PDA

View Full Version : Working closely with your translators



Gary Clarke
03-04-2010, 09:29 AM
Not sure where to put this - feel free to shift about at will!

I'm currently writing a wee article about the importance of working closely with your translators. Thought you guys might like the cartoon I did to go with it.

http://www.celinekiernan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/translators.jpg

Jamesaritchie
03-05-2010, 04:44 AM
In what sort of case? I've had books translated into other languages, but I have no idea who did the translating.

Gary Clarke
03-05-2010, 11:09 AM
That's the point of the article. The fact that so many authors never get to communicate with their translators and vice versa.

Dawnstorm
03-05-2010, 11:35 AM
Hm, interesting. The writer in me is ambiguous about working with the translator, as I wouldn't want to interfere with their reading, but I could see myself answering specific questions (some of which might show me things I hadn't even thought about while writing). The translator in me would be absolutely eager to work with the author (an hope that they don't change contact info after the first few questions...), for fear of getting it wrong.

Two standards: free interpretation when I'm a writer, but authorial intent when I'm a translator. Hm...

[It is interesting that the aliens in your cartoon seem to only have trouble with the definite article, while "getting" the indefinite article and the pronouns. Also interesting that they "hold" a notepad. [Unintentionally intersting use of "singular they" in my sentence, here.]]

Gary Clarke
03-05-2010, 11:19 PM
[It is interesting that the aliens in your cartoon seem to only have trouble with the definite article, while "getting" the indefinite article and the pronouns. Also interesting that they "hold" a notepad. [Unintentionally intersting use of "singular they" in my sentence, here.]]

Indeed they are a complex bunch of vapour producing lifeforms.

Jamesaritchie
03-06-2010, 12:46 AM
That's the point of the article. The fact that so many authors never get to communicate with their translators and vice versa.


Who has the time, and why would a writer worry about it? When a book of yours is translated into twenty or thirty langauges, it would take years just to work with each translator.

I can understand when someone from another country has a book translated into English, but when it's the other way around, there's just no point in worrying about.

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 02:10 AM
Who has the time, and why would a writer worry about it? When a book of yours is translated into twenty or thirty langauges, it would take years just to work with each translator.

I can understand when someone from another country has a book translated into English, but when it's the other way around, there's just no point in worrying about.

In my experience it takes hardly any time at all. A couple of hours per translation at the maximum. I most definitely have that time, I most definitely think it's important ( as did the majority of the translators at the conference referred to in the article) and I don't see what the difference is which language is being translated into which - why on earth would it be more important in an English translation work as compared to another language? If it's solely because of the number of potential sales that's a pretty poor reason from someone who regularly bemoans the poor attention paid to quality in writing.

Dawnstorm
03-06-2010, 11:29 AM
I've now read the article (http://www.orbitbooks.net/2010/03/05/translating-translations/). I'm talking from the perspective as a translator now (I'm not a professional translator, but I could be):

My translation philosophy emphasises faithfulness over a smooth read. That's because, as a reader, I prefer that, too. Since I don't trust myself to catch it all, I've got a rule-of-thumb to keep the structural integrity of the text in tact wherever I possibly can. This is why I would have made none of the decisions in your examples in the first place. Rendering "Loups Garous" as simply "werewolf" or "wolf man" would violate two structural principles (foreign language [especially French], capitalisation; which are important in English). If I were translating into French (which I can't because I don't speak the language), I'd have a problem, now. Similarly, I would never change the mode of address (for example, if I were translating from Japanese, I'd either keep the Japanese suffixes in their entirety, or - less likely - fabricate something that keeps the structural patterns in tact). So, if there's a change in the way someone's addressed then I have to keep this change in tact.

I realise that there are translation philosophies that emphasise a smooth read over faithfulness - making the exercise not only a verbal translation, but also some sort of cultural adaptation. And I also realise that structural faithfulness (my method above) has its own pitfalls - for example, I might be trying to keep the foreign word structural property in the translation, too, but I could be unaware of connotations in the original text (or even in my native language) of what "foreign word inclusion" itself means culturally. It's all very complicated really.

So, yes, authorial input is very helpful (I like understatement). But utterly necessary? I'm not yet convinced. Even with authorial input, a translation will lose layers, gain others, and subtly shift emphasis. If I read a translation, I'm not reading a version of the text they advertise on the cover, not the text. Which is why, whenever possible, I try to read the original. I like bi-lingual texts, if I don't speak the other language, but they're very rarely available. (I had a nice tri-lingual version of Waiting for Godot, but that's because Beckett did the French himself, and collaborated on the German version, so that was a selling point.)

My mother tongue is German. When I was picking up Haruki Murