Not really. You didn't really seem to get the point why right about EVERYONE here hate Woosly-he changed the plot of Crono to fit it into the game. Now, honestly, Kato wasn't one bit original when it came to naming, but neither did Woosly-The Gurus aren't original names, Schala is Sara with an addition, because in the transition between Japanese and English R's and L's alternate(diallect more than anything). Marle has ZERO meaning, actually. In Japanese, she was called Maru, with Nadia being Marudia. Thus, you have Marle slipping over her tognue, saying part of the name. As for the Mammon Machine-you count overmuch about fan translation. Things in Japanese have rarely one meaning, and I'm sure the Mammon Machine has AT LEAST one more meaning.
If that is the case, then you totally missed your mark. You declaimed me for a totally tangental topic I never commented on. You are arguing a Kato vs Woosly on the basis of Plot, and how well you think it worked, and adherence to the original story. None of that has nothing to do with what I said, thus making your argument misguided and irrelevant. I merely said Woosly is more 'allusive and clever' than Kato in naming. That Woosly changed the story, that 'everyone' hates him, is totally beside the point. I made a very specific comment on the nature of the names, one that you have not been able to clearly refute. Yes, Marle might have no meaning, nor do many of the other English names. And yes, a few of the Japanese ones have meanings. But by and large there are more English ones with clever or allusive names. That is all I argued, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Majou might have about the same allusive quality as Magus, but Jacky not more than Janus. Schala and Sarah are equal, but of course Schala is just an English transliteration of the Japanese, so they are on equal terms. Jeal is not to my knowledge of any meaning, but Zeal is. The Three Wise Men of Zeal are cleverly named - the Japanese were little stabs at condiments. Trite, but of far lesser allusive quality. This is the trend. Whether you like the English or Japanese better, if the English adheres properly... all that is totally irrelevant. If you want to refute me so viciously, at least be courtious enough to respond in regard to the issue, and not toss out these red herrings that have nothing to do with what I said. If I'd said 'the English is better than the Japanese' you would have had grounds for speaking as you do. Since you did not, it doesn't.
However, on a matter of sheer opinion, I do far prefer the English, for the very reason outlined. I actually dislike much of anime and Japanese games for this and related reasons, Chrono Trigger being one of the few I still like, chiefly for its nostalgic value. You see, the Japanese story writers seem very fond of using western ideas or words now and again, but when they do they seem to have no idea how to use them properly, and so it tends to look extremely silly and juvenile to those that have any idea about the actual things (the worst perpetrator I've seen: Xenosaga I.) I put a lot of worth into a writer's ability to understand the things he or she alludes to, and how it all ties together, and when I see simplistic and childlike name-copies, I can't help but feel a bit annoyed. Fortunately, Chrono Trigger seems to avoid this, the Japanese being, well, Japanese, and the English English. That is the proper way of things. And, in the end, I prefer the English version simply for its connect to our culture. You may say it's for us 'stupid' westerners but, hey, it's better than the Japanese 'borrowing' our symbolism and mangling it to sheer sillyness. And keep in mind: any good translation must make itself known to the readers. For example, I personally like Lattimore's translation of the Iliad, but the average reader will be very annoyed to see the heroes named with Greek transliteration. No Achilles or Ajax or Teucer here. No, it's all Achilleus, Aias, and Teukros. It does bring across far more of the original feel, but only a fanboy cannot make admission for the fact that for the general audience, Achilles is far superior to Akhilleus. Or, a better example, I can enjoy and not hate Wolfgang Petersen for what he did to the Iliad. It's nothing like Homer, but oh well. That's the way of literature. If I were to see a group of Classicists saying how much they hate Petersen for what he did to Homer, I'd mutter 'nerds'. And if someone were to say they prefer the movie Troy to the Iliad, I would most definitely not proclaim it 'the most stupid comment in memory.' That would be the height of childishness, wouldn't you agree? Rather, I would ask why, and admit to its various virtues, rather than pointing out faults. Or, apart from the Iliad, what about LOTR? Oh, wait, Jackson made things up? He left out Tom Bombadil? Scandalous! How dare he! Oh, wait, it's a different sort of audience...
Also, you seem to mistake one thing-The Zealians should have no idea what Mammon even is. The term doesn't exist in that world. You see, Woosly made things more simple so the stupid americans could understand them. You therefore ask, where did the Zealians ever LEARN that word? Answer? There is none. It's a Wooslyism. Loads of things got lost in translation because of that. I'm not being fanboyistic-I'm bashing Woosly for messing with a plot he had nothing to do with it's creation. Janus and Schala never were half-brothers. They were blood brothers. However, Woosly, for whatever dumb reason, decided to change it. If YOUR work would be so bluntly changed, so much the plot starts taking different tones than what you originally intendended and wanted, would YOU be pleased?
The plot didn't take drastically different tones. Just certain elements. And honestly, it's none of my business. Art is a collective possession, and many great works would not exist if not for writers feeling they have the right to change someone else's story.
For my part, if someone in changing names and elements bettered my story, go for it. All power to them. The purpose isn't my own honour, it's art's sake, and if the art can be improved therein, all the better. You must remember, Legend, I began as a fanfiction writer - taking liberties with others' material is something I am well versed in an can appreciate. If a new writer can adapt it to say his own thing through my story, perfect. It is no different than the three great Tragedians each telling the same story in different ways (specifically, the Oresteia, in well, the Oresteia by Aeschylus, Electra by Sophocles, and both Orestes and Elektra by Euripides.) In fact, very often the same tragedian will tell the myth different ways. In one story, Menelaos is noble and virtuous, as is Helen, who never went to Troy (the play Helen, more of an early romantic comedy than tragedy); in another, Menelaos is a villain, a coward, and a bully (Andromache). Both are by Euripides. You see, we nowadays are too stuck up with 'plot'. Our idea is once the plot changes, the story has been messed with and corrupted. Not true. Plot can be in the service of theme, and it can be that the plot can be changed, even by different writers, with no inherent evil therein.
By the way, that Mammon argument is silly. They didn't know what Mammon is? Well, then I suppose they don't know what a 'Chrono' is either, eh?
