[ SECRET POST #5479 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5479 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #784.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Shrug. Sometimes those short-syllable honorifics convey a *lot* of information about how characters feel they relate to each other. While there are times when there's an easy English equivalent, sometimes translating is clunky at best. (Alternatively, I can use other markers - formality of language etc. - but, well. That can get clunky, too.)

When I'm writing fic, 'how characters feel they relate to each other' comes up a good deal. If there's an easy English equivalent I'll use it, sure - but if the fandom is already familiar with these terms, then senpai, shixiong, and gege are all fair game.

[(Anonymous)]

It's also a really good way to subtly convey a change in relationship whether it be closer or further away. Like, in English, you'd just say Name no matter what. But Name-chan, Name-kun, Name-san, and just Name all have varying levels of closeness.

[(Anonymous)]

da but exactly. Something like dropping an honorific is a big deal in terms of relationship closeness, for example.

[(Anonymous)]

If the only way you show your audience that a relationship has changed is by changing what the characters call each other, you're a terrible writer.

[(Anonymous)]

Following a different culture's conventions for addressing people is not being a terrible writer. Names are a big fucking deal in a lot of cultures and how people use them matters a lot.

[(Anonymous)]

Look, I'm not saying don't use those honorifics and change them accordingly when you're writing in the language that uses them. I'm just saying if that's the only thing you do to indicate a relationship, such that when it gets translated and drops the honorifics nobody can tell the relationship has changed, then you're a terrible writer. Honorifics can be an indication but they should not be the only one. If something is written well then the audience consuming it in translation will not need honorifics to tell the relationship has changed because, you know, it'll still be there in the rest of how the characters are written regarding each other.

I would even venture to say I've noticed that sometimes changing honorifics is a lazy shorthand used by bad writers to tell and not show that two characters "have gotten closer," when as far as the rest of how they're written goes, they really haven't.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

If the characters are from that culture and are dropping the honorifics in-world, that is a big deal to them in the world, in the culture that the characters are from. "Can I call you by your first name or change what honorific I address you with?" is a huge deal in Japanese culture for example. Not to the authors, not to the readers, but to the characters themselves who see that in-world as a step closer to each other. To remove that would be to change what the characters are feeling or seeing as significant.

That's totally different from someone in English going hey Jonathan, can I call ya Johnny? Cool cool

[(Anonymous)]

... tell me you don't understand east asian languages without telling me you don't understand east asian languages

[(Anonymous)]

Tell me you don't understand translating without telling me you don't understand translating.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, no. There’s no indication that they don’t understand translation just because you don’t understand East Asian languages. If you’re trying for a gotcha or comeback, it’s important for it to be relevant or make sense.

[(Anonymous)]

This wouldn't be completely wrong if we were talking about stories set in those cultures, written in English but that's not what this is about. It's about translating.

[(Anonymous)]

Generally, when something is well-written, the narrative describes the relationship change and so does the dialogue. It's not an either-or situation. If the scene showed a sweeping change in the narrative and the characters have zero change in how they address each other, that can also be a sign of bad writing. It's almost like it's part of a whole that should be taken into account.

[(Anonymous)]

It's almost like you entirely missed the part at the beginning where I said I'm not saying an honorific change shouldn't ever happen if you're writing in a language that uses honorifics. It's not always bad writing, but it is if it's the only change. You're right, it's not an either-or that should be written, it's both. I said it's bad writing if only the "either" is written.

[(Anonymous)]

Cool, so you get that removing a change in language/dialogue can have a detriment in how the relationship change is presented, because both can be used effectively.

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who routinely reads things in Japanese, I have yet to encounter a work where honorifics are the only thing used to indicate a relationship. However, the other things that are typically used to indicate a relationship (choice of pronouns when speaking with the person, for example) are also things that do not have any English equivalent.

In modern English, we just have "I" and "you." Japanese has multiple different options with varying levels of formality/familiarity - for instance, one character in something I'm reading right now uses "watashi" and "anata" when speaking to his lord in public because those are the default formality pronouns. However, when the two of them are in private, he switches to "boku" and "kimi" as the two of them are childhood friends and that pronoun shift signals to the reader that now they are speaking to each other as close friends rather than as a lord and his knight. There is no grammatical equivalent to this shift in English because the overall politeness level of his speech doesn't change at all. He is still speaking politely, just using forms of "I" and "you" that have a more casual familiarity to them, which readers in the source language will pick up on right away.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt - Well, no. It's simply a nuanced means of showing that change without stating it explicitly, especially from the speaker's pov. It happens in fiction written by native English speakers as well. For example, a character who normally calls someone by their first name suddenly switching to the more formal Mr. or Mrs. An author might not always want to telegraph that so strongly. It's not necessarily bad writing.

[(Anonymous)]

This! If Sam Gamgee suddenly drops the "Mr" and just says "Frodo", that means something that both supports and is supported by the surrounding text.

[(Anonymous)]

Every single one of you missed the word "only."

[(Anonymous)]

That’s because works that “only” use honorifics to express relationship development are rare enough to not be an issue. You’re using a hypothetical that nobody was ever talking about, and that might as well be nonexistent. You just jumped in with a random situation, called these hypothetical writers bad, and are now overly defensive of everyone for not not “getting” the “subtleties” of your comment. They are discussing what you brought up, with a lot of nuance, but you’re trying to ignore all of that and brush it off with “you all missed that I said if you only use honorifics”. You missed what the discussion you jumped into was about to begin with, so it evens out.

And no, it’s really not a translation issue either, because most stories don’t hinge on the honorific changes to signify a development in relationship entirely. It’s just a subtle hint, to go along with the more blatant development happening. So people are discussing whether to keep these honorifics to preserve the cultural context that doesn’t have a direct translation, or find the closest way to translate it, in order to keep that subtle hint as intact as possible. The discussion is not because if the honorifics aren’t preserved or translated well, the entire development of the relationship is impossible to pick up on, because the honorific change WAS the only development.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, this. That nonny was... really weird and obsessively insistent that people who ONLY use honorifics and nothing else to express relationship development are sooooooo bad and possibly cultural appropriating pervs, etc. etc. that I have to wonder... are they mad at like, one specific person who does this, or just trolling?

[(Anonymous)]

You're... kinda jumping for the absolute worst case there, bud. Calm down.

[meadowphoenix]

Nah, Mr. Rochester trying desperately to make Jane, Jane Rochester, while refusing to every use Mrs. Rochester or Bertha Rochester for his wife convey more information about Rochester's understanding of marriage and identity like almost nothing else. Jane, after 10 years of marriage to him, still calling herself Jane Eyre says so much about what the novel is actually about. You would def lose something if you couldn't translate it that way.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Feels a bit weird that my preference might make someone assume I'm a cultural appropriating fetishist, LOL!