- AKA
- TresDias
Yeah, all of this. "Dew that quenches the land" absolutely paints an image of a thirsty environment receiving the moisture it needs to restore it.
LOVELESS - When did the play first start being shown?
- Thread starter Jairus
- Start date
MelodicEnigma
Pro Adventurer
Yeah, "dew" should really be the signal that creates the implied "quenches [the thirst of] the land". Something good being given, like a "drop of hope" would compel. I'm also sure framing it this way of water and quenching with it thereof was probably inspired by the usage of 雫 [drop (of water), to drip] that the JPN uses to describe how that hope would come. It was framed contextually the right way, but if it's missed by someone it isn't too much of an issue after inspection.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quench
Definition of quench
transitive verb
1a: PUT OUT, EXTINGUISH
b: to put out the light or fire of
c: to cool (something, such as heated metal) suddenly by immersion (as in oil or water)
d: to cause to lose heat or warmth
2a: to bring (something immaterial) to an end typically by satisfying, damping, cooling, or decreasing
b: to terminate by or as if by destroying
c: to relieve or satisfy with liquid
Definition of quench
transitive verb
1a: PUT OUT, EXTINGUISH
b: to put out the light or fire of
c: to cool (something, such as heated metal) suddenly by immersion (as in oil or water)
d: to cause to lose heat or warmth
2a: to bring (something immaterial) to an end typically by satisfying, damping, cooling, or decreasing
b: to terminate by or as if by destroying
c: to relieve or satisfy with liquid
- AKA
- The Engineer
I know dew is liquid. But you *can* (and very often do!) quench a fire with water... and the *object* of quench is usually a physical object. Very often times, the thing doing the quenching is never directly said only implied (or *how* something is quenched is never specified). But what is being quenched is always specified.
So the first thing I focused on when reading the sentence is... "the land is being quenched"... which... doesn't sound like a good thing given what "quech" *usually* means. That leaves the question of what is doing the quenching. The dew is. So this dew is bad for the land if it's "putting out/extinguishing(ending/terminating)" the land.
It should also be brought up how nothing in this line is *literal*. It's all figurative! So saying something is like water extinguishing land works just fine. Maybe people thought whatever the thing being talked about was a good thing and it turned out to be a bad thing? Maybe the land being quenched is a good thing in the long run? etc.
And this doesn't even get into the meaning of the original line... where it sounds like it's less the actual "drop" that is being focused on and more the *size* of the drop. A drop isn't big, it's really small. It doesn't do a whole lot on it's own. And yet whoever is talking *still* wants to have the roll...
The next line is a huge contrast with "drop" in terms of scale. The English equivilant would be like "at the ends of the earth, beyond the skies and to where the sea meets the horizon". All idioms that mean past the farthest reaches of something. And then the next line talks about someone sacrificing themselves for all that without anyone else finding out about it...
So it felt more like there was a focus on the writer deciding to take on a roll they wouldn't get a lot of credit for... or wouldn't play a huge part by having...
So the first thing I focused on when reading the sentence is... "the land is being quenched"... which... doesn't sound like a good thing given what "quech" *usually* means. That leaves the question of what is doing the quenching. The dew is. So this dew is bad for the land if it's "putting out/extinguishing(ending/terminating)" the land.
It should also be brought up how nothing in this line is *literal*. It's all figurative! So saying something is like water extinguishing land works just fine. Maybe people thought whatever the thing being talked about was a good thing and it turned out to be a bad thing? Maybe the land being quenched is a good thing in the long run? etc.
And this doesn't even get into the meaning of the original line... where it sounds like it's less the actual "drop" that is being focused on and more the *size* of the drop. A drop isn't big, it's really small. It doesn't do a whole lot on it's own. And yet whoever is talking *still* wants to have the roll...
The next line is a huge contrast with "drop" in terms of scale. The English equivilant would be like "at the ends of the earth, beyond the skies and to where the sea meets the horizon". All idioms that mean past the farthest reaches of something. And then the next line talks about someone sacrificing themselves for all that without anyone else finding out about it...
So it felt more like there was a focus on the writer deciding to take on a roll they wouldn't get a lot of credit for... or wouldn't play a huge part by having...
MelodicEnigma
Pro Adventurer
A dew would be considered a miniscule drop of liquid, so it still coincides with the idea there if we're talking about size.
