Enter the Meteor wrote:Hump, pathetic. They are making jabs at you guys, even though you fixed stuff... (etc etc)
I understand making fun of someone who is not trying to improve (I do it a lot in my English class), but you are trying to repair your mistakes and move on (like I am with math). I think that you guys screw up (something that I am very familiar with in math), but just like math for me, I improve and see what needs to be done in the future to prevent this from happening again. For what you guys do, you do very-well..
DaiMomotar wrote:Thats what the fuck im sayin.... he's got a "Troll Blog" attacking TN???
Wow why not just use the time to sub shit his way.....sheesh.
Okay, so like, I feel the need to perhaps unwelcomely butt in here.
Critique is not a bad thing. Mentalities like this are far worse than critique, actually, and I think are actually what kind of cause this situation to exist.
The issue with this blog, let's be honest, isn't that they're pointing out mistakes - it's the manner by which it's done. Rather than coming on the forums and going "Okay, hey, here's some stuff I caught that I think's wrong with this episode", they're posting it externally purely as an exercise in ridicule. None of the things they're pointing out - even the stylistic issues you mention (btw the gaman one is kind of an actual error because gaman means "tolerate", but it's a nossan pun so, fuck it) - are invalid critique.
That doesn't mean that just because it is valid critique, the thing being critiqued is necessarily wrong or needs fixing - in issues of stylistics personal preference will always win out, and as long as both sides can argue their logic for wanting things done a certain way, then one should always be able to agree to disagree and have respect for what the other side is doing. The problem here, though, is that rather than having that discussion, they're sitting back and going "man check out these guys, i don't agree with them, wow", and that is the problem because it means nothing constructive is occuring - the people reading the critique aren't really being educated as to the nature of the mistakes (in the case of errors) or into translation/editorial theory (in the case of stylistic issues), and the people the critique is being made of aren't inclined to act on it because the entire thing is made in such a petty manner.
At the same time, I feel like this is kind of a cycle. Modern T-N is, I feel, a group that is very welcoming of critique and those kinds of discussions, as long as they're made civilly. So why aren't they being made civilly? Well, in part I feel it goes back to the T-N of old, which was a much more defensive and insular group, and I think now the group is a lot more chill, and that the constant rain of "why won't you sub my way" has been taken off by the presence of other groups. However, in order to change the perception of T-N as a group to match the reality of its current existence,
responses like the ones above are completely unhelpful. They encourage the perception that critique cannot or should not be made, and that in turn encourages people who'd want to make it to do so in a less helpful manner.
Part of the reality of putting work out on the internet is that some people are always going to take issue with it, and by extension, you. Now, I think most of T-N's translators are pretty damn good about being able to sit down and have a civil discussion about their choices and why they've done things, and know (from unfortunate bitter experience) to just let the less constructive critique wash over them. However, when people start getting overly defensive on their behalf, then IMO, that just encourages the reputation that T-N cannot be reasoned with, even though I know perfectly well from experience they can be.