Well, I actually went ahead and wrote a lengthy article about this woman and her work. Her
name is Malinda Kathleen Reese. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omNLvq0F8-A
For those of you who don’t know, Malinda Kathleen Reese is a young American online “star”
who identifies herself as a singer-songwriter, stage actress and of course YouTube
personality. Apparently she’s built up enough of a presence to get her own Wikipedia page,
and that alone is enough of a reason for me to envy and resent her. Now, don’t get me wrong:
I don’t hate on her; if that’s what she wants to do with her life, let her have her best shot. But
it’s also true that she has posted numerous videos on YouTube under the account Twisted
Translations which touch on the theme of bad translations as a source of humour. (As it is, I
won’t claim never to have been amused by the content of her videos, and I have actually
written about her before, on my business Twitter account as well as on LinkedIn recently, and
the point that I will make by that is that she’s basically done “bad translation humour” to
death. I’m not even American and I know that Jimmy Fallon has done it on his show before
anyway).
Maybe she seeks to make a point about what a good actress-comedian she is by doing all
these “bad translation humour” videos with a straight face and all the rest of it. Just an
offhand theory. I’m not one to attack her for her ambition. Indeed, not to provoke but in the
particular video linked to here, I’m sure no-one forced her to include the “enjoy your right
hand” bit at 0:36 against her wishes; note how the music abruptly stops for a bit precisely
because, like most of the rest of us, she tacitly agrees that that particular bit of Google
Translate output – for which, if we’re being fair to her, she shouldn’t be held responsible –
will pretty much always bring the topic of “self-gratification” to mind. I accept it as an
unexpected overly awkward bit which I can agree she dealt with well enough (i.e. like a
professional), but I will strictly keep it at that.
Nevertheless, like I said, if anyone has pretty much done translation humour to death, she has
– what I’m trying to say is that she’s most well known for these bad translation humour
videos in particular; which has been enough to make me question her very sincerity about
what she does. I mean, it’s not a talent to just slap up output from a machine translator and
recite it in the public eye – although I am happy for her I’m less than pleased that she seems
to have earned online star status for videos like these while I scrape a living actually being
preoccupied with getting translation right for reasons that matter in the real world. It’s not
like, as a so-called artist (at least in the scope of these videos), she actually expresses
anything that could “do anything impactful”; she just leans on whatever random output will
be generated by Google Translate for her own personal gain. That’s why I could never follow
her, even if I am capable of enjoying her work.
But I want to be a fair guy; in another of these videos, in which she sings a Google Translate
output version of Michael Jackson’s Thriller, Malinda does actually begin with a discussion
about the meaning of the word “thrill” – even if it is subjective, good for her. Even so, in that
video, as in all her other bad translation humour videos, when you read Google Translate
output and compare it with the words it’s Google Translate output of, it’s only too easy to
find bits which are, to say the least, inexplicable. (Like: “How could one possibly relate this
or that word or expression to what one is expected to acknowledge in the content of the actual
material?”). It begs one question (at least for me as a language professional): against the
backdrop of what Malinda does, just exactly how immersed is she in the topic of language
and translation for what it actually is? And so this project was born:
I composed a (fake) machine translation output of Jerusalem by William Blake: made to look
like a machine translation output piece while it is in fact supposed to be known that it was
written by a human (me!). I want it to be remembered as a piece of work the intellectual merit
of which, in my eyes, is rooted in what the concerns of a professional translator should be,
and imply that this is more worthy than a desire to deliver a “performance” with no substance
like reading whatever’s put in front of you and expecting applause for it (but say whatever
you want about Malinda). I will forever maintain that the work that follows is clever and
funny enough to rival the humour factor of Malinda’s overrated bad translation humour
videos! It was all entirely written by me, and part of this thing was me resolving from the
start to discuss the decisions I made as part of this project, being as coherent as I can about it.
So, let’s begin with the actual, unaltered lyrics of the real song:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.
And I wrote a new version of this; one which looks as much like machine translation output
as possible but is also as funny as possible purely thanks to my decisions, which I proceed to
explain. I did not actually use any machine translator in any capacity as part of it. Like I said,
in much of Malinda’s “work” she seemingly does nothing more than lean on random Google
Translate output to not so much promote herself (in the true sense of the word) as to draw
attention to herself for reasons vapid and silly rather than courageous and worthy of
admiration – seriously, as far as I’m concerned, listening to what you know is (usually
nonsensical) machine translation output for an extended period of time will always get boring
soon enough. This is my work of art, which should put Malinda in her place (even if I do like
her, up to a point). I strictly focussed less on inexplicable nonsense and more on creative
humour, the likes of which could actually both amuse and impress people even though it’s
completely dumb etc. I did this two lines at a time. I did this to deride and discredit the
disproportionate fame Malinda has earned for herself with Google Translate output alone, so
it would seem.
And were the now non-existent feet
Stepping repeatedly on England’s green mountains?
My decisions explained: I decided to continue to observe the past tense bit in the first line,
and twisted the meaning of “in ancient time” to “relate” it to the “feet” like “in ancient time”
were an adjective rather than an adverbial clause. Things that are ancient are often no longer
around, I’m sure you’ll agree. And while walking is “stepping repeatedly” in a sense, to me
“stepping repeatedly on (which can amount to “upon”) England’s green mountains” brings up
imagery of a giant Monty Python-like foot stamping on mountains rather than imagery of
humans walking among them.
