The delicate art of criticizing a saviour

Introduction

In the dialogue that constitutes the backbone of this debate section, Henry Jenkins and Nico Carpentier agree that a fully participatory culture is a normative ideal rather than achievable reality. No matter how broadly or narrowly we define a site of participation, there will always be ‘silences and absences’. As Jenkins notes, ‘some voices get heard more loudly than others’ (see Jenkins and Carpenter, 2013). Formal and informal hierarchies of voice also emerge in ostensibly egalitarian projects such as Wikipedia (Niederer and Van Dijck, 2010; Reagle, 2010) and fan discussion forums (Bennett, 2011; Milner, 2011). In order to understand the realities of participation in these sites, Carpentier suggests earlier in the conversation to conduct microanalyses focusing on ‘power balances and struggles at different levels, moments and locations’ (see Jenkins and Carpenter, 2013).

In this article, I will focus on fan and hobbyist participation and more specifically on participation within a fan subtitling site. As an established cultural and linguistic practice predating the widespread access to Internet, fan translation has been the subject of several works in both media studies (Lee, 2011; Vellar, 2011) and translation studies (Bogucki, 2009; Díaz Cintas and Muñoz Sánchez, 2006). ¹ While the former see it as a commendable example of fan practice that helps overcome language barriers, the latter tend to focus on the resulting texts and assess how these conform to the normative ideals such as the level of correspondence between the source material and the subtitles.

This distinction helps us localize two sites of participation. On the one hand, production of subtitles is itself a form of participation, as it involves non-professionals in the media production process. On the other hand, the evaluation of translation practiced and encouraged by translation studies is mirrored in the second area of participation, namely the participation of translators and users in online communities evaluating – and improving – the quality of the resulting work.

While acknowledging the former, this article will focus on the latter location of participation, analyzing the quality debates over the work of a fan translator, who provides users with timely and free access to the content of popular culture – namely the HBO epic fantasy television (TV) series Game of Thrones, based on George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire saga. ² My analysis will show how the ideal of equal participation is complicated by the issues of free labour (Terranova, 2000), the gratitude and courtesy that comes with accepting its fruits, the claims of expertise from the main translator and by a lack of agreement of what a good translation is.

This paper builds on the premise, carried by the tradition of literary and art criticism, that discourses on ‘quality’ play a vital part in creative undertakings (Carpentier, 2009). The question this paper poses is how and who can participate in such discourses about quality – who can define, judge or take part in improving quality. The traditional view restricts this right to a small elite group. According to one of the architects of the discipline of translation studies, translation criticism was to be practiced by specially trained experts (Holmes, 2004). More inclusive views, such as the one captured by Carpentier’s model of ‘negotiated quality’, see discourses about quality as a domain of democratic participation, in which ‘all actors involved, including audience members, get to contribute to defining quality’ (Carpentier, 2009: 23). As we will see in the analysis, the tension between the notions of ‘expert’ and ‘public’ critique plays an important role in the online discussion about fan subtitles.

The analysis itself is based on a larger research project on values and norms in fan translation on the Czech titulky.com website, which consisted of qualitative analyses of user discussions about fan subtitles and interviews with individual translators, along with comparative linguistic analyses of different sets of subtitles and the original dialogues (Švelch, 2011). ³

Participating in silent gratitude

When the first season of Game of Thrones was airing in 2011, HBO Czech Republic showed it only a day later, with subtitles made by a professional translator. However, a large number of users in the Czech Republic and Slovakia watched pirated versions of US broadcasts instead. ⁴ Tens of thousands of these downloaded Czech subtitles by a self-taught translator that goes under the nickname hlawoun. Each Monday morning, mere hours after the US Sunday night premiere, the then 42-year-old male high school teacher would download a copy of the episode and the English closed captions, both of which were already available. During his time off teaching, he was working on his translation of about 900 lines of subtitles, which he usually uploaded on the titulky.com website before 4 p.m. that day – six hours before the Czech premiere of the episode.

