translation of electronic literature:
The translating process may be construed as a form of archiving as it involves a selection which is also a destruction of ‘the original’, a form of erasure especially acute in the case of code and paradoxically meant to ensure the survival of the work as the translated fragments migrate into a new spectral body of text spliced with updated strings of code enabling its performance, or becoming-text. (par. 14)
Regnauld’s poetic description of translating is very fitting when combined with Pisarski’s (2020) practical observation: translating non-analogue works saves them from becoming obsolete and ensures their longevity (pp. 88-90). Intense changes are sometimes a necessary evil in the face of platform limitations and publisher restrictions; in the case of Twilight. A Symphony (1996), localization and open accessibility that appealed to a 21st century audience played a crucial role (p.
89).52
Much of the issues and challenges associated with other non-analogue works apply to webcomics as well; at the same time, technological and literary circumstances surrounding each example are inherent to them only. One again, this is largely due to the user-centered platform capabilities that are encountered online, as well as the expanding possibilities and affordances that the Internet has to offer. It is for this reason that the translation of these works is largely theoretical, and less so practical, as will be demonstrated in the case study section of this thesis. As Pisarski (2015) acutely observes: “Everyone who is brave enough to publish a classic hypertext fiction from the pioneering era of e-literature, cannot bypass mobile, almost online-only and instantly synced mobile platforms” (p. 9). This comment can easily be applied to webcomics, which function precisely on such platforms. At the same time, webcomics can disappear from their environment fairly quickly; changes involving online programming, scripts and interfaces can make a work
“broken” and defunct, as in the case of Stuart Campbell’s works. Support for Flash, one of the most important online programs that was responsible for many interactive affordances on websites, is not supported anymore, impacting the readability of many webcomics that were created in the program, including These Memories Won’t Last (2015). “Programmability” has become a key feature, and it is no wonder that social media platforms are popular for non-enhanced webcomics; by all accounts, an image file is longer lasting than a work built into the infrastructure of a website. As such, the aforementioned fields of media studies aid future translation efforts.
translation (a translation between two different languages), intralingual translation (a rewording of a text using the same language) and intersemiotic translation (the interpretation of a text that sues verbal signs with the help of non-verbal signs). Later, Gideon Toury (1986) proposed an expanded division, which featured intrasemiotic translation, restricted to a given system of signs, and intersemiotic translation, which involved a change of language code (p. 1113-1114). This was due to the fact that Toury (1986) saw Jakobson’s division as overly relying on linguistic translation, and not taking into account other possible “semiotic entities” (p. 1113). Interestingly, Toury (1986) puts interlingual and intralingual translation under the category of intrasemiotic translating, which is preceded by intrasystemic and intersystemic translating, implying that translation first takes place on a semiotic level, branching out later to specific levels (p. 1114). Among these are the linguistic levels and the semiotic system levels, which serve to differentiate between semiotic systems that may or may not differ from one another.
If adhering to Toury’s typology, one would consider the translation between webcomics online as perhaps intrasystemic, and the translation between an online and printed comic as intersystemic. However as Toury (1986) points out, such a classification is only as useful as it is needed and: “only to the extent that the relations between various semiotic systems really affect the mechanisms which are inherent in translating as a type of activity” (p. 1114). Indeed, as much as Toury (1986) discusses the existence of semiotic entities and systems and even a possible process where translating involves the decomposition and re-composition of an entity, he also notes that this is not by any means clear-cut, defining translation as a “non-interrupted continuum rather than a series of discreet phases” (p. 1114).
The semiotic discourse that Toury (1986) brings up is relevant in how it recognizes that many works undergoing translation rely on other entities or are intertwined with them in varying relationships; here, Toury (1986) mentions such examples as recoding messages in Morse or Braille, the writing down of oral utterances, and also the instance of translating a more richly semiotic entity into a more “primitive” one (p. 1116- 1117). The presupposition is such that the relations vary, as do the weight of the semiotic entities, some being objectively more important than others. While perhaps this can be seen as a generalization, Toury does sensitize translation studies to the need to look beyond the strictly verbal, linguistic. In fact, Toury (1986) defines translation as inherently semiotic: “Translating is an act (or a process) which is performed (or occurs) over and across systemic borders. In the widest of its possible senses it is a series of operations, or procedures, whereby one semiotic entity (. . .) is transformed into another semiotic entity (p. 1112). Defining the translation process in this way for a given SIT into a TIT would not be amiss, as it frames them both not as simply texts, but texts that are a part of an entity. Still, Toury’s taxonomy is somewhat generalizing, a claim that he even himself admits to be true in the context of the idea of a semiotic entity (p. 1113). It is here that Henrik Gottlieb’s (2018) recently revised semiotic classification
pertaining to translation can be of great use.
