Translation and censorship

[Francesco Spreafico]

Donald D. Markstein wrote:

> But let's try to remember that despite our own love of the material,
> it's intended for the entertainment of children. It stands or falls on
> whether kids, not adult aficionados such as you and me, enjoy it. If
> the grown-ups like it -- great! But if catering to us requires even
> the tiniest compromise of its main mission, then it's wrong. Sorry if
> that offends anybody's mature, sophisticated sensibilities, but
> that's the way it is.

The point is that we don't really think that it gets better for kids 
with this changes. Actually we're strongly convinced of the opposite 
(well, at least I am)... the story was written mainly for kids, and it's 
still good for them, exactly as it was way back then. Adding a reference 
to the Phantom Blot or to Peg-Leg Pete (glad to see him called like 
that, though) won't make it any better.

> I hate to get all elitist on you guys, but it does seem to boil down
> to
> a professional's point of view versus that of those who don't work in
> the field and therefore have only a hazy knowledge of how the field
> itself works.

You're forgetting we DO work in the field, so there's something wrong in 
that sentence, isn't there?

> This is because Dwight is a good translator. He understands that if
> you simply go word-for-word

Nobody (NOBODY) is saying that you should go word-by-word. Who ever said 
or even thought that?

> And being enjoyed is the bottom line. In comic books of all types, the
> story's the thing -- not a tedious and inevitably futile attempt to
> duplicate a version that, in many fundamental ways, is alien to the
> reader.

It's not. But I'm starting to think you don't know exactly what we're 
talking about, not having read the original. If you had, you'd know that 
you're completely missing the point here.

I'd actually like to hear from Jonathan, since he /has/ read it!

Francesco