Talk:Ame ni mo makezu

message: Seven lines from the end of the poem is the line beginning 'hidori no toki...'  I just looked up this poem because I'm reading it in a Japanese book, and in the book the line begins 'hideri no toki'.  The English translation on the page also currently uses the word 'drought' which is 'hideri' rather than 'hidori'.  I was going to change it, but with a little research things turned out to be more complicated.  Looking this up briefly on the internet, it seems that the poem was originally published with 'hideri', and then Miyazawa's notebooks were discovered in the 80s with 'hidori' instead .  There still seems to be some argument about which is correct, but I'd hope for a more definitive source before editing anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsm77 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidori vs Hideri 

message: As much as I like the idea of permitting others to comment, give feedback and make suggestions on a translation in order to help the translator make it better over time, I'm beginning to feel that this whole "free and open translation" matter has turned into quite a mess, with people of widely varying capabilities and qualifications dropping in and making significant alterations on what is, after all, a work of art. Now, I understand and respect the original translator's (Eiríkr Útlendi) intentions, but maybe there should be some sort of practical limitation as to how the translation can be changed, and by whom. Being myself an occasional literary translator, I believe that such a flagrant lack of resolution (for lack of a better word) can be extremely detrimental to a poem's -- its translation's -- quality.
For those who've dealt with translation more than a little, you know very well that there can never be a complete agreement on what the final result ought to be. (Recheck this discussion if you have any doubts about that.) Translations are -- and should be -- products of specific individuals with a specific background at a specific time. Open to critical discussion? Always, and even welcome. But open to gratuitous change? No way, José! The way I see it, because this translation here is effectively everyone's, it'll keep on morphing, thus never acquiring a stable form, unlike those others found through the external links. Furthermore, any work of art needs a staple, a seal, a proof to give it identity; otherwise, the work doesn't "blend in the community and become one with the world" like many wishful-thinkers out there want to believe, it remains but a monster -- a monster's primary characteristic being its lack of proper identity. See the Frankenstein-like Choka On It and other similarly monumental (and ridiculous) projects for example.
My comment -- and profound irritation -- is prompted by the fact that I read and loved the poem (its translation, to be exact) some three months ago and that today, wishing to read it again, I found myself encountering a totally different version! Going through the history out of curiosity, I discovered the insane amount of revisions perpetrated on the translation. I'm aware that Wikipedia is a free and open encyclopedia, but I had -- naively, I guess -- imagined that literary works of art such as translations would be treated with more dignity, even if the permission to alter them has been given. I'm also aware that some contributors have been respectful and dealing in a correct manner to improve the translation, that is, by submitting their critical opinions and suggesting changes that should be made. That, I think, is the proper way to go if we are to keep any resemblance of order and quality control. When it comes to art, I indeed become a purist, since I find revolting the unwarranted -- or worse: under the pretence of "democratic" intentions -- appropriation of somebody else's creative efforts. The point is that those occasional and/or persistent "vandals" who can't refrain or restrain their urge to get their hands on the translation and toy with it should be stopped.
For all these reasons, I move to propose that the licence be modified as to prevent unwelcome plundering. Either the licence is to allow no modification by someone else than the translation's author or let there be one (official or unofficial) "moderator" dealing with the suggestions and modifying as "required" after weighing the arguments and the soundness of the propositions. After that, if some are still unhappy about the translation being shown on the article, just produce and publish your own superbly brilliant and infinitely superior take in a forum or any web page, include the link in the appropriate section of this article, and leave the Wikipedia text alone once and for all!
Howdoesitflee (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cacophonic "collective" and "on-going" translation