In 2005, in a paper titled “Multidimensional Translation: Semantics turned Semiotics”
Gottlieb presented a conference paper containing a translation taxonomy based on semiotics.
Gottlieb (2018) later revised this taxonomy, in which, he provided a definition for intrasemiotic translation, seeing it as fulfilled when:“the sign systems used in source and target texts are identical;
a case of semiotic equivalence” (p. 51). Like in his earlier paper, Gottlieb (2018) also distinguishes six subcategories of verbal conventional translation, where conventional translation is understood as: “us[ing] some degree of formalic conversion of the source text en route to the target text” (p.
52), or in other words, certain norms or rules that enforce certain procedures, e.g. transforming Morse encryption into a given language. For Gottlieb, intersemiotic and intrasemiotic translation bases itself on a translational dimension that refers to semiotic identity (p. 50). Gottlieb (2018, p.
51) also mentions six subcategories belonging to intrasemiotic translation:
• synchronic (the source and target texts or imagetexts exist within a close period of time)
• diachronic (the translation and original are separated by a significant amount of time)
• dialectal (“between different geographical, social, or generational language variants”)
• diaphasic (involves adapting the original into a suitable form, e.g. advanced scientific texts into ones fit for the general public)
• transliteration (alphabet change)
• diamesic (language mode change, so for instance speech to writing.
Furthermore, Gottlieb (2018) differentiates between target text semiotics, which can be isosemiotic, diasemiotic, ultrasemiotic, and infrasemiotic; in general, these categorize “possible changes in semiotic composition” (pp. 50-51). Isosemiotic translation is so-called translation proper, where the same modes are in the target text as in the source text. On the other hand, diasemiotic translation uses different modes, or semiotic channels as Gottlieb (2018) calls them, but the number of them remains the same; Gottlieb (2018) gives the example of Morse code decryption or putting music into notes (p. 48). Ultrasemiotic translation is the opposite of diasemiotic, where a translation has more semiotic channels, while an infrasemiotic translation has less (p. 51). Furthermore, Gottlieb (2018) also distinguishes between verbal and non-verbal elements in translation.
When it comes to the comic medium, it is important to note that there can also occur instances of intrasemiotic translation between given imagetexts. Umberto Eco (2004) also defines intrasemiotic translation as: “reformulation of a given expression within the same semiotic system”
(p. 131).53 In order to give a clear frame of reference based on the aforementioned theoretical discourse, this definition is to be understood in the following way: an intrasemiotic translation is one where a given sign system, such a SIT, is fundamentally preserved whilst undergoing changes in e.g. formatting, appearance, layout, and occasionally, content. This is a phenomenon that can be
53 It is important to note that Eco approaches intrasemiotic translation just as a subtype of intrasystemic translation.
observed in standard comic publishing practices, where new versions of titles are reprinted, or are repurposed for target audiences that speak the same language, e.g. American comics for British or Australian readers (Round, 2010, pp. 17-19). However, this phenomenon is especially prevalent within the realm of webcomics; as mentioned, many authors opt to create certain versions of their webcomics, either creating and publishing a printed version of their work, or moving it to another website or social media account (Kleefeld, 2020, pp. 90-100). Often, such changes influence panel layout, and cause segmenting or fragmenting of original panel sequences, as well as omission of certain content or the exact opposite-addition. This example was demonstrated with Unsounded (2010-current) earlier in this thesis, which, naturally, did not include the use of animated GIF’s in its printed version, nor did it include the elaborate hyperframes that are visible for each page on the website- the printed pages do not have a margin. The only empty “space” featured in the printed volumes of Unsounded (2010-current) are the gutters. Furthermore, comment sections and links to trivia are not included.
