Why is it a subjective trope?: Woolseyism

I proposed completely abolishing Macekre and Woolseyism and turning them into redirects for the new trope, with a line or two about them being common fanspeak terms. That goes a little farther then making them subtropes, so it should probably be a separate crowner option.

edited 19th Aug '11 11:19:37 PM by nrjxll

Macekre has no examples and is a subjective reaction to a Cut And Paste Translation, which is objective. The key to a Woolseyism is that the changes were unnecessary (as in, they could have been more faithful without a translation problem) but the changes made still work well in the overall product. It's subjective because people will argue if it is better or worse than the original.

Those are actually three different subjects and we can use Samurai Pizza Cats as an example. It's a Cut And Paste Translation because it has almost no resemblence to the original story or dialogue, but it is not considered a Macekre because the new scripts were clever, witty and still in the same spirit as the original (YMMV in inherent in that statement). The key is that a Woolseyism does not have to happen with a Cut And Paste Translation, while a Macekre must be a response to it.

Also, Lost in Translation shouldn't be brought up in this because it's easy to demonstrably show that a translation conveys less information than the original, which could be the result of any number of translation errors (from being overly literal to all varieties of changes).

I think the crowner is due; I don't think the discussion is advancing much beyond this point.

There is now a page action crowner here. I don't think I missed anything, but feel free to add it if I did.

The reason I wouldn't say it's a trope—as opposed to trivia—is because it's not something the authors did. You don't, say, write a book, thinking "oh, I'm going to change this when it's adapted." That's what other people do.

I mean, yes, it does impact how people in the nations where the translation makes changes view the work, but that isn't a trope because it was never intended from the start. If anything, this is merely a specific form of Executive Meddling (which I would also argue is not a trope, ''per se), but one which is performed after the work has been published and released to the wider public.

Does it impact the work? Yes. But it is not a trope, because it's not something the original author does...

edited 21st Aug '11 9:26:03 PM by USAF713

Adaptation tropes don't have to be something the original author did. They're often something the adapter did.

Well, my point is that, as we use them, tropes are the building blocks of a story. Executive Meddling and associated concepts are not tropes. They impact the work, but they are not tropes. They are things added by other people after the fact, not the original authors...

They are building blocks of the version of the story the adapter created. The original author may not have put them in, but the adapter did.

You're trying to make the definition of "trope" much narrower than it is.

Well, if it's to the point where it's an entirely different story...

I don't know, it just doesn't seem like anything more than trivia to me. I guess my opinion isn't shared, since the option I voted for isn't winning. Ah well...

Edit: although one of the options appears to have changed, or I didn't read it right, and that one is better than the one I originally picked...

edited 21st Aug '11 9:51:25 PM by USAF713

The option to "Create an objective supertrope" was edited once, less than a minute after it was first made, from "Create an objective supertrope "Changed Translation," with Woolseyism and so on as subjective subtropes." to the current wording. Neither of the others have been changed.

I must have read it incorrectly then. Ah well.

Went ahead and added my suggestion, as I still oppose having Woolseyism and Macekre as independent pages. Now we'll see if anyone else does.

I agree with merging Woolseyism and Macekre into "Changed in Translation". However, I oppose merging "Cut and Paste Translation" since that's a whole different concept from changing a script in a translated version.

I find it interesting why everyone is so hell bent on Woolseyism and Macekre staying around as objective tropes?

I guess I shouldn't complain, given democracy is against me but I don't get it. For one, they are not story telling tropes, they are problems addressed when translating. That belongs in trivia. Second, they are both subjective even though the fact something was changed can't be argued. Your opinion on how well it was handled doesn't matter. Third, if we make a trivia page for changed in translation, that makes the other two redundant. They are just changed in translation good and changed in translation bad. Darth Wiki and Sugar wiki have pages like Wallbanger and Crowning moment if you want subjectives.

You obviously haven't read the thread. Everyone who has suggested keeping them around has specifically stated that they want to keep them around as subjective tropes.

What I have a hard time understanding is why you insist that a trope has to be objective, no matter what.

I never said that, I said this trope isn't subjective just because people want it to be. That and if an objective and subjective page exist well then cut the one that isn't part of this Wiki's mission.

That's why we cut and merge pages that basically describe the same thing. Like Ted Baxter and Small Name, Big Ego. We got rid of the subjective one. Why is this Translation thing being the exception? Because they are fanspeak terms? Yeah then we should still have Tweener separate from Wild Card right?

I don't think I ever said that.

I think there is an objective piece of trivia here: Changed In Translation. If you want the subjective subtropes, I'm fine with that compromise. One is measurable. I can tell you, definitively, with empirical proof, that a work was changed in translation. Whether or not that's good or bad is in the eyes of the beholder.

We've pointed out that it is subjective based on its definition on the page. So far, the votes are that, if this page is kept, it will remain subjective.

What you quoted was addressed to post 64, not you. Everyone knows that you didn't say that.

That said, I can say with certainty that it is more than just trivia. A change in translation can affect how the entire work presents itself, as I demonstrated previously with the Waiting For Godot example. It isn't always, admittedly, but there are examples where it's more than a mere footnote.

Well, the reason I say it's not a trope is because a trope, to me, is a building block for a story. Translations aren't (usually) done by the author, they're done by other people after the fact.

Of course, you could not agree with me. That's fine. That's just what I think on the matter...

The proper term for what one does when one publishes a piece of translation is to say that one has authored the translation. So there is authorship there, and a translation of a work is still a work in and of itself, created as an adjunct to yet distinct from the work itself.

And translators are, in fact, treated as similar to authors when it comes to indexing works. While the original author takes precidence, a work that has multiple translations is properly indexed by alphebetizing according to the translator's last name (for example, when one organizes The Divine Comedy, one places the John Ciardi translation before the Dorothy Sayers translation).

Translations are considered works in and of themselves across the board - organziationally, critically, financially, even professionally (as a published translation is entered into one's body of work on resumes and the like alongside of works one authors themselves). To consider them not works would be to make this wiki act counter to every other source when it comes to classifying them.

Well, I would say, if the translation is essentially faithful, it's trivia. If the translation is so radically different that it changes the fundamental narrative, then we should have a trope page for that, or at least a subsection.

Because, let's face it, if a translation change doesn't add or change any tropes, it isn't within the realm of the wiki, and if it does, then it needs it's own little subsection, I'd say...

edited 24th Aug '11 11:27:39 AM by USAF713

If the translation is completely faithful, then it wouldn't have changed anything, and this trope wouldn't apply at all. So by default, the only time this would be cited would be when the translation isn't completely faithful in some regard.

Every translation changes something, because language isn't 1-1 equivalent.

However, if it's not adding any tropes to the work, then it isn't anything but trivia...

Languages as a whole are not 1:1 equivalent. However, the language used in the work may be.

Moreover, even though a given translation may or may not add (or subtract, which is equally important and worth noting) tropes to a work, there are more than enough examples that do (Final Fantasy VI, for example, particularly involving Kefka) that one cannot make a blanket statement that Changed In Translation is trivia.

Indeed, subtracting is equally important to adding, if not more so...

The great majority of translations, I would think, don't add or subtract anything, though. That's why I'd qualify it as generally trivia. I don't really think it should be subjective—because it's measurable and provable—but at the same time making a ton of distinctions will bring back the Flame Bait problems...