It should be of note that in poetic/figurative settings, the way something is written can "cut corners" in what it's saying to sound a certain way. If someone has read it and had become confused, as you have, it shouldn't take much to see the connection of "quench" = "to relieve or satisfy with liquid" within this context, especially considering that in a metaphor of "becoming dew", there's little context ever where this is a bad thing. It's not a tsunami or something harmful in and of itself. I think even using "dew" for a passage like that is interesting as often you'll have lines that are hopeful give themselves as such through miniscule means. Like being "the crack in the wall of oppression" or being a "drop"—it and of itself is something conducive of hope and change.
I can accept that someone would find themselves stuck on the word "quench" and viewing the sentence in a literal fashion given its phrasing. Posting a definition doesn't really do much when we're speaking on how the word fits within a passage contextually, and most of us likely knows what it means. But, I'm also sure of how easy it is to read a poetic text like this and make the dew to quench connection of being a positive thing—which after consideration we can pretty safely say that's what the translation was going for contextually. If the understanding is had, it seems fruitless to continue on going over the raw word outside of the personal note of wanting it said differently. Posting definitions can't be the extent of examining and seeing how the text works, if even how the word in question works in its function here.
It should be of note that in poetic/figurative settings, the way something is written can "cut corners" in what it's saying to sound a certain way. If someone has read it and had become confused, as you have, it shouldn't take much to see the connection of "quench" = "to relieve or satisfy with liquid" within this context, especially considering that in a metaphor of "becoming dew", there's little context ever where this is a bad thing. It's not a tsunami or something harmful in and of itself. I think even using "dew" for a passage like that is interesting as often you'll have lines that are hopeful give themselves as such through miniscule means. Like being "the crack in the wall of oppression" or being a "drop"—it and of itself is something conducive of hope and change.
I can accept that someone would find themselves stuck on the word "quench" and viewing the sentence in a literal fashion given its phrasing. Posting a definition doesn't really do much when we're speaking on how the word fits within a passage contextually, and most of us likely knows what it means. But, I'm also sure of how easy it is to read a poetic text like this and make the dew to quench connection of being a positive thing—which after consideration we can pretty safely say that's what the translation was going for contextually. If the understanding is had, it seems fruitless to continue on going over the raw word outside of the personal note of wanting it said differently. Posting definitions can't be the extent of examining and seeing how the text works, if even how the word in question works in its function here.
... wow, I've never used the word quench in any other context aside from thirst. Didn't even realize that wasn't the top definition of the word lol
Funny though, besides the one about terminating something, I don't really associate those definitions with anything bad. Maybe because I like things cool. Putting out a fire feels almost like a good thing to me lol, though it would depend a lot on context. And the object being something as pretty as a dew gives a lot of positive vibes. Afterall, water is usually associated with life. The translator took some liberties here, but works for me. I kinda like it actually.
Funny though, besides the one about terminating something, I don't really associate those definitions with anything bad. Maybe because I like things cool. Putting out a fire feels almost like a good thing to me lol, though it would depend a lot on context. And the object being something as pretty as a dew gives a lot of positive vibes. Afterall, water is usually associated with life. The translator took some liberties here, but works for me. I kinda like it actually.
Generally speaking, to quench something means to end it in a positive way. There's been a good resolution.
The English version of "Loveless" isn't what one would call well translated. It isn't even good poetry. It doesn't scan, which epic poetry in English ought to do. "To become a drop of the Planet's hope" makes more sense than dew quenching the land. Once one starts taking poetic licence, one might as well go the whole hog, e.g. "To become a balm for the Planet's wounds". Or maybe, "To become the dew that quenches the drought".
If I'd been translating it, I would have used Anglo-Saxon alliterative verse to get across that sense of it being a really old piece of literature.
The English version of "Loveless" isn't what one would call well translated. It isn't even good poetry. It doesn't scan, which epic poetry in English ought to do. "To become a drop of the Planet's hope" makes more sense than dew quenching the land. Once one starts taking poetic licence, one might as well go the whole hog, e.g. "To become a balm for the Planet's wounds". Or maybe, "To become the dew that quenches the drought".
If I'd been translating it, I would have used Anglo-Saxon alliterative verse to get across that sense of it being a really old piece of literature.
