The lack of puns in translations.

[Geir.Hasnes@delab.sintef.no]

Hello out there, 

you seem to be discussing Disney-comics language at a microlevel.

In 1984 I received the first book in the Norwegian annual series of Barks
reprints for review. I sat down to find out how close the translation was
to the original, and I was perplexed. It was a great eye-opener for me that
a Barks translation could be considered to be the same rape of his stories
as was the Italian Giant books (I Donald Duck etc). I actually was able to
distinguish the translators errors into 15 different classes, of which
misunderstanding and flatness were causes for only a few. It was _shit_. I
was amazed, it was unbelivable. (In 1989 I talked with those who had
translated the book - they said my review was a shock to them - they had
workd so hard with the translation.)

The year after, I received the next book, and could observe that they had
cared no more about this translation. So many of Barks puns had disappeared
and the language was so clumsy that I was ashamed, and I wrote a review
again where I expressed my disappointment. At that time I think it was I
first read some articles about Barks language in The Duckburg Times, by at
least Andrew Lendacky and I think some others whom I dont remember just
now, and it dawned upon me that Barks was a great writer also, not just a
good artist.

Since that time, I have made the following observations:

* The Disney corporation regard comics as being a commercial product for
children. 
* All kinds of wordplay are consequently natural enemies to the series. The
children whom the series are intended for are not considered literate
enough to understand and enjoy wordplay.
* If a Disney writer is to make a pun, he has to pray to God that it shall
not be seen by the editors. If it is seen, it is changed.
* Barks language was using contemporary speech, slang, newly formed
language structures. 
* The Disney editors want the series to be moulded from the frozen language
of that day. The translators have to use that language - unless it is
considered safe to use more _modern_ language.
* Thus the emotional expressions of Donald and Scrooge are repeated, even
though it is a small matter to invent or even use modern day expressions.
This holds true for the translators, and to a certain extent for the
writers. 
* This means that there is a very limited possibility that new writers will
have the freedom to create fresh language in the series. 
* The Disney comic books are _dying_. When I first observed the fact, I
went back the years to see when this process started. Already in 1962,
there are clear evidence that the new artists / writers were dead. Plain
dead. The decline began in the late 50s in the USA.
* Barks was a genius in his contrapuntal art - where contrapuntal means his
utilization of counterpoint between words and pictures. His dynamics and
his other abilities were superb. He had a depth that noone at that time
understood. * The Norwegian Disney company dont understand that yet. They
accept that he was great, but when they keep on with their silly policies,
they show that they lack an understanding of anything else than commercial
purposes. Consequently, has a translation been done, it is never revised.
* I have hated the Norwegian Donald Duck comic book since the middle of the
70s. The reason I read it is that I have a free subscription. The only
series that I have enjoyed since are Don Rosas. To a certain extent van
Horns. Now and then the Dutch artists and Branca. To a great extent a new
writer / artist who has had two series published, that looked almost
exactly like Barks. If I  didnt know all of Barks, I would have believed it
was him! Who is he?
* Now even though I enjoy Don Rosas series, especially his combination of
details and mythology that Barks had made, I find Rosas series to fit very
well into what I perceive about the Disney companys attitude. Rosa says
openly that he writes out of the 50s. I think that is correct. You can
never create a modern Donald and Scrooge, but you can keep that myth alive
by adding to it.
* To try to copy Barks and his Duck stories which is what Vicar and all the
other people do, except Rosa, van Horn and a few others, is like copying
Shakespeare. That is not only impossible, it will always fail.
* Never read a Barks translation!
* Dont believe you can do anything to the Disney editors. It is faith
without reason. You have to play _their_ game. The reason Don is doing so
well, is that the editors see that his work is loved and well received
although they never thought it would be. They cant understand why and
ascribe it to a growing cult phenomena. But as long as they earn money on
it, it is (relatively) OK. But dont conflict with the Disney line!

If anyone wants me to give examples of Barks ill-treated puns or for that
case all of his ill-treated work, Ill see if I can get some time to write
about that. 

I reagrd Barks as great literature, and Disney as money-grabbing idiots. It
will take a few hundred years before the literary expertise understands
what Disney is doing to Barks. The next thing will be to begin to rewrite
Barks to make him easier to understand for the children of the next
generation.

Well, back to work. It is interesting to read your letters even though I
dont have much time to write to the digest. I enjoy receiving it every
morning.

And by the way, the name Flood doesnt mean flood, it means a great
slowly-running (relatively) river.

Yours,

Geir Hasnes.