Similar occurrences have taken place between the print and online versions of Butler’s Lackadaisy (2006-current). As can be deduced, this is both due to technological limitations (impossible to recreate animation in a printed form) and spatial limitations: an elaborate hyperframe would make the printed volumes bigger, thus enforcing a non-standard comic book print size (roughly 17 cm by 26 cm) which would in turn incur bigger costs. As Unsounded (2010-current) is an independent webcomic backed by crowdfunding, excessive costs are something that the author strives to avoid. Such changes are specifically brought on by an environmental change, and often, webcomic authors make up for any omissions and changes through using a commonly known strategy- addition. The printed volumes of Unsounded (2010-current) feature additional short stories and a thorough grammar and syntax of its fictional language. On the other hand, the printed volume of Lackadaisy (2009) does not contain such plot-relevant additions, but rather run-of-the-mill additions, such as afterwords from the author and exclusive illustrations and sketches. Such content can contain certain modes, semiotic systems, and genres within itself; the printed additions for Unsounded (2010-current) and Lackadaisy (2006-current) feature visual and encyclopedic content.
Such additions fall in line with the general presumption that additions in translation can: “[add]
clarity and [bring] local transformation (. . .) additions are used to provide further information about previous events, context, or historical background, and thus have the function of explanation and embedding” (Sharma, 2015, p. 5). After all, this is what occurs in e.g. special editions of DC and Marvel comics. Yet while the aforementioned examples and definitions point to the fact that what is occurring between comics and webcomics is an instance of intrasemiotic translation, one has to question if this is truly only what is taking place.
The previous paragraphs describe intrasemiotic translation as a valid translation phenomenon, but one cannot help but wonder if it is translation proper: the act of translating from
one language to another. The short answer is of course no. Even in the cited general examples, such as the publishing of a new edition of a graphic novel with additional content, it may be an exaggeration to say a translation is occurring. This is an opinion shared by Marta Kaźmierczak (2018), who in her article on intersemiotic translation points out the following: “translation presupposes a change of code (consequently, something which remains within the same sign system cannot be an instance of translation), with the preservation of some kind of equivalence” (p. 9). This comment is a valid argument against intrasemiotic translation, especially if translation is understood in the way of obvious code change. Likewise, within discussion of cultural translation, Professor Trivedi (2005) voices concern about the too liberal and wide use of the term “translation” which seemingly encompasses nearly every phenomenon, including semiotics (pars. 1-5). This is echoed by Kaźmierczak (2018) as well, who notes that dubbing everything as translation is methodologically ineffective (p. 13). She also criticizes Gottlieb’s taxonomy, pointing out general instances of a lack of clarity and specificity, as well as terminological confusion, especially in the categories of adaptational and conventional translation.
Yet while Kaźmierczak (2018) largely focuses on intersemiotic translation, she also reinforces the view that: “translation consists in interpreting signs by means of other signs;
consequently, it must occur between semiotic systems” (p. 13). Such a definition allows for the instance of the same semiotic systems undergoing translation. Interestingly, Kaźmierczak (2018) proposes in her conclusion reformed terms for denoting what could qualify as simply intrasemiotic translation with intersemiotic translation process elements; when adding a new code to an existing work, she proposes the phenomenon to be formally named as intersemiotic completion (p. 31).
Likewise, Kaźmierczak (2018) proposes the term “interlingual transfer accommodating intersemiotic aspects” for “translating between natural languages (. . .) a verbal text which refers to non-discursive media” (p. 31). Putting aside the question of what exactly is a natural language in Kaźmierczak’s understanding, it can be seen that these propositions terminologically match an understanding of intrasemiotic translation according to Gottlieb’s (2018) categorization, which basically denotes that there can be a number of intermediary intersemiotic processes involved in the intrasemiotic translation of a given work (p. 57). The issue that appears with Kaźmierczak’s terms is that she seems to ignore the intrasemiotic category present in Gottlieb’s taxonomoy, focusing solely on Jakobson’s division.
Regardless, Kaźmierczak’s (2018, p. 31) goal remains the same as other scholars who strive to draw attention to the fact that other surrounding codes present in a source text, or SIT, can impact translation. Based on the aforementioned examples and presented discourse, the concept of intrasemiotic translation, which can seem pointless or too general for it to be considered a type of translation, is in fact a category that is very much needed. While the term isn’t perfect, it emphasizes the fact that a change of semiotic circumstances can influence the TIT or text, and thus
influence the reception of semiotic and linguistic elements contained within the translation.
