|
|
Post by benday-dot on Jun 29, 2015 19:49:46 GMT -5
There are explicit sex comics on sale in the American market though. I also don't tend to see Cinebooks in bookstores so I don't think it's a distribution angle, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, I don't like the practice. I'm glad someone is out there translating the stuff, but I tell you what, if I ever win the lottery I'm founding a publishing company to focus on translating Euro comics and doing it right  IDW has started their Euro line in translation with the Corto Maltese books and others are already in the works. They have a rep for doing projects like this right, it's just a matter of what they will translate and what they think has legs in the American market. However, if the early books in the line sell disappointingly, the line may not last long enough to get to some of the more obscure stuff from Europe. Humanoids Press is another who does it right, but again, their presence in the American market has been negligible as people aren't buying it in big numbers. I have no knowledge or experience with Cinebooks, but they may be making decisions trying to try to make the potential market in the US as big as possible. PG movies sell 4-5 times the number of tickets as R rated movies in the US, so trying to make the book PG may be an attempt to court a larger audience to keep the books viable. Not sure, but sometimes publishers actually know the market they are selling to and what sells and what doesn't. Not always, but you know once in a while. I'd prefer unedited unabridged version, but even translation is altering a book as a translation is an adaptation of the existing work. No language really translates directly into another as connotation of words and idioms convey different meanings in one language than in another, and translators often have to choose between capturing the intended meaning and an actual accurate literal translation of the words used, so it's all an approximation anyways. I had an associate who was fluent in Italian who had read Umberto Eco's novels in both Italian and English, I asked him why he did it in both and his response was, well they're two entirely different stories as most of Eco's humor, intent, and nuance is lost once it's rendered out of the Italian into another language and translators essentially have to rewrite the story, and you have to hope whoever does the translation has a knack for writing readable prose because a literal translation will make a terrible read. So if you really want to read an unaltered version of the original, you're going to have to become fluent in the original language. If you are going to settle for a translation, you are already settling for an altered version. -M I can't argue this either, translations of text definitely amount to an alteration, even when done very well. But here we are talking about visuals which defy translation, as a universal medium even where meaning is not obvious or clear. A picture endures as it is regardless of the tongue of the viewer. The image of bare breasts is still the image of bare breasts whether an Frenchman, Englishman or Italian draws them. There is no need to alter the visual in the name of translating the text. In fact it might only confuse things more by further warping the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 20:08:19 GMT -5
Altering the visuals is not part of the translating the text itself, but it is part of adapting the material that is intended for one audience to present to another. I don't agree with the alteration of visuals, but any translation is an adaptation, just as altering visuals is another way to adapt a work. If you are going to be a stickler for original version, you are not getting it if you are reading a translated version even if the visuals are unaltered.
A bare breast is a bare breast, you are correct, but one audience's reaction to a bare breast may not be the same as another audience's reaction. It may not matter if a Frenchman, Englishmen, Italian or American drew them, but it might matter if the person seeing them is French, English, Italian or American (or Japanese or Saudi Arabian, or South African, or whatever. If the intended audience is different, than the author's intent may be be foiled when presenting the same material to a different audience.
Again, I'd prefer the art not to be altered, but I am also not going to criticize one type of adaptation while giving another a pass and accepting it as unaltered when it is.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Jun 29, 2015 20:47:50 GMT -5
Altering the visuals is not part of the translating the text itself, but it is part of adapting the material that is intended for one audience to present to another. I don't agree with the alteration of visuals, but any translation is an adaptation, just as altering visuals is another way to adapt a work. If you are going to be a stickler for original version, you are not getting it if you are reading a translated version even if the visuals are unaltered. A bare breast is a bare breast, you are correct, but one audience's reaction to a bare breast may not be the same as another audience's reaction. It may not matter if a Frenchman, Englishmen, Italian or American drew them, but it might matter if the person seeing them is French, English, Italian or American (or Japanese or Saudi Arabian, or South African, or whatever. If the intended audience is different, than the author's intent may be be foiled when presenting the same material to a different audience. Again, I'd prefer the art not to be altered, but I am also not going to criticize one type of adaptation while giving another a pass and accepting it as unaltered when it is. -M Great points mrp. I'd only suggest that the different ways a conservative from Saudi Arabia might react to an image of a bare breast from the ways a more relaxed person from France might react is not matter for a translator to address, otherwise lets just get it over with and call him a censor, and say they are one and the same. The translator should stay out of that game, especially where the visual arts are concerned, as it exceeds his mandate. Even in the provenance of the written word, addressing cultural attitudes towards sex or nudity is not translation, but an acts of moralizing and obvious bowdlerization. A picture a Michelangelo's David showing up with a black bar over his penis is not a matter of translation if it appears that way in an Arabic textbook to make it palatable to local mores, but utterly a matter of censorship. (sorry to pick on our Arab friends and engage in stereotyping in my quest for examples) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 21:00:15 GMT -5
However, when it is done for commercial purposes, as most adaptations are, it becomes a business decision. If I am going to put a product out for sale that I am altering anyways, I may decide to put it out in the way that I feel has the best chance of generating the most revenue. Art for art's sake is a fine principle, but when it is commercial art, as most comics are, then the needs of the publisher/financier/client weigh just as much as that of the creator, and the client needs to take into account the reaction of the audience because they are his potential customers. In that sense, the product is a commodity to be sold and you put it on the market in the form that is most likely to sell. If that means adding bikini lines, well so be it, if that is what you feel you need to do to sell the product. I, as a customer, am less likely to buy it with those types of alterations, but I am far from the typical customer.
