The surest way to get people riled up in any field is to have one of its own scions slap it in the face. To wit: Matt Thorn, whose c.v. for manga translation is probably beyond reproach, recently had some pithy (shilling for venomous) things to say about the current state of affairs in that fine land. And to him, many things are rotten in the state of wordsmithing.
His argument comes down to two things:
- Most translators currently working today are a tin-eared lot. Their prowess in Japanese is not the point; it's their skill with English that's lacking. They have no sense of how to — as someone else once said — put together a sentence without using any nails.
- The lousy quality of such translations is a contributing factor to slumping manga sales in general.
I agree completely with the first argument. The second, not so much. But the first argument is spot-on in a way that is a little difficult to fully appreciate at first.
Good translation is hard. It ought to be. If it isn't, I'd think we were cheating ourselves out of a good learning experience. It is hard because writing with elegance and grace is a trial all by itself, and I say this as someone who has thrown out a whole order of magnitude more words than I will ever keep, because the sight of them made me ball my fists and reach for the DELETE key.
When I attempted to translate Akutagawa's "Rashōmon" as an exercise — and I don't claim I did a good job, just that I tried — I saw firsthand how easy it was to create a bad translation, because of the sheer difficulty involved in getting a halfway good one. It was easy to cop out, to settle for less. Not something that was technically unfaithful to the text, but a tin-eared, graceless piece of prose — something that you wouldn't bother with in English in the first place.
I struggled with that story, beat my head against it, and saw myself that to create something that people would actually want to seek out and read, and not just have shoved into their gullet in a college course, was an order of magnitude harder than just grinding out verbal sausage. It's easy to have just enough of a command of the language to create a translation of something that has — well, words but not music.
There is something else that Thorn tosses out, a crumb over his shoulder, but a crumb I imagine will spark many fights:
Don’t allow the praises of a few hardcore otaku go to your head. As far as they are concerned, an ugly wife must be a faithful one (and, conversely, a beautiful one must be unfaithful, and therefore suspect). They are simply unqualified to judge your work.
I cannot count the number of times I have had utterly fruitless arguments with those very same hardcore fans about minutiae in a translation — stupid little things that shaded over into trivia, or downright obscurantism — which for them were total make-or-break details. This isn't, as Thorn put it, a question of using honorifics or not; it's a question of whether or not you're wrecking the future accessibility of your translation for the sake of appeasing a few loud people whose command of the language has most likely been scraped together from the very translations that they themselves nitpick endlessly!
I don't consider myself an authority on the quality of a translation. In fact, after breaking my knuckles on "Rashōmon" I'm inclined to spend that much less time assuming I know what I'm talking about in that department. I tried, though: I compared Black Lagoon and Guin Saga and a few others against their originals, and came away with an insight here and a revelation there. But all it did was reinforce how little I did know — and how the people who grew up with the language, who lived it when a great many others were just parroting back third-hand echoes of it, had an advantage I could never claim.
But I do know English, and I know lousy, graceless prose when I see it in that language. And such writing is all too easy to come by. The other week I finished Theodore Sturgeon's Some of Your Blood; he barely let a sentence go by in his career that wasn't either apple-cheeked with wit or fiery with insight. Then I ran across Laurell K. Hamilton's latest at the library. You could plow through the whole of her output looking for one sentence of Sturgeon's caliber; in the end, you'll just feel like someone who went into a Twinkie factory looking for fresh produce. (It's not that I think people shouldn't read Hamilton's brand of verbal junk food; it's that the taste for good cooking, as it were, is all too easily driven out of each successive generation's taste buds. Appetites for good books have to be protected and encouraged.)
The ultimately irony is how the people who seem least bent out of shape about this are fans and publishers. The fans care more about whether or not a given title is arriving at all in English, or whether or not it's being censored — not whether the translation they do get is artless and wooden (or horrendously misconceived; see below). The publishers ... well, look at the manga market, and tell me with a straight face that most of it is about artistic integrity.
Publishing is a thin enough business as it is, and the few who can make a living from their captive audiences lose no sleep over the damage done to the words they're buying the rights to. No more than, say, the original American distributors of The Seven Samurai had qualms about shearing down a third of its length. To them, Matt Thorn bulks far smaller than, say, Steve Jobs, or Rupert Murdoch. A tin ear is a small price to pay for gold in the pocket.
* * *
This might also be a good time to talk about Ōoku, a manga which in my opinion sports the single most misguided English translation I have yet seen.
The story is set in the Shogun’s court during the Tokugawa years, where the characters speak with a certain elegance and courtliness that is not found in modern Japanese. Perhaps it was determined at some point that this should be preserved in the translation, and I cannot find fault with that impulse.