Gottlieb’s (2018) examples of creating new versions of films (p. 57), as creating new versions of e.g., graphic novels in the same language may seem dubiously cited as intrasemiotic translation, however, a semiotic change undeniably takes place. It is this change that influences the target audience, thus creating an impact how a given work is received. The “sameness” of the semiotic systems may be a point of contention, but it is important to note that translation studies have long preoccupied themselves with, for instance, monolingual translation. Considering translation from the point of view of same semiotic systems or channels is not a stretch in itself. Moreover, with the fast development of modern media and the appearance of new mediums and communication channels, the study of intrasemiotic translation becomes crucial to understanding the changes that happen between original and translated works. Simply considering multimodal works from the point of view of linguistic translation is not enough, as will be further demonstrated in the following paragraphs. Therefore, despite its not ideal status, the term intrasemiotic translation will be used throughout this thesis along with Gottlieb’s (2018) taxonomy, which will be further practically applied to given examples.
Despite its shortcomings, Gottlieb’s (2018) taxonomy as such is highly detailed and can prove helpful in discussing the translation strategy of works created in the comic medium, including webcomics. Gottlieb (2018) additionally discusses translation from the point of view of translator freedom, where the translation needs to abide by certain rules (the aforementioned conventional translation) or is free to in implement more changes (so-called adaptational translation) (p. 50). He also distinguishes between the “presence or absence of verbal material” (p. 50). Each category is accompanied by examples, yet disappointingly so, there is no mention of comics in any category.
Regardless, it is important to consider Gottlieb’s taxonomy, as comics, and especially webcomics, often undergo changes in semiotic channels and modes. The discussion of semiotics when it comes to translating works created in the comic medium seems crucial; so far in this thesis, semiotics have been brought up regularly and offered as a solution in helping explaining not only translation approaches, but the very essence of multimodal works themselves, not just strictly webcomics. It is why a translation approach involving webcomics cannot be without addressing semiotics itself. As Susan Bassnett (2013) points out in Translation Studies:
The first step towards an examination of the processes of translation must be to accept that although translation has a central core of linguistic activity, it belongs most properly to semiotics, the science that studies sign systems or structures, sign processes and sign functions <Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics, London 1977>. Beyond the notion stressed by the narrowly linguistic approach, that translation involves the transfer of
‘meaning’ contained in one set of language signs into another set of language signs through competent use of the dictionary and grammar, the process involves a whole set of
extra-linguistic criteria also. (p. 24)
Here, Bassnett rightfully points out that the linguistic side of translation is only a part of a complex process; the implication is such that even supposedly “simple” works such as novels which are predominantly textual still need to be approached from a semiotic point of view.
A confirmation of this can be seen, for instance, in Gottlieb’s (2018) taxonomy, where he classifies an abridged version of a manual as an intralingual, intrasemiotic and isosemiotic translation, or a manual illustrated for illiterates an intersemiotic and diasemiotic translation (pp.
48-49). Even O’Sullivan (2013) brings up typography as an important aspect to consider in translation, citing Theo van Leeuwen’s work (2005; 2006) on typography, wherein it is argued that:
“typographical elements constitute a further modality for what have conventionally been considered monomodal print texts” (qtd. in O’Sullivan, 2013, p. 3). O’Sullivan (2013) recognizes that this query has been a topic of interest for a while, citing sources and examples that are over half a century old; she mentions how contemporary audiences differentiate between “ugly” and “elegant”
subtitles, and also brings up an interesting example of 16th century biblical translation during the reformation period, where with the choice of given typefaces certain meaning was encoded (p. 4).
Therefore, when it comes to webcomics, there can undeniably be talk of intrasemiotic translation. As had been pointed out, intrasemiotic translation frequently occurs when e.g.
webcomics are published in print form or on different websites, without any linguistic translation.