This is an admirable feat and users did appreciate hlawoun’s dedication. Words of praise and gratitude easily outnumber criticisms and corrections. Although the comments sections of each subtitle file’s page are titled ‘REVIEWS’, only a handful of users share their opinions about the perceived quality of the subtitles. After discussing a minor qualm he or she has with the translation, user dead team expresses this quite explicitly:

[ … ] but given the saying: “Don’t criticize what you made no contribution to” I’m waiting in silent gratitude for the upcoming episodes and first-rate subtitles for them ⌣ J.Š. (S01E05) ⁵

The website itself gives conflicting guidelines regarding the expected use of the ‘REVIEWS’ section. Despite its title, users are encouraged to be ‘fair and reasonable’ in their critique and ‘leave a short comment or a thank you message to the author, which will certainly make him happy’. Users express their gratitude in wildly creative ways. They call hlawoun a ‘force of nature’ and ‘hurricane’, thanks to his speed, and ‘translator idol’ or ‘translator god’ thanks to his abilities. Inspired by the show itself, they address him as ‘lord’ or ‘king’. User Tirion even calls him a ‘saviour’:

awesome, thank you so much. You are our savior. If the next subtitles are this fast, I might even send a bottle of champagne ⌣ (S01E01)

How to become a saviour

Hlawoun’s authority and status as a ‘translator god’ is supported by two mechanisms at work in online knowledge communities. First, these communities are often described as ‘meritocratic’, meaning that status within a group derives from one’s merits and contributions (Reagle, 2010). And indeed, hlawoun is an experienced translator who had been active for 4 years and uploaded over 600 subtitle files before he took up Game of Thrones. His work also tends to conform to the expectations users have of fan subtitles. As user postif puts it:

[ … ] I think that hlawoun ranks among the most skilled ‘non-professional subtitlers in the Czech republic’, so I think these subtitles are certainly good enough for me. J.Š. (S01E01)

Second, meritocracy of online communities is always tempered with politics (Milner, 2011) – and hlawoun understands the micropolitics of fan translation communities and is able to mobilize support. Only discovering the show via a making of teaser, he had not been a fan of A Song of Ice and Fire saga before the TV adaptation. But he knew that its fans would most likely constitute the core audience of Game of Thrones and negotiated the support of icefire.cz, the online hub of the Czech Ice and Fire fandom. His subtitles were, therefore, advertised on the website, becoming an ‘official unofficial’ translation of the show. Knowing that the first episode is especially important in attracting potential viewers, he even took a day off from work to translate the first episode.

Hlawoun was also aware of the fact that Ice and Fire fans had feared that the official HBO translation would not be faithful to the existing Czech editions of the novels. He thus tried to stick to them as much as possible, often seeking advice from the members of the icefire.cz community. Considering faithfulness to the original as a major benchmark of quality, fans approved. As user Gaaron put it, ‘excellent subtitles, I hoped they would stick to the Czech terminology and I am satisfied [ … ]’ (S01E01). Along with their earlier availability, this contributed to the appeal of hlawoun’s work as opposed to the HBO subtitles. User Sweet V comments:

[ … ] In any case, HBO’s subtitles (based on a first listen) are top-notch, although I believe that if you are a fan, yours will be 10,000 times better ⌣ (S01E01)

Besides providing access to sought-after cultural content, hlawoun therefore gained his footing on titulky.com through consistent output and a ‘fan’ status that allowed him to utilize the authority of ‘the book’ in establishing the quality of his translation.

Who can criticize a saviour?

Although hlawoun is hailed as a ‘translator god’, he is not untouchable. As my previous comparative analysis showed, there are grounds for critique and corrections of his subtitles. Working under severe time constraints, he has made a number of typos and mistranslations and his style tends to suffer from sticking too closely to the English word order and grammatical structure (Švelch, 2011). This section will discuss who is allowed to participate in the discourse about the quality of the subtitles and how it proceeds.

