare now. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be too much help. These decisions are very subjective, and even I would change my mind on my answers to your three questions on a case-by-case basis simply based on what I feel works best in each instance.

I've definitely given my share of liberal translations, even mildly rewriting when a situation would be otherwise misinterpreted. My general philosophy is to take the essence of what they're trying to say -- taking into account things like context, themes, metaphor, double meanings, the unspoken emotion underneath it, other nonverbal and nonliteral elements. Then bringing that essence as close to the literal translation while maintaining as much of those other things as I can. And also make it sound like casual speech for the character, of course. In other words, my answer to your three questions (Necessary? Helpful? Invasive?) is: sometimes. (See? I told you I wouldn't be too helpful.) It's sometimes necessary or the real meaning gets lost. It can definitely be helpful sometimes. And there's a point where things go overboard (invasive). And all three are entirely subjective; not everyone is going to agree about where those lines are.

That said, I don't have any experience translating actual spoken dialogue, just written (doujinshi and manga). So you're facing additional challenges that I'm not entirely familiar with.

This also gets into Otaku vs Non-Otaku territory. While more liberal/casual translations are expected in the mainstream, fandom expects translations that stick more closely to the original. Even though that can be impossible sometimes.

So back to the main point -- whether there should be separate translations for both actors, reflecting their differences. In this case, I think "sometimes" is enough reason to have separate translations. Urai and Kakizawa present themselves differently and deliver lines differently, and that can shift meaning and interpretation -- and the essence of what they're saying changes, so the translation can change as well to reflect that. So I say sure, go for it. I don't think a single unified translation is necessary on top of those, although you're certainly free to do one if you want.

tl;dr - It's subjective, not everyone will be happy either way, so do what you want to do. Urai and Kakizawa present themselves differently, so it's certainly fair that it would influence a translation. I think it's fine.

And it'll also be fun having multiple versions.

And thank you for all your hard work and how much thought you're putting into this, it's very impressive.

[sinnesspiel]

It's never too late for a revision, one of the benefits of digital mediums. I contested the WOWOW claim so it should be up here again eventually (as in the specific case of this Youtube video, I'd say I've got a pretty good claim on commentary/academic use since it clearly comes with a translation survey and is the same clip set spliced together with three sub sets). I've had to go through that for language studies and surveys before.

I fall very squarely into the "make it accurate as hell even if it's awkward or takes more pages of translator's notes than the material itself takes up" camp. I'm an insufferable prat about it.

Without the neutral sub set visible, it's probably hard for you to say if you think the translation went to far into the subjective on either's character. But you do know Japanese, so that helps. And of course the neutral is just my best attempt to clear out any preconceived take on the character I have and to only focus on the word choice and grammar cues. This is a tall order given we've all been familiar with "Yagami Light" and had a certain concept of him and his speech for a decade before the musical.

If you look at the English demos even, the feel of the characters (Light, Misa and Rem in particular) is wildly different from the Japanese musical. I'd go so far as to say neutral middle ground "translation" would be impossible for the gulf there. English Musical Light, even setting aside the single English singer's performance nuances (a different director/actor might run that as differently as the two Japanese Lights do), is a completely different beast than either of the Japanese Musical Lights, both in what's said explicitly and in what's said by how it's said. I find myself wondering a lot how the script could even work with the characterizations set out by the English demo songs in the plot we have. The script wasn't written by the lyricist, but just how involved were the writers and translators in the final script that we have? Was it more like Menchell (script) did a bare bones outline that was more in line with the original anime/manga DN than the lyricist and that the English to Japanese translators liberally went to town on, was Menchell more loyal to the source material because that was how he wanted to write it, songs be damned? Did he happen to know enough Japanese to take part in recrafting the songs to fit the script? Did he work with the translators? Who's responsible for the gulf between song versions? Does it exist in the script versions?

All of this leads to me not being sure how I should feel about the musical as an original work of its own. Regardless of whether it's a good adaptation of the manga/anime or not (I'm leaning towards "not") it's certainly brought enough to the table to be a stand-alone product. Did I enjoy said product? Greatly! But certain inconsistencies bother me and I don't know if I can chalk that up to the musical just not being perfect or to something lost in translation from English to Japanese. Was it ham-fisted to fit the original Japanese anime/manga more than the original writing staff intended? Or were the English demo lyrics written without a clear script/plot done yet, and the writer went more with the source material than the songs characterization and lead to some poor coordination? Perhaps things I found not to make sense for the characters in the musical made sense in the English script?

From what I've seen, the Korean script seems to be *incredibly* faithful to the Japanese script, having seen subs of the Korean songs in English and having seen Japanese translations of the Korean script into Japanese. I don't speak a word of Korean myself but I find both Korean translations close enough that, with only the English Demo to go on for the English base, I assume the Korean script came from the Japanese rather than the English Demo one.

I think about a lot of useless things. I can't enjoy a translation or rendition I consider "wrong" even if it's potentially fun (parodies not withstanding as then the parody is a product unto itself). I'm a real drag at parties.