However, upon further study of Gottlieb’s taxonomy, it would be wise to consider if this is a case of intrasemiotic translation, or is it in fact a case of intersemiotic translation. While the language does not change, the panel layout, images, and included content often does, and it bears the question if such a change is truly an intrasemiotic one. Gottlieb (2018) brings up an important example in the dimension of adaptational translation, where: “a stage play turned into a film (. . .) may strictly speaking be a result of two intersemiotic processes: that of turning the “live” play into a written screenplay, followed by the process of unfolding that monosemiotic text and creating the final movie” (p. 57). It can be seen that there occur a number of intersemiotic processes when adapting a given a work, but ultimately, the end result, so the TIT, allows for the process to be considered as an intrasemiotic translation (Gottlieb, 2018, p. 57).
However, this opens the door to another question: is such translation conventional, or adaptational? The categorization implies that webcomics belong to the adaptational domain, and therefore it seems that a more free approach must be applied in order to make necessary changes which will allow for a successful rendering of the SIT to the TIT. The changes need not be blatant or apparent, but merely enough to create a TIT embedded in a website that is understandable to the recipient. Either way, Gottlieb (2018) sees conventional translation as following fairly strict rules (p. 52), while adaptational translation is about production triggered by the translation of an original work (p. 52)- something that often occurs in webcomic translation.
The translation process itself is not simple; to take the example of Tracy Butler’s Lackadaisy (2006-current), the intrasemiotic translation from the webcomic version to the printed volume does indeed undergo a number of intersemiotic processes. Lackadaisy (2006-current) features elongated panels that take advantage of the infinite canvas, and uses elaborate surrounding paratext and hyperframes that are present online; this cannot be implemented in the printed version and so, the adaptation of the panels, or rather their “cutting up” occurs-an intersemiotic process. Pagination is introduced, text and images are shrunken, and in some cases, a color change occurs-the printed version features more subdued tones in comparison to the original work that can be read online. Yet when looking at the finished volume and comparing the original to the translation, it can be seen that the work is still very much a work created in the comic medium, but which had been taken out of its online environment and presented in a new one-much like Gottlieb’s example of the stageplay and film. Intersemiotic translation becomes an intermediate process, and this is a process that can as just be applied to other categories of online comics and printed comics alike. The core argument here is that the comic medium exists in both the SIT and TIT, regardless if there has occurred an interlingual translation.
Figure 15
Translation Processes in Lackadaisy
Note. Schematic of translation processes in Lackadaisy. Created by thesis author.
At the same time, one cannot ignore the loss of certain modes or semiotic channels. It is here that Gottlieb’s categories of diasemiotic, ultrasemiotic and isosemiotic translation becomes very handy.
When a webcomic becomes a printed comic, there has undeniably occurred a diasemiotic translation, and perhaps an infrasemiotic one as well, as one can identify e.g. the loss of the infinite canvas, or any kind of hypertextuality. A channel change certainly occurs, and often, “the semiotic bandwidth <range of activated semiotic channels> of the translation is narrower than that of the original” (Gottlieb, 2018, p. 51). The target reader reads the webcomic on the website primarily according to the conventions of the comic medium, and does so in the same way for its printed counterpart. However, the medium has changed, and with it, the semiotic channel; one is on an electronic device, and another is in a book. It is also important to note that interlingual translation between printed counterparts of a webcomic is fully conventionally intrasemiotic, and does not
undergo the intermediary intersemiotic processes present in the adaptational intrasemiotic translation of a webcomic to its printed version. This is, for instance, observed in the printed Italian translation of Lackadaisy (2006-current); the translation was an intrasemiotic interlingual translation, with no traces or diasemiotic or infrasemiotic translation. The simple diagram in figure 15 summarizes this process.
On the other hand, an intrasemiotic translation of a webcomic involving a change of website, so e.g. from the original version of a website to a different one, is in fact intrasemiotic. Depending on what occurs, the translation can be interlingual or intralingual, conventional or adaptational, and ultrasemiotic or infrasemiotic. As demonstrated in figure 16, which contrasts the Russian website version of xkcd (2006-current) with its original, the Russian website adaptation would be seen an intrasemiotic, interlingual, infrasemiotic and adaptational. This is due to the fact that while the appearance of the website was mimicked, it is not the same, and not all surrounding paratext (e.g.
links) has been included.