The comments that seek to fix a typo or a mistranslation usually follow a convention familiar to users of titulky.com – introduced by a thank you message, they consist of a number and a revised version of the subtitle. While constructive and usually addressed by the translator, they neither evaluate nor undermine the overall perceived quality of the work.

Among these conventional comments, a rare harsh critique came in a post by jdosek, sparking a long discussion about who has the right to evaluate quality. After giving two examples of perceived mistranslations (including mistaking the word beheaded for behaved), he writes:

And that’s only in the first couple of minutes ⌣

All of you praising a ‘perfect’ translation – do you know English? (S01E01)

However, users who download the subtitles and post most comments seem to be more concerned with timely availability of the subtitles than their quality, as these are already ‘good enough’. ⁷ As the public review space is used predominantly for expressing gratitude, a large part of the critical discussion moves into private space. As hlawoun testified, both in the interview and one of his own comments, he had discussed the subtitles privately with several people, ‘experts on the saga and others’, ‘many of whom criticized every little detail including word order and individual words’ (S01E01).

While hlawoun and his critic jdosek may disagree about the quality of the subtitles under scrutiny, their words and actions suggest that the ‘REVIEWS’ sections are not the right place to look for quality discourses. Many crucial conversations that shape the subtitles in fact take place behind the scenes, and only experts – be it translators or Saga experts – take part in them.

Conclusions

The aim of this contribution was to provide a microanalysis of the struggles and power relations that hinder the generation of discourses on the quality of user-created content. Had we followed an idealistic model of online participation, we would expect a space attended by thousands of fans and consumers of a fantasy TV series to host a continuous and lively discussion about the quality of the content on offer. But that is not the case. If we stick to Dahlgren and Carpentier’s assertion that ‘one has to feel invited, committed and/or empowered to enter into a participatory process’ (Dahlgren and Carpentier, 2011), we can see that most users lack commitment or empowerment to discuss quality due to the following reasons: firstly, they may just not be interested in the discussion, because the subtitles, although with flaws, are ‘good enough’ to fulfil their basic function. Secondly, while the fan translator himself is very much present on the site, a large group of potential participants is, to a certain extent, dependent on the free content that he produces. Their indebtedness may translate to ‘silent gratitude’ or reverent praise, both of which tend to be at odds with critical engagement. Thirdly, users are in no way equal. The translator himself is hailed as a translator idol and therefore constructed by the non-contributing users as an authority in the discourse. He primarily seeks consultation not from the forum of users, but from his patrons and peers. Finally, the translator manages to dominate the quality discussion, both thanks to his skills and the support he has mobilized with the Saga experts. Competing definitions of quality do exist, but often remain only vaguely articulated.

Much of the dialog between Henry Jenkins and Nico Carpentier in this Debate section focused on various demarcations of participation. If, combining their views on the matter, we distinguish ‘interaction’ – the basic acts of navigating the website, downloading subtitles and voting in the website’s polling system – from ‘participation’ as a committed and empowered activity that contributes to the community, we can see that the great majority users of titulky.com tend to prefer ‘mere’ interaction.

Those who remain in ‘silent gratitude’ or simply thank hlawoun do play their part – their sheer numbers motivate the translator to keep contributing. As he noted himself: ‘One of the big motivations is that people know me, that I get those points, I get the votes, I have the exposure […]. It’s fun.’ But while their interactions become one of the driving forces behind the participation of their ‘saviour’, they do not engage in a participatory pursuit of quality. While participation in the creation of content is in place, metaparticipation in the discussion about the content’s qualities fails to flourish. The lack of negotiation over the definitions of quality then makes any improvement over the existing practices of both production and evaluation of subtitles problematic. And without it, there can hardly be a consensus, however temporary, on whether ‘good enough’ is really enough.