To point at our Arab market again, if I am putting a product out for that market, I am not going to sabotage my potential sales by putting out one that offends my potential customers. That's not censorship, that's a business decision. If you want to prevent the image form being seen at all in it's original format, then that is censorship, but altering it for sale in a given market, is understanding the market you are selling your product in.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 21:34:31 GMT -5
Altering the visuals is not part of the translating the text itself, but it is part of adapting the material that is intended for one audience to present to another. I don't agree with the alteration of visuals, but any translation is an adaptation, just as altering visuals is another way to adapt a work. If you are going to be a stickler for original version, you are not getting it if you are reading a translated version even if the visuals are unaltered. A bare breast is a bare breast, you are correct, but one audience's reaction to a bare breast may not be the same as another audience's reaction. It may not matter if a Frenchman, Englishmen, Italian or American drew them, but it might matter if the person seeing them is French, English, Italian or American (or Japanese or Saudi Arabian, or South African, or whatever. If the intended audience is different, than the author's intent may be be foiled when presenting the same material to a different audience. Again, I'd prefer the art not to be altered, but I am also not going to criticize one type of adaptation while giving another a pass and accepting it as unaltered when it is. -M That's kind of a semantics debate. Translation can be tricky business and context can be lost in translation if the material is too far culturally removed, too reliant on geographic specific references the new audience wouldn't understand, or just plain translated poorly. But well translated material that is not too stuck on Euro intricacies in language can be technically altered and still present the same exact material. A bilingual person could pick up one or the other and say they're the same thing. Ideally, that's how translations should be done. As far as audiences go, the comic isn't targeted at a "French" or "American" audience. It's targeted at an adult comic reading audience. Like American movies, that are beloved all over the world. We always scoff when Saudi Arabia have to remove a scene or change Homer's beer to soda pop. Covering nudity in adult material is pretty much our version of that. The difference is, America is the worlds single largest producer of pornography, so it's not like we don't have material showing bare breasts. It's not about the breasts. It's about the format they come in. Comics are for kids is the message I get. If the measure were applied among all our media I'm sure we wouldn't even notice. But when it's applied to one media and not another, it stands out. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 22:00:04 GMT -5
There's far more to translation than just being culturally removed. Just one example when going from Greek to English or English to Greek...there is one word in English for love and it encompasses all the meanings from I love my dog to I love my kin to I love chocolate to erotic love and everything in between. In Greek there are 7 different words for love, each with a specific meaning with no overlap. When going from Emglish to Greek, translate love into a different one of the 7 and you completely change the meaning of what is being said, going from Greek to English, you lose the specificity of what is being said and the exact nature of love the author intended with his diction. That's not cultural relevance affecting translation, it's the fact languages do not translate literally or exactly. Written Hebrew from antiquity presents another problem-traditional written Hebrew does not include the vowels, they are understood by the context which ideally reveals the intent of the author. If the translator doesn't know the context or the wrong vowel is placed it totally changes the meaning of what is written. For example, in traditional Hebrew, the first line of Genesis has 17 different valid literal translations depending on which vowels you place where ranging from In the beginning God created the universe to In the beginning God was created by Man. Those are just two examples of the problems posed by going form one language to another, and modern languages aren't quite as tricky because many come from the same root language and use the same alphabet, but the core problem is the same. Languages are not exact duplicates of each other just with different words and translation is not a letter/word replacement code. When you add in literary devices like metaphors, symbolism, idioms, etc. it gets more and more difficult to accomplish. It is essentially requiring what is there in most cases, hence adaptation.