Mobius Stripper
perfectly normal human worm baby
- AKA
- PunkassDiogenes
What meter would be most appropriate for Loveless?
"Heroic verse, also called heroic metre or heroic line, the verse form in which the heroic poetry of a particular language is, or according to critical opinion should be, composed. In classical poetry this was dactylic hexameter, in French the alexandrine, in Italian the hendecasyllabic line, and in English iambic pentameter."
https://www.britannica.com/art/heroic-verse
But like I said, I'd go for the Anglo-Saxon alliterative verse used in Beowulf. Like
"When the war of the beasts brings about the world's end
The goddess descends from the sky
Wings of light and dark spread afar
She guides us to bliss, her gift everlasting..."
Could be
"When the war of the beasts : works the world's ending,
And sky splits asunder, then, : shadowy pinions spread,
Daylight-bringer, darkness-giver, : divinity descends,
To bless us with bliss-boon : be we hero or brute.
(Needs more work, but you get the picture).
https://www.britannica.com/art/heroic-verse
But like I said, I'd go for the Anglo-Saxon alliterative verse used in Beowulf. Like
"When the war of the beasts brings about the world's end
The goddess descends from the sky
Wings of light and dark spread afar
She guides us to bliss, her gift everlasting..."
Could be
"When the war of the beasts : works the world's ending,
And sky splits asunder, then, : shadowy pinions spread,
Daylight-bringer, darkness-giver, : divinity descends,
To bless us with bliss-boon : be we hero or brute.
(Needs more work, but you get the picture).
Last edited:
MelodicEnigma
Pro Adventurer
"Quenches" is essentially framed by that of the "become dew", which reading it as it is, while the word alone would make someone think "to end" the land, the cogs should turn when understanding it from what connotation can come from "dew". It may not fit a standard of good poetry, but there's still an interest that can be observed from the word choices. If we know it's not truly telling us that something like dew is even figuratively capable of "putting an end" to the land, then it's done in our perspective in approaching the text.
It doesn’t make as much sense as the original JPN if just read straight and concentrating on the word quench as an isolated affront, but when accompanied contextually by what comes before and what's doing it, that's where the realization of what the text is doing hits. It not making sense mostly would come from the assumption that something like dew would be the end [or start of the end] of a land. Once you get passed that it's easy. Then you think "to become a drop of hope for what?" And "to become to dew to quench what from the land?" It's just something to think about. Even if we say "I would've wrote something different", as we often do with literally anything and not just poetry, we still should move forward after gaining the understanding of what it did, not just what we want it to do.
They already took their own liberty for expression sake, but yours would be an interesting one as well. The ENG is following the phrasing of the JPN text in approach more, but I wouldn’t mind if it was more varied either like yours. Though, considering how this conversation started, there's likely those who wouldn't care for that approach and additions either.
It doesn’t make as much sense as the original JPN if just read straight and concentrating on the word quench as an isolated affront, but when accompanied contextually by what comes before and what's doing it, that's where the realization of what the text is doing hits. It not making sense mostly would come from the assumption that something like dew would be the end [or start of the end] of a land. Once you get passed that it's easy. Then you think "to become a drop of hope for what?" And "to become to dew to quench what from the land?" It's just something to think about. Even if we say "I would've wrote something different", as we often do with literally anything and not just poetry, we still should move forward after gaining the understanding of what it did, not just what we want it to do.
They already took their own liberty for expression sake, but yours would be an interesting one as well. The ENG is following the phrasing of the JPN text in approach more, but I wouldn’t mind if it was more varied either like yours. Though, considering how this conversation started, there's likely those who wouldn't care for that approach and additions either.
It's the old literal translation versus spirit of the original argument.
MelodicEnigma
Pro Adventurer
One they'll eventually write epics about, I'm sure.
Wow. I suspect if the lines of LOVELESS had been translated like this, Genesis wouldn't be half as irritating as he appears to be. With the way it was done, he sounds like some pretentious wannabe who goes around randomly reciting bad poetry.
Makes me wonder if the original Japanese text wrote it in whatever the heroic poetry equivalent is in the language.
- AKA
- The Engineer
Ironically, FFVII as a whole comes down on *neither* side of this. It ends to go for a more idiomatic translation rather than a literal one and then misses the spirt of the original in the process. One of the most frustrating things about translating FFVII material is that a literal translation also winds up getting the spirit of the JP across better than the offical does on a *very* frequent basis.
