Why is it a subjective trope?: Woolseyism

Making Changed In Translation the supertrope, rather than a merge, seems perfect. That way on the main page we can put something like (just off the top of my head):

• Changed In Translation: Lan's name in Japanese is actually "Hikari," or "Light." For a little bit more detail on why that might be a good thing (or a bad thing), see the YMMV tab.

Also, why did the Macekre examples get moved to Cut And Paste Translation? I'm not disputing it, I'm just curious. It was before I started hanging out in TRS.

It is not about quality. Or at least it shouldn't be. This Wiki tries to solve WAY too many problems by sticking the subjective banner on them. If was cut and paste translation but more specific then the pages should have been merged long ago.

BUT IT ISN'T, cut and paste translation, say...Robotec, changes things around in the story, or in Robotec's case, combined multiple unrelated shows together. Woolyism is about using different names and or dialog but making no major changes to the story outside of that. That is not subjective. Cut and Past Translation being good or bad is subjective but the popularity of Robotec, despite that Macross is not available, indicates there are people who don't always think it is a bad thing. In fact people argue which series is better, the opinions are subjective; Tropes Are Not Bad and Tropes Are Not Good are objective.

To people who think Wooleyism is always a good thing, know that the Japanese dub of Transformers Beast Wars is reviled by Japanese fans, that all the English dubs of Digimon(accept Tamers) are contested but fans seem to accept the Digimon movie just fine even though that was a Cut And Paste Translation. Remove from the subjective bin, delete any instances of gushing you find.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

You obviously haven't read the trope page in question. To quote the relevant portion:

(Emphasis added.)

The way the trope is written now, it is, in fact, giving a qualitative judgment on a given action. You would have to redefine this trope to make it neutral.

And to turn it around on you - what's the harm in saying a given trope is subjective? Why complain about noting the inherent subjectivity of certain statements about a given work? We're not trying to avoid subjectivity. We just want subjective statements to be acknowledged and classified as such.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

I was under the impression we were, this is a Wiki for documenting story telling devices, not fan opinions. Hence Darth and Sugar wiki, the former of which doesn't even have that many subjective pages being separate from the whole.

No, I haven't changed it yet, but I could. This shouldn't be subjective.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

Evocation of opinions and emotions is part of storytelling - thus, the inclusion of subjective tropes to this site. Unless you're suggesting that we Cut List every single subjective trope. If you want to propose that, go ahead, but I suspect you will not get far at all.

As for rewording this trope to be more objective... I have to warn you, doing that without a consensus (in other words, making this trope suddenly become what we were discussing Changed In Translation would be), particularly when you're the only one suggesting that such a change would be a good idea, will result in a mod holler over the action. I've seen suspensions put into place for less.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

Trying to scare me with suspension when I haven't changed anything yet? Wooleyism is not an emotional invocation trope, so that argument is moot, it's a translation/localization trope, a way of putting something together. Just because people have an subjective opinion on it doesn't mean the trope should be subjective.

No I don't want every subjective trope cut, if only because I realize that would be impossible and some of them shouldn't be in the subjective bin anyway. You want a subjective translation trope. Superlative Dubbing. There ya go.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

I personally vote for the objective idea of Changed In Translation, and making it a piece of trivia...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yeah, making a major change to a trope definition without a discussion and consensus to back you up is considered vandalism.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Yeah, I don't know why people feel the need to point out what hasn't been done.

As for no one thinking it's a good idea(even though that's not true) it still doesn't mean I can't argue a point. The only point against taking it out of subjective my possibly flawed reasoning has found is that since the plot stays intact it's a translation trope but not a story telling one and therefore should be in trivia. Either way, both call for a removal from the subjective bin.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

I must say that a Woolseyism very often is subjective. I mean, sure, a lot of people like it, but there are still going to be people who prefer a narrower translation. It is subjective to proclaim that a Woolseyism is better when this will not be a universal opinion.

edited 19th Aug '11 4:31:38 PM by Gilgameshkun

Aside from the OP, I'm not sure how many people are arguing that Woolseyism proper isn't subjective. The question is whether it and Macekre are just Done Well and Done Badly versions of an objective translation trope, and if so, why we have them instead of that trope.

I tried already. I was ignored...

Someone else, did too. Credit where credit is due...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think Carl Macek got more crap than he deserved from anime fans, especially when Ted Woolsey got famous (at least on this site, where "Woolseyism" is the "good" counterpart to "Macekre") for doing exactly the same thing with video games. ROM limitations is one thing, but some of the changes Woolsey made in his translations (like renaming Grandleon to Masamune) made very little sense.

