Bloody hell mate.
The localiser works for the rights holder. They're not a third party and it's fucking stupid to keep suggesting such a company could act as a censor. They suggest changes and those changes need to be approved. Ergo localisation is not censorship.
Nobody.
Cares.
About.
The.
Paperwork.
If you didn't make it originally, people will see you as a third party. If your name isn't in the credits in the Japanese version, you're not an original author. And you won't get much leeway to make non-linguistic changes when it's patently obvious that said changes were not made to help a foreign audience understand the work, but rather to appease uptight soccer moms, politicians, and moral crusaders.
You say that clearly the original author must have approved of the changes, but that's questionable. We usually don't know exactly what the authors think, and in many cases it could be troublesome or risky for them to object. (And even if they don't care, does that really mean we shouldn't either?) Also, I find that people are more willing to forgive big changes when they're aware that there's a strong link between localizer and original author, and that there's been a real dialog to resolve potential creative differences. Such as with Yuna's "I love you" in FFX, or FFXIV's very involved localization. But most of the time, we have no idea what the situation is, and just assuming by default that everything's sunshine and rainbows is far too optimistic. I think NoA's complete silence regarding their localizations is not helping the issue, as Klepek noted in a recent Kotaku piece.
The Encarta entry talks about suppression. Suppression means forcibly putting an end to something. ...
Yeah, it
talks about suppression. The word "suppression" is far from integral to the definition; in fact, it's presented as an alternative to "altering."
Let me repost:
Encarta Encyclopedia said:
Censorship: supervision and control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. In modern times, censorship refers to the examination of media including books, periodicals, plays, motion pictures, and television and radio programs for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be offensive. The offensive material may be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to the national security.
The word suppression appears in the second sentence of that definition. I didn't provide it. You did.
You mean the sentence that says "In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by
anyone, whether government officials, church authorities,
private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves." Notice the bolded bits? That flies directly in the face of your argument.
The Cambridge definition talks about removing anything offensive. It implies the application of an externally mandated standard; i.e. an external force.
That's ridiculous. It implies no such thing. "Offensive" there means exactly what it says. Cambridge's own definition is simply "causing offence" or "unpleasant". No official, external standardized list of offensive things is necessary.
And lest we forget: you were one who originally appealed to the dictionary as proof of your correctness. Not me. You are the one who must show the rest of us that the dictionaries all agree with you.
"Offensive content" is entirely subjective. Your offensive is not my offensive is not someone else's offensive.
There's certainly subjectivity to what is considered offensive, but there's also a pattern behind it. "Offensive" content is very often that which is sexual, violent, profane, or discriminatory. Such content is the target of censorship because people will be insulted by it or think it will be a "bad influence" on others.
For censorship to happen there needs to be an external standard that is enforced upon the rights holder.
Is this part of your personal definition of censorship? Because even under the traditional definition of censorship as something done by an authority in a position of power, said authority could always censor based on their own arbitrary whims instead of a rigid set of guidelines.
A localiser suggesting to change a bit of content after concluding it might be misunderstood outside its original context does not fit the definition of censorship.
Your definition, you mean? Anyway, if people can see that the change was actually made for the purpose of better helping a foreign audience understand the work, they're much less likely to call it censorship. But recent cases have been less about understanding and more about not stepping on the toes of puritanical americans or hurting the company's child-friendly brand. The bikini outfits in FE:F? The breast slider in XCX? We're more than capable of understanding those; they're in tons of games. We understand them, just like we understand that NoA didn't remove them to help us "understand," they removed them to avoid riling up soccer moms.
OK, I've had enough. You're just being dense.
Just calling it how I see it.