Figure 16
xkcd’s Mirror Sites
Note. On the right is the original xkcd (2006-current) website interface, while on the left is the very similar Russian mirror site. Adapted from xkcd (2006-current), by R. Munroe, Retrieved April 22, 2020, from https://xkcd.com and https://xkcd.ru/1531/
As can be seen, the application of Gottlieb’s taxonomy to works created online (which are often by default highly multimodal and contain a number of semiotic systems), proves insightful and can aid in choosing a given translation process. If one were to take the example of the aforementioned xkcd (2006-current), the surrounding paratext, such as the links, hyperframes are not as important to the
translation process; rather, what should be focused on are the strips or cartoons themselves, which should contain unchanged images. This falls into the domain of intrasemiotic translation.
Furthermore, the linguistic aspect in xkcd (2006-current) needs to be translated, so this falls into the category of interlingual translation. This aspect also falls into the category of verbal translation in Gottlieb’s taxonomy, which is a translation that “retains their verbal channel” (p. 52). One could also argue that as long as xkcd (2006-current) is translated and posted on a mirror website, the translation is isosemiotic, insomuch as it retains the same communicative channels. However, overall, the process is adaptational, as adjustments need to be made that can range from website interface to panel size. Another asset stemming from Gottlieb’s taxonomy is that it allows for the intermingling of categories, as was the case of the simple Lackadaisy (2006-current) chart; a wide range of semiotic aspects are accounted for, allowing for thorough categorization.
Yet although Gottlieb’s taxonomy is all encompassing, it does not mean to strictly categorize each and every translated work, especially works that are created and exist online. Citing Gottlieb (2018):
I must hasten to state that with semiotically complex entities such as various online texts and other electronic media products, categorisation is not always a matter of course. Different foci may lead to different categorisations, or- more accurately phrased- as several text types are semiotic composites or mosaics, any categorisation of such hybrid entities will have to consider the ‘odd’ parts of the text. (p. 60)
As such, Gottlieb (2018) takes into consideration the fact that numerous “hybrid entities” may appear and develop in the future (pp. 60-61), and encourages to use his taxonomy as a way of categorization, regardless of the encountered type of work that is to be translated. One of the greatest assets of Gottlieb’s taxonomy is that it is not confined to certain examples, and it is not so narrow so as it cannot apply to numerous works. While it may seem to be general, the categories can proverbially “pile up” and define a source text in either a general way or very specific way;
categorization depends on what the translator deems is most important.
To give yet another example based on webcomics using Gottlieb’s categorization, one can take a look at Kate Beaton’s Hark! A Vagrant (2007-2018) webcomic strip series. Beaton ran the webcomic series until 2018, which was dedicated to humorous renditions of historical situations, as well as literary tropes or characters. Often, the humor was achieved through the use of anachronisms, specifically the use of modern phrases and language by characters that contrasted with the given historical period. Characters that often featured in Beaton’s strips were the Brontë sisters, the Founding Fathers, Napoléon Bonaparte, Shakespeare characters, and composers such as Frédéric Chopin or Franz Liszt.54 A successful endeavor online, the webcomic was published in book format as a collection of strips in 2011. Therefore, using Gottlieb’s taxonomy, the webcomic
54 All strips can be read in the archive on the following website: http://www.harkavagrant.com/archive.php
underwent intrasemiotic translation, but with intersemiotic processes in between, which was the gathering of selected strips and transforming them through editing and printing. Both the printed book and online webcomic strips certainly use the comic medium, and are as such contained within the same semiotic system. At the same time, not all Hark! A Vagrant (2007-2018) strips have been published in the printed book; therefore, if one were to assume that all online strips on the website at the time of publishing made up the multiframe, one could talk about an infrasemiotic instance of translation; here, diasemiotic translation does not apply, as not only are there less strips in the printed book, there are also e.g. no hyperlinks and author comments to each strip. As such, there is certainly less access to other semiotic channels. Less important, but perhaps good to briefly mention, is the fact that the printed comic book for Hark! A Vagrant (2007-2018) falls into the synchronic translation subcategory, as well as, the interlingual and adaptational one.