But the way this has been implemented in the actual text is all wrong. It amounts to a kind of Chaucerian-to-Shakespearean hash that grates against the eyes at every line. It is a minefield of “thee”s and “thou”s and “‘pon my troth”s. I attempted — several times — to read the manga only to be stopped cold, again and again, by this approach.
It is not immersive or evocative. It is distracting and annoying. It is all but unreadable. It is tin-eared in a way that I suspect only someone utterly convinced of the necessity of such an approach could overlook.
I'm not sure if I should blame the translator, Akemi Wegmüller, or VIZ's editorial board, for this mistake in judgment. I've seen Wegmüller's work elsewhere (Monster), and never ran into this kind of issue with it. Maybe someone saw Criterion’s edition of Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood, with its multiple English-language subtitle tracks, one of which was written (by Donald Ritchie, no less) in Shakespearean lingo as a way to further evoke the film’s roots in Macbeth. You can almost see the lightbulbs flickering on: Aha! Let's try that!
Fine. Except that with a DVD, multiple subtitle tracks are an option. One can choose between them. A manga provides us with no such flexibility. We get the one translation you give us and nothing more.
That is another reason, I suspect, why Thorn is annoyed, because the translations we're getting for most of this stuff are the translations we're likely to get for a good long time, possibly for keeps. They're not like public-domain texts which can be retranslated as a labor of love. They're copyrighted productions created for what amounts to a niche market within a niche market, and the vast majority of the time, one shot is all we get.
So. Unless there are major and normative changes in the way copyright works (the odds of which I can sum up as being Not Bloody Likely), we're stuck with the current set of pipelines we have for getting any of this stuff into English at all. Let alone the things that are not just worth looking at but worth reading.
If we must choose between having a few more manga titles and having better translated ones — more thoughtfully rendered ones, ones that will still be readable decades from now by audiences with no otaku cred to buff — sorry, but I'll take what's behind door #2.
(Then maybe I won't have as big a backlog to suffer through each month.)


Follow me on
Friend me on
Friend me on
Also on 




Now how did I know you were going to bring up Ooku in this post? ;)
[Reply to this comment]
Pure serendipity, I assure you!
[Reply to this comment]
Very nicely put. I hadn't known about Ooku. Thanks for the warning. For the sake of my health, I'll stay clear. Your point about "future accessibility of your translation" is a particularly good one. There is a reason people still read Agatha Christie, but not Ellery Queen (just to offer a less lofty example of this is the real world). Something that is really well written will be a pleasure to read a hundred years from now, whereas something that relies on gimmicks, current slang, fads--held together with a hodgepodge of nails--won't.
[Reply to this comment]
Thanks so much for reading and replying!
Good one re: Christie/Queen. Also instructive is the three different English translations of Sōseki's "Botchan" - the more recent ones are that much more fluid and timeless, and call that much less attention to themselves. The earlier ones are that much more arch and distracting.
I don't know if there are a lot of manga translations that will be readable in two decades, but I also don't know how much of that is due to the originals themselves being very much a product of their moment in time. Something else to chew over and post about...
[Reply to this comment]
Serdar, a very interesting response, with some very good points. I especially agree with your assertion that translation is HARD. Some people are surprised when I tell them it's a relief to translate technical or business projects after doing manga. Matt Thorn emphasized a number of the challenges intrinsic to manga translation--maintaining the voice of each character, appropriate style and register, and attention to rhythm...as if simply coming up with equivalent meanings for colloquial Japanese dialog and sound effects wasn't challenge enough! There are also additional limitations he didn't touch on, such as the the words can't use because the publisher wants the manga to have a T rating, for example.
You raised another important point that I wrestle with a lot--the issue of how to render formal or archaic speech without being wretchedly distracting and awkward. In this regard, I tend to think that a little goes a long way. Luckily, many mangaka are pretty free and easy in their blend of formal/archaic Japanese and anachronistic modern colloquialisms, even in manga set in historical periods, which I interpret as license to utilize a similar blend of modern and archaic language in my translation.
Ultimately, I think what makes manga translation most difficult is simultaneously aspiring to be faithful to the original on multiple levels--in the meaning of the lines the characters say, but also in tone, style, humor, the flow of language, etc. Too much emphasis on one of these aspects can end up compromising the rest. If the translation is very literal, but a book that was funny and natural-sounding in Japanese is dry and awkward in English, the translation is not faithful.
The attempt to juggle these challenges in my work keeps me busy enough that I have regrettably little time to learn from the achievements of other translators. I'd be really interested in hearing your recommendations of translations that manage to be both faithful and beautiful.