Crisis Core's script is probably both the most literal localization of it's source material *and* communicates the spirit of said source material the most clearly. Which is honestly the reason this line stands out. It's one of the *very* few places Crisis Core's script *isn't* literal *and* the actual meaning of the line has a very high potential to be misunderstood a result. Even the other lines of Loveless manage to be truer to the Japanese in both vocabulary and actual meaning.
Considering who is writing this (Genesis), that would be a very valid reading. He's talked before about multiple times about bringing the world down with him if he can't cure his degradation. So him writing something to the effect of "I'll sacrifice myself in secret to end the world"... tracks with his character arc up until that point. That's part of why people keep thinking he's still a bad guy at the end of CC. He never actually *says* he's not out to destroy the world anymore anywhere else. Except here.
Funnily enough, I actually did a few different translations of all of Loveless to see if there was anywhere else the official localization *really* did something weird. And this is the only place. Most of it just comes down to vocabulary choices, but the meaning *and* vocab used are pretty much the same once the differences between Japanese and English grammar is accounted for. This was really the only line where the difference was so stark.
And that doesn't go for just Loveless lines either. That goes for... pretty much all of Crisis Core's localization. Everywhere I've had reason to look up the JP for it is... pretty literally translated into English with the same meaning/spirit of the JP. It's... honestly really boring looking at Crisis Core localization differences because there's nothing crazy going on in the game as a whole like there is for the OG. It's just "yep, what says in English is what it says/means in Japanese".
MelodicEnigma
Pro Adventurer
Yeah, which by the time we get this script his new mindset should be realized. My point was that using "dew" as a metaphorical threat to end the world is what doesn't make sense, in most of any context. It would need a lot more convincing context to illustrate this was meant to be understood this way after inspection, but anyone can just not get a feel for what's being said initially, of course.
It would depend on which products we're talking about, I suppose. The OG is already acknowledged to be a mess at times, but if I was looking at the Remake for instance, the majority of the game actually does what it's supposed to do and it works contextually—the picked moments by fans are issues that either people have because of personal taste, their own misunderstandings, or that the localization actually does misconstrue/omit valuable information, the latter of which doesn't happen that often. What's done by certain fans from this is more of a problem than the localization ever will be.
I feel somewhat surprised and intrigued to see you call the process "boring" though for CC's case lol I've always gotten the feeling you've reveled in being pretty strict about text in a way that leans towards the literal side as opposed to the enjoyment of seeing different approaches to a fictional context. I suppose I was wrong!
Honestly, I've found a lot of "literal" meaning or "spirit/faithful" views often obscured by the standards used to judge these things, often lacking the practical views towards the creative and flexible endeavors that localizations have when approaching the same context of the original [which can go beyond the situation of the text alone]—different branch from the same tree, as I put it, or even at times different parts of the same branch, with this type of metaphor. This situation with the "dew" and the "Planet's hope" is another situation of a two source's different approach to what IS the same meaning and intention contextually—the only true issue here is for those who think it's saying something different, which is fine if this happens initially as with any text, even the original. I absolutely acknowledge that the way something is written can reasonably affect our perspective on it, but equally a source being misunderstood or perceived unfairly (especially after actually analyzing it) isn't always an issue of its own making, it being at a degree different than what it's based on isn't decisively relevant either, which is the frame I've personally have seen people paint and exasperate issues with. The "Angle/V" perspective is lost a lot of the time I've observed between the two. (the idea of it is probably thought of, but the labeling here probably isn't as I just thought about it not long ago lol). I'd want to say more but then it'd derail into the ENG/JPN Localization thread.
- AKA
- The Engineer
It *really* depends on the work being localized. And the overall effect of how it's localized. Some works don't have literal localization, but get the meaning across just fine and all the more power to those kinds of projects! FFXIV is a example of that kind of work where all the langueges (including Japanese!) start from an *outline* of what given speakers are talking about and then they all get that information across as best their language can. And that... works really well for them! Translation issues aren't something you see people complaining about in FFXIV a whole lot even though they are *definetly* not literal...