The reason as to why the infrasemiotic and intrasemiotic translation category is so important is because it explains how the change of environment impacted TIT reception. While the comic medium is preserved in the TIT, it has access to less semiotic channels; after all, the webcomic underwent a number of intersemiotic process when transformed into its printed counterpart, including the following: editing, manipulation of hyperframe, selection of chosen strips from the overall multiframe, mild changes in panel shape and size, reordering of strips, deletion of surrounding paratext and inclusion of a new one, such as different titles for most strips, deletion of references to hyperlinks and different author comments. As a result, the printed comic book not only is taken out of the online environment, but reinforces a given reading order and a general adherence of printed conventions, such as page numbers, a foreword and so on. It is important to note that the strips on the website, while posted chronologically, can be easily read in random order.
This is especially encouraged by the inclusion of the “random” button within the hyperframe, and the listing of each strip according to title, which often betray what character or historical event the strip is about, examples being: “Jane Austen”, “Napoleon’s Cookies”, “Chopin and Liszt” (Beaton, 2018). Other times, the titles are sillier or more haphazard, such as “sealausten”, “You are trying to seduce me Albert”, “furries”, “aww napoleon” (Beaton, 2018). These have not been included in the printed comic book, along with the odd strips that Beaton created about DC characters; presumably, this was done in order to preserve the prevailing historic tone that most of Beaton’s strips have.
Such details become important when one looks at the reception of Kate Beaton’s printed compilation of Hark! A Vagrant (2011); while the comic book had been met with wide praise (Grossman, 2011; Manley, 2011; Popova, 2011), most of positive reception came from readers already familiar with her work, who saw the printed version as a collectible extension. However, newer or more critical readers didn’t see the comic book as amusing and engaging. One reviewer comments on the seeming misplacement of the strips when out of their online environment: “some of the strips feel hastily dashed off, as though they were straight from her sketchbook. It’s one thing
to post those on your website for free, but they can seem jarring in this context” (Clough, 2011). It is here that the infrasemiotic translation and the intersemiotic processes are to blame, as well as the webcomic’s niche character that caters to specific historical events and literary characters. While there is a predominance of positive reviews, a number of readers on such review sites as Goodreads note that the webcomic was not funny due to its obscure references, smug and sarcastic humor, and its out-of-context environment (Goodreads, “Hark! A Vagrant: Community Reviews”, n.d.).
As such, even though the intrasemiotic process of translation was arguably carried out properly, many target readers had issues grasping the presented humor, which largely stemmed from the online environment of Hark! A Vagrant (2007-2018) presided in. This is in line with Dudek’s (2019) reasoning in his article on humor in webcomics; despite the basic level of conceptualization being the same to that of webcomics printed counterparts, Dudek (2019) does emphasize that humor interpretation is based on our own background knowledge and the current discourse we engage in (p. 115); in order to “get” online humor, we have to be familiar not only with the specific humor that can occur in such an environment, but also interact with it in a prescribed way. Kleefeld (2020) notes that in the case of humorous webcomic strips, redistribution and sporadic re-posting to other social media and platforms is commonplace, as such webcomic strips rarely feature an ongoing plot (pp. 45-48). This in turn leads to recontextualization even online. Thus, taking such humorous webcomic strips and putting them into a printed book can come off as jarring, more so that unlike syndicated strips, they are taken out of a fluid, dynamic environment into a static, non-dynamic one.
In conclusion, it is vital to consider the realm of semiotics as an integral part of webcomic translation, especially due to the fact that even though they are meant to function and exist solely online, they frequently find their way to printed forms. The issue of translation cannot be simply focused on the medium itself due to the multimedial nature of the humanities and the influence of the Internet. While this thesis presupposes comics as a medium, Zanettin (2004) suggest that comics
“could be viewed as a semiotic system”, citing translation studies in the realm of semiotics (p. 2). It is a plausible suggestion especially when considering comics in the realm of translation studies. In fact, Zanettin proposes seeing comics translation as a semiotic process: “comics translation should be seen ultimately as intercultural translation between semiotic environments which are culturally determined, along dimensions of space and time” (p. 3). Zanettin’s proposition regarding the translation of comics allows to see them as intricate systems that interact in different ways depending on multiple factors. In fact, Zanettin (2004) understands semiotic environments as “a multiplicity and heterogeneity of semiotic systems which encompasses texts, media and discourses”
(p. 3). Therefore, it is important to consider other media involved with the production and publication of webcomics. The added layer of seeing the basic form of comics as imagetext allows for a developed consideration of webcomic translation in a thorough way.