[Reply to this comment]
One thing I would wager helps improve a translation is when there is a degree of collaboration between the original creator and the translator. A couple of instances come to mind -- James B. Harris collaborating closely, line-by-line, with Edogawa Rampo for his "Japanese Tales of Mystery and Imagination" (http://www.genjipress.com/2007/01/japanese-tales-of-mystery-and.html). The big problem with that approach is it took five years to generate one volume.
The other example I hinted at in the body of my article - Dan Kanemitsu translating "Black Lagoon", which was doubly interesting because Kanemitsu was apparently author/artist Rei Hiroe's consultant for the English language during the creation of the original. So I suspect there was already an existing rapport between the author and translator.
But that's two examples -- one of them not even a manga example -- out of tons of others, where I'm fairly sure the whole thing has been a one-way street with no backing up.
[Reply to this comment]
Camellia, one of the great ironies of being a translator is that you don't need to read other people's translations. You have to be motivated to do it in the hope of gleaning insights that may or may not be there (and more often than not aren't--unless you're looking for insights on how not to do something). I'm afraid I lack that motivation.
Serdar, collaboration is a big help when you really aren't sure what the writer means. I'm lucky to be able to ask Moto Hagio questions when I'm doing her work. And est em is a good friend I can call any time of day or night. But in most cases it's not practical. And I think in most cases it's not really necessary. All the clarification in the world doesn't help when there is simply no English equivalent. That's when translation becomes interpretation, and when a translator's skill is really put to the test.
[Reply to this comment]
Matt, good point, and that would go a long way towards explaining why most of the time it isn't done that way -- all the more reason, now that I think about it, why those two examples I cited are the exception and not the rule. Apart from them I'm hard-up for any other instance where such a thing has even happened, let alone produced results worth emulating.
[Reply to this comment]
Serdar, I have yet to work on a project in which I have access to the original author of the work. There are many instances in which such access would be useful, especially when the author makes references to existing quotations, individuals, works of literature, obscure technical information, etc.
In Mamoru Oshii's _Blood the Last Vampire_, there were numerous quotes by famous European philosophers (Descartes, Rousseau, etc) and I had to search out where they came from and what the standard English translation was. Sometimes references were made without citing the author of the quote, and I had to figure it out on my own. When the references are to Shakespeare or the Bible, I can usually find them online, but if they come from more obscure sources, they can be a lot harder to track down.
Another example is the medical devices and terms cited by Tezuka in his work, especially Black Jack. Sometimes these are actual devices or terms, and sometimes they are made-up--the trick is distinguishing between the two! Most modern medical terminology isn't too difficult to look up, but Tezuka's terms came from an earlier time, when German was the medical Lingua Franca in Japan.
As readers, we all understand the material we read from different perspectives, and the translator is only able to render his or her own understanding of the work to the target audience. Often, I wish I could consult the original author of a text to gain further insight as to his or her intentions.
[Reply to this comment]
One of my first translation jobs was Nobuyuki Hoshino's 2001 Nights. I remember several times when I encountered technical terms that weren't in any of my numerous dictionaries, and turned to my wife (a native speaker of Japanese with a Ph.D. in cultural anthropology). She would look at it and say, "Oh he just made that up." But I knew Hoshino was a very serious creator of sci-fi, unlikely to just make something up, so--this being the pre-WWW age--I would make a trip to the university library, pore over all sorts of texts in both English and Japanese, and, without exception, I would track down the reference. Kind of scary to think about how much of that sort thing is quite literally lost in translation. I just finished reading the Norton Critical Edition of Anne of Green Gables, and was stunned at the wealth of literary references--no fewer than two per page. I've never read a Japanese translation of the book (which is enormously popular here in Japan), but I would be extremely surprised if any of the translators picked up on even a quarter of the references. Montgomery was a voracious reader of literature and poetry, both classical and contemporary, and she underlined and kept record of every phrase that caught her eye. How the hell can a translator (or even your average native reader) hope to catch all of that? If you're going to be paid peanuts regardless of how much research and work you put into a translation, the motivation to go the extra mile is pretty slim.
[Reply to this comment]
Talk about serendipity! On my last foray into NYC, I stopped by The Strand and picked up the hardback edition of "2001 Nights" - and I've been intending to read it for weeks on end, but always getting distracted. This now provides me with that much more motivation to attack it.
I wonder how many of the same kinds of you-wouldn't-know-it-unless-you-were-there-yourself references litter something like Yumeno Kyusaku's "Dogura Magura" -- for which, interestingly enough, a French translation does exist but not an English one. (The text itself appears to be public domain in Japan, since a copy of it is in Aozora Bunko.)
I keep reminding myself to check out, solely out of morbid curiosity, the Japanese editions of "Catcher in the Rye" and "Naked Lunch," just to see how they ended up.
[Reply to this comment]
Leave a comment