-M
Edit to add: and when you are dealing with differences in language, of course it is a semantics debate. But in those cases, semantics matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 30, 2015 4:04:08 GMT -5
Infelicities are unavoidable when translating from one language to another, but are completely avoidable when it comes to artwork, which obviously requires no "translation" from Europe to an English-speaking audience - in the strict sense of translation between mutually incomprehensible languages, that is - I'm not denying the fact that there may be some problems with interpreting images from one culture to another, even when they're as closely related as those of Europe and America.
So equating these two things - different cultural attitudes with different languages - strikes me as disingenuous, to say the least. "Business decision" may explain why the censorship took place but in no way excuses it, to my way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 30, 2015 5:51:26 GMT -5
This is much closer to porn than anything we might see in Aldebaran, but is apparently deemed appropriate for kids: ![]()  Now granted, perhaps Cinebooks wouldn't publish such a cover. On the other hand, the pop culture industry as a whole strikes me as being very tolerant when it comes to casual, exploitative violence and sex... just as long as we don't see an actual breast or penis. I find it unhealthy, because it sends all kinds of wrong messages... especially to the kids censorship is suposed to "protect". Being dressed like Catwoman in the above picture and unzipping one's bodystocking down to one's sternum for titillating purposes is not normal. Making love to one's sweetheart as briefly seen in Aldebaran is normal. I wish comics (among other cultural products) would reflect that a little better, and stop making certain innocuous things taboo while allowing far worse fare to get a free pass. Nay, worse than that: to be actively promoted. |
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Jun 30, 2015 20:03:36 GMT -5
To point at our Arab market again, if I am putting a product out for that market, I am not going to sabotage my potential sales by putting out one that offends my potential customers. That's not censorship, that's a business decision. If you want to prevent the image form being seen at all in it's original format, then that is censorship, but altering it for sale in a given market, is understanding the market you are selling your product in. -M Thanks for thoughtful responses mrp, but I would still differ. I think berk nailed it in his own response. In your example above concerning the Arab market you suggest that the removal of possibly offensive imagery is not reflective of censorship, but only of a reasonable business decision. I would say it may well be an act of the latter, but this argument cannot serve to clear it of the charge of censorship. It seems as if you are suggesting there is a clearly definable sliding scale so that if 25% of an image is removed in the name of what you are calling a culturally amenable "business decision" it is not censorship, nor possibly is it if 75% is removed or perhaps even 99%, but only finally if it is withdrawn into the void altogether. Whether an image is partially blinded or wholly eclipsed the hand of the censor is ever at work. Censorship is not defined by degrees but by the simple act itself.
censorship: noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.Cinebooks to return to the example at the beginning of our discussion is quite simply, careful business decision or not, engaging in act of suppression, not of translation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 20:44:34 GMT -5
The potential offense argument would be valid if there were no images of bare breasts in America. I think covering the image is going to offend far more people actually in the market for translated Euro comics the overwhelming majority of the population had never heard of than puritans and parents had the images been unaltered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 22:49:50 GMT -5
See I don't see a comic as "art" that can be censored. It is a commodity not a piece of art. It was created to be a commodity. It's purpose is to be sold. The original art boards with the actual drawings on them are art, but the mass production of them for distribution is a commodity. The art is not being censored, it still exists in its original form, but the reproductions of it are being altered for the market. Companies alter their products for different markets all the time. A comic is a product for sale and the seller will alter it for different markets. You can still see the original art in its original form, but that's not what is being sold as a commodity, the book made from that art is, and the artist was paid to produce a product they can market and sell whatever way they wish. That is the nature of commercial art. You can't produce a commodity than be upset the commodity is sold in the way the company feels will generate the most revenue. Cinebooks is not suppressing the book. It still exists and can be purchased in its original form, the book they are selling is not in its original form. They are not trying to keep other versions off the market, calling for those versions to be removed from the market, they are selling a version of the product they paid for the rights to use as they wish and sell how they wish.
Let me ask a related question then-is editing a theatrically released movie for broadcast on network television an act of censorship? Or is it altering a product for a different market that has different needs and requirements than the original market the product was distributed in?