And did God’s Lamb, being sacrosanct,
Qualify as noticed while on England’s pleasing vegetation?
My decisions explained: If it is a Lamb of God, then this is inevitably a lamb which belongs
to God. After all, why else would it be holy (or any synonym of that word)? A possible
example of “lost in translation” that is easy enough to understand: the idea of a lamb being
noticed DIRECTLY BECAUSE it is holy (or rather, sacrosanct); which admittedly makes no
sense, but then machines often just don’t get linguistic nuances like humans do, do they? And
the word “vegetation” “encompasses a lot more in general random and nondescript meaning”
than “pasture”, doesn’t it? I believe machine translators would be inclined to make decisions
of inserting different words which are likely wrong but they “encompass a lot more in general
random and nondescript meaning,” and that’s exactly what I did here.
And was there Divine Approval
For the emission of hot radiation to stand on our disordered hills?
My decisions explained: “Countenance” means “approval” or “support” – just so you know.
It’s not exactly a commonly used word, at least in my experience. “Shining” made me think
not just of brightness but also increased temperature; just like the sun, hence the “hot” bit.
And how better to account for not just “shining” but “shining outward” – as radiation (of
whatever kind) does? Radiation waves have to reach something in order to impact it. Next
point: if you are “upon” something, you can be legitimately regarded as “standing on” it (at
least, if it’s a tangible object rather than a concept; but it will always depend on what the
thing actually is, of course). And a “clouded” mind is “disordered”, isn’t it? Of course, I don’t
need anyone to tell me that radiation is not a living being that stands like some animals do,
but this is supposed to be an exercise in (pretend) machine translation.
And did Jerusalem have a construction
Among these sinister mills of the devil?
My decisions explained: In the actual lyrics of the song, the noun “Jerusalem” is in a passive
sentence, while here I chose to rewrite it in an active sentence as part of the distortion of the
meaning. Yes, “have a construction?” sounds peculiar – and all the better for it in this
context. It’s hard to assert exactly what would be more likely to “have a construction”
between something undergoing construction (or probably just receiving further construction
work to supplement it) or a person “having a construction” of something simply because
someone wants something built. You decide.
Bring myself and my ribbon belonging to gold with fire
Bring myself and my passionate arrows
My decisions explained: Here I have treated “me” not as a dative but rather as an accusative
along with whatever follows it, treating it like it were a list. The word “bow” is reinterpreted
(quite deliberately) as the kind you tie with a ribbon rather than the kind that is a weapon with
which you shoot arrows. Then, “of” was reinterpreted to imply possession – that’s very
common in English. But it is also my understanding that machine translators can be given to
replacing words in one word class (by that I mean as in noun, adjective, verb) with words in
an entirely different word class as part of a whole new expression which just deviates from
the meaning of what is intended entirely, as in the verb “burn” being replaced with “fire”
here; and ultimately there is just nothing else that will always be associated with burning
with, you know? At the “bow of burning gold” bit, one could argue (if only falsely) that the
bow belongs to the so-called “burning gold” rather than to “me”. It’s (almost) the same with
“desire” being replaced with “passionate” – for the sake of range I decided on an adjective
rather than “belonging to passion.”
Bring myself and my tip: let the O clouds be revealed!
Bring myself and my carriage which is on fire.
My decisions explained: First off, clouds don’t actually “unfold”… do they? In any case, I
know the first thing I associate folding with, and that’s paper and the art of origami, and in
that sense “unfolding” amounts to something being revealed when you think about it. In the
next line, just as I reinterpreted “of” in the “of burning gold” bit above to make it sound like
it hinted at possession, so I do the exact opposite here with the “chariot of fire” bit, although I
decided to change “chariot” to “carriage”, just for effect.
I will not stop thinking about fighting
While forbidding my sword to sleep in my hand
My decisions explained: Depending on the context, a person who doesn’t stop thinking about
fighting could be equated to either a determined, heroic warrior or a wrathful and dangerous
maniac in serious need of anger management. I offer no clues as to which it is “supposed” to
be in this “new version” of the song, and I gather its intended effect is increased for that
reason. As long as I came up with an alternative way to link thinking with any concept of
fighting. As for the next line: in my experience, “shall” / “shall not” tends to imply
authoritative rules with whatever it is associated with in a sentence. And the fact that a person
can be forbidden to do something is enough to remind us that people only forbid other people
to do things; a sword is an inanimate object.
Sediment, we have created Jerusalem
In the English terrain that is green and pleasing.
My decision: Read the first line again. This is what I’m trying to illustrate at this point: treat a
bunch of words enough to constitute a whole sentence in themselves – in this case “We have
built Jerusalem” as separate from other words – in this case, the single word “till” – and then
I deliberately distorted the meaning of “till” in a whole new way that I can explain
coherently. Even so, myself, I always thought it was “until”, and that only has one L in it,
really. In any case, I have again changed the word class of a single word: proposition /
conjunction to noun. I replaced a verb with a synonym of it, but that’s just too simple a thing
to do in the context of an exercise like this. The last line merely contains a dative noun with
some description which amounts to but a simple subordinate clause.
And that’s that.