FFVII is in this... really weird spot where a lot of times, the localization both isn't literal *or* preserves the actual intended meaning of the original language. So I'm very much a literalist with FFVII because it... makes the game make more sense most of the time! No mater what kind of localization gets done, it usually starts with a literal localization to even figure out what the original language is saying. It's only after doing that that a more idiomatic localization can be done. And... a lot of the time... a more literal localization of FFVII gets rid of a lot of the ambiguity that was there.
It's not that the process of localizing CC is boring. Far from it. It's actually really good to do to compare to the other FFVII games to figure out how to word those ones better. It's more that retranslating CC gets something *very* similar to what the official localization had. Both in terms of a literal translation and a "spirit of the meaning" translation. And almost no new information or cleared up stuff comes out of the wood-work either. It's exactly what you *want* to see out of an offical localization...
This is a huge contrast to re-translating the OG or the likes of DoC (or certain parts of Remake). Where what seems could have several different possible meanings/implications/readings in English turns out to have one meaning/implication/reading in Japanese. Or it has whole concepts hiding in it that the English glossed over.
And it's that last bit that going back to Japanese is so helpful for. There's a whole set of lore concepts that have consistent Japanese names across the entire Compiltion... and they don't have the same localization in English. Which *kind of* makes tracing a concept from the OG to AC to CC to Remake... tricky.
MelodicEnigma
Pro Adventurer
Which is funny, considering that in certain spots, it's really in reverse, in the sense of how indirect JPN can be vs that of the directness of ENG—the honed nature of the latter is missed for those who'd rather have ambiguity. All in all it depends on what people are criticizing—it varies a lot and so does the merit of it. Don't get me wrong, there's a difference in talking about conceptual issues where they actually lay, like that of what's been described for FFXIII and the Heart/Soul ideal, but this on a whole doesn't happen THAT often outside of these specific circumstances to where one might be confused on how something is read, same for this Loveless line. But, it's always other things. FFXIV wouldn't get as much of this critical approach because the conviction and personal motivations to do so isn't as much there, I'd argue, as it is for FFVII for the reasons I know this site has been aware of for 10+ years. Some of these aren't localizations issues, problems, but instead people choosing to draw that line on what alternatives outside of literal are acceptable, and an actual efficient understanding of the material gets lost in the process. That and it somehow bleeds over into little understanding of SE's approach to localization in general.
That's a whole other sector though of talking about fan perspectives and localization. lol But I can absolutely agree that there are times that can be examined where lore concepts are changed and the intended meaning can be claimed to be completely lost—this just doesn't happen as often as people think for other contexts.
- AKA
- TresDias
If we're focusing on what "quench" usually means, though, we're talking about thirst. This is the only meaning most people will understand the word to have, and even of those who are familiar with another usage, most will still only ever use it in the context of answering thirst. The order the dictionary lists them is not, in this case, a reasonable indication of how the word is normally used.
Even without these considerations, however, the other key words in the line offer a positive connotation -- "dew" and "sacrifice." "Dew" has a connotation of restoration and renewal; of the sun rising anew. "Sacrifice" of oneself, meanwhile, is universally recognized as a selfless thing, and perhaps doubly so when the one doing the self-sacrifice gets left as an unsung ("silent") hero.
I'd wager it's just as likely folks still think of him as a villain at the end because he's a sycophantic narcissist who puts off the vibe of a religious zealot (never a good combination of traits!), and because he has never expressed any remorse for his villainy.
Tres, I don't think anyone is arguing that people will misunderstand the meaning of "quench" in Loveless or that it is intended there in a negative sense. We're just arguing that it's bad English and bad poetry; or at least, not as good as it could have been. A line can be understandable and still be badly written.
- AKA
- TresDias
I'd argue that "dew that quenches the land" is one of the only legitimately poetic turns of phrase we're offered about the dang thing. Lol
That said, I do think "To become the dew that quenches the land/To spare the skies, the seas, the sands" would flow better than "To become the dew that quenches the land/To spare the sands, the seas, the skies."
That said, I do think "To become the dew that quenches the land/To spare the skies, the seas, the sands" would flow better than "To become the dew that quenches the land/To spare the sands, the seas, the skies."
Your version rhymes, certainly.
But dew doesn't "quench the land". If you drink a nice cold ice cold can of Mountain Dew because you're thirsty on a hot day, you don't say, "That Mountain Dew really quenched me". You'd say, "It quenched my thirst." In the same way, dew can't quench the land, it can only quench the land's thirst, i.e., a drought. It can quench the drought by drenching the land, but it can't quench the land itself.
But dew doesn't "quench the land". If you drink a nice cold ice cold can of Mountain Dew because you're thirsty on a hot day, you don't say, "That Mountain Dew really quenched me". You'd say, "It quenched my thirst." In the same way, dew can't quench the land, it can only quench the land's thirst, i.e., a drought. It can quench the drought by drenching the land, but it can't quench the land itself.
- AKA
- TresDias
@LicoriceAllsorts
I mean, the definition you posted yourself says "to relieve or satisfy with liquid," so there's nothing incongruous there. Now, I don't disagree that it's an uncommon, even peculiar, choice of phrasing -- but I also said that it's one of the few genuinely poetic turns of phrase here for a reason.
I mean, the definition you posted yourself says "to relieve or satisfy with liquid," so there's nothing incongruous there. Now, I don't disagree that it's an uncommon, even peculiar, choice of phrasing -- but I also said that it's one of the few genuinely poetic turns of phrase here for a reason.
It would make more sense to write, "The gaviscon quenched my pain" than to write "The gaviscon quenched me".
However, if it works for you as poetry then there's no more to be said. Matters of taste aren't really debateable.
However, if it works for you as poetry then there's no more to be said. Matters of taste aren't really debateable.
Thenir
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- Nirnaeth
I'd want to ask to those who know Japanese better than me if translation of the OG part about Loveless is accurate or if some nuance of meaning got lost in the localization...?:
どうしても行くの？
約束だから。大好きな人たちが待ってるんだ
…………わからない。わからないけど……でも、絶対に死なないで
もちろん……ここに帰ってくるよ。約束なんかなくても待っていてくれる人がいること、俺は知ってるから
"Do you really have to leave?"
“I made a promise. The people I love are waiting.”
“…I don't understand. Not at all. But, take care of yourself.”
“Of course…I'll come back to you. Even if you don't promise to wait. I'll return knowing you'll be here.”
I noticed in that 死なないで literally means "don't die" which is interesting considering that Loveless is linked since the beginning with Aerith (sector 8) and it's refrenced in Cloud's dream, before getting to the Forgotten City.
The last line seems a bit different too, more similar to the CC version rather than the OG localization.
どうしても行くの？
約束だから。大好きな人たちが待ってるんだ
…………わからない。わからないけど……でも、絶対に死なないで
もちろん……ここに帰ってくるよ。約束なんかなくても待っていてくれる人がいること、俺は知ってるから
"Do you really have to leave?"
“I made a promise. The people I love are waiting.”
“…I don't understand. Not at all. But, take care of yourself.”
“Of course…I'll come back to you. Even if you don't promise to wait. I'll return knowing you'll be here.”
I noticed in that 死なないで literally means "don't die" which is interesting considering that Loveless is linked since the beginning with Aerith (sector 8) and it's refrenced in Cloud's dream, before getting to the Forgotten City.
The last line seems a bit different too, more similar to the CC version rather than the OG localization.
MelodicEnigma
Pro Adventurer
It's surprisingly about the same, actually. The only real difference would be that of requesting someone "absolutely don't die" vs "take care of yourself", though contextually this is a sliver of a difference for the passage itself in what it's conveying. Everything else is pretty well on.
I almost forgot about that line. According to the wiki I think it was used twice in the games? In the OG, Cid's the one who talks about on the ship, which I think is supposed to reference Aerith talking about coming back—and then in CC through Kunsel's emails, once to Zack when on the subject of Genesis being KIA, and then later in the story after Zack's been gone and he suspects him to still be alive:
I don't care if you've made an enemy out of Shinra.
I'll always be waiting for you to come back.
Just make it back alive, buddy. Promise me.
I almost forgot about that line. According to the wiki I think it was used twice in the games? In the OG, Cid's the one who talks about on the ship, which I think is supposed to reference Aerith talking about coming back—and then in CC through Kunsel's emails, once to Zack when on the subject of Genesis being KIA, and then later in the story after Zack's been gone and he suspects him to still be alive:
I don't care if you've made an enemy out of Shinra.
I'll always be waiting for you to come back.
Just make it back alive, buddy. Promise me.