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by antoine on Jun 30, 2015 23:18:41 GMT -5
Suggestions from this thread of the great European comics which may have been translated are much appreciated. I took a peek at what Cinebooks is offering in English and saw that Leo's SF series Aldebaran is available. That is definitely worth reading; it's one of the best SF comic ever produced. Not derivative of anything (it's not a watered down Star Wars or Dune), it takes great care in building the ecology of the world it is describing... and with engaging characters and plot, too. Aldebaran, Betelgeuse and even the third arc Antares are all worth reading, in my opinion. The more you read, the less "original" it gets, but character development still make it interesting. And the art is always great! EDIT - I wrote my message before reading the debate about nudity, sorry if it does't make any sense at all. My opinion? USA censorship is dumb. No boobs, but murders all you want? Doesn't make sense to me! |
|
|
|
Post by antoine on Jun 30, 2015 23:49:53 GMT -5
See I don't see a comic as "art" that can be censored. It is a commodity not a piece of art. It was created to be a commodity. It's purpose is to be sold. The original art boards with the actual drawings on them are art, but the mass production of them for distribution is a commodity. The art is not being censored, it still exists in its original form, but the reproductions of it are being altered for the market. Companies alter their products for different markets all the time. A comic is a product for sale and the seller will alter it for different markets. You can still see the original art in its original form, but that's not what is being sold as a commodity, the book made from that art is, and the artist was paid to produce a product they can market and sell whatever way they wish. That is the nature of commercial art. You can't produce a commodity than be upset the commodity is sold in the way the company feels will generate the most revenue. Cinebooks is not suppressing the book. It still exists and can be purchased in its original form, the book they are selling is not in its original form. They are not trying to keep other versions off the market, calling for those versions to be removed from the market, they are selling a version of the product they paid for the rights to use as they wish and sell how they wish. Let me ask a related question then-is editing a theatrically released movie for broadcast on network television an act of censorship? Or is it altering a product for a different market that has different needs and requirements than the original market the product was distributed in? -M I might be wrong, but I think that all (or the vast majority) of Van Gogh, Picasso, Chagall, Monet, Dali, etc... were "created" in the purpose to be sold... I still consider all of these work "art", even if they became popular, or sought after, after their death... The original art still exist, but all the reproductions, books, posters, etc.... are still considered art, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 23:54:51 GMT -5
See I don't see a comic as "art" that can be censored. It is a commodity not a piece of art. It was created to be a commodity. It's purpose is to be sold. The original art boards with the actual drawings on them are art, but the mass production of them for distribution is a commodity. The art is not being censored, it still exists in its original form, but the reproductions of it are being altered for the market. Companies alter their products for different markets all the time. A comic is a product for sale and the seller will alter it for different markets. You can still see the original art in its original form, but that's not what is being sold as a commodity, the book made from that art is, and the artist was paid to produce a product they can market and sell whatever way they wish. That is the nature of commercial art. You can't produce a commodity than be upset the commodity is sold in the way the company feels will generate the most revenue. Cinebooks is not suppressing the book. It still exists and can be purchased in its original form, the book they are selling is not in its original form. They are not trying to keep other versions off the market, calling for those versions to be removed from the market, they are selling a version of the product they paid for the rights to use as they wish and sell how they wish. Let me ask a related question then-is editing a theatrically released movie for broadcast on network television an act of censorship? Or is it altering a product for a different market that has different needs and requirements than the original market the product was distributed in? -M I might be wrong, but I think that all (or the vast majority) of Van Gogh, Picasso, Chagall, Monet, Dali, etc... were "created" in the purpose to be sold... I still consider all of these work "art", even if they became popular, or sought after, after their death... The original art still exist, but all the reproductions, books, posters, etc.... are still considered art, no? Were they created as commercial art for a client who paid for their production? Did Picasso Van Gogh etc. create them with the express purpose that reproductions of them would be sold? Was the purpose of the creation of that art the ability to reproduce and sell the reproduction not the original piece? And without the sale of their reproductions would the driving force behind the creation of the art be absent? -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 0:24:44 GMT -5
Well, let's just say I disagree thoroughly with you on what is and isn't art, what is and isn't censorship, who exactly the market for Aldebaran comics are, and what is and isn't a legitimate gripe on behalf of artists regarding what is being done to their work.
|
|