I'm generally of the opinion that I'm not interested in the story the translator wants to tell, I want to hear the actual story, so I generally think that most Changed In Translation situations are bad anyway.

I still don't understand why we can't merge these into one judgment-neutral page. Admittedly, I'm not involved in the "translations are Serious Business" culture, but I really fail to see how there's any difference here beyond the Done Well and Done Badly one people have mentioned.

Woolseyism really is where they change something but it ends up having the same effect really. (or more)

Like Final Fantasy VI Terra's original name in japan was Tina which is strange sounding to the Japanese to keep that effect it was changed to Terra (which in turn kept with the elemental theme naming of VII and up so Lucky there)

Persona 4 Myonaka TV to Midnight Channel And Teddie's -Kuma Verbal Tic which changed to bear puns.

Are they YMMV oh hell yes the amount of arguments that have started in the Persona 4 anime thread proved that. Purists hate any change period.

Should it be merged, No. I am pretty sure Woolseyism is a preexisting term for it too.)

edited 19th Aug '11 6:36:26 PM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

Well, the problem is that we have an objective piece of trivia (the work was changed in localization) and we're making it subjective (is it good or is it bad) by having two different articles, about the same thing, but from different points of view.

I think it should just be an objective piece of trivia, and leave it at that...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Raso, you have a bad habit of focusing on specific examples on TRS discussions. I'm not interested in the specifics of how and/or why Work X was changed in translation - I want to know how Macekre and Woolseyism differ from each other besides the Done Badly - Done Well thing. So far, I've seen no evidence to dispute USAF's claim that it's an objective piece of trivia that's been split into "good" and "bad" versions. If anyone has that evidence, please tell me.

Actually, I have to object to making Changed In Translation a piece of trivia.

It certainly can be in some circumstances... but in some cases, it's a major change that cancompletely affect the work and how it appears.

Oddly enough, I have an example nobody would expect - Waiting For Godot. Three reasons why nobody would think of this one. One, I'm bringing up a play originally in French from the turn of the century, and I'm bringing it up when most people are thinking in terms of Japanese media. Two, I'm showing that this trope predates us all. Three, You'd think that the play would avoid this considering the original author, Samuel Beckett, was responsible for translating it into English... his native language.

Anyhow, the example. In English, there's one point where Vladimir and Estragon comically exchange "To Hell!" "I'm going!" indicating that they're on a trip to Hell with what they're currently doing, in their tragicomic flailings. But in the original French, a strict translation has the two say "From Hell!" "I'm leaving!" So while the two are on a merry cycle of increasing damnation, practically laughing on the way down in English, they're manically trying to escape said fate in French. It's far from the only example, making a watching of Waiting for Godot dramatically different in tone and symbols than En Attendant Godot.

It's not always as impactful as that, but Changed In Translation can greatly impact the story... of course, I think it's valuable to note how reactions to these changes happen, so I think Macekre and Woolseyism should persist... though as a goal to eliminate further gushing/criticism tropes, both should be exampleless.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

I think the "it's trivia" part is much less important then the "it's objective" part. And I don't really see why we would need pages for Macekre and Woolseyism at all in your scenario - why not just make them redirects to the new page and add a paragraph about them?

"When this is thought to benefit the work, it's known as a Woolseyism, named after yadda yadda yadda". Something like that.

edited 19th Aug '11 8:25:50 PM by nrjxll

I thought Woolseyism was about changing things to keep the spirit of the original script because going for a straight translation would ruin said spirit since it'd be written awkwardly, would require tons of translation notes lest you leave a good portion of your audience out in the cold, or become straight-up Narm in the new language?

edited 19th Aug '11 8:19:05 PM by Servbot

Well, strictly speaking, we don't need to keep the subjective pages around. That said, I think it benefits the wiki overall. They just need to be listed as Audience Reaction, not tropes of themselves. Unless I missed something, we do still include those as part of our mission.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

Lumper Vs Splitter. As the former, I don't see why we need two example-less fanspeak pages when we can define them in the main article. All inbounds from the terms can be kept by making them into redirects for the new objective article.

edited 19th Aug '11 8:28:00 PM by nrjxll

Well said Audience Reaction is also a preexisting effect and a rather large one. (6k inbounds is a lot for something like this)

Make Changed In Translation an objective trope and leave the other two YMMV Audience Reaction for the YMMV page. (Connect it to Lost in Translation as well.)

edited 19th Aug '11 8:44:50 PM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

I think we have enough for a crowner. The options would be:

• Merge Woolseyism and Cut And Paste Translation into an objective trope.

• Create an objective supertrope "Changed Translation," with Woolseyism and so on as subjective subtropes.

• Do nothing.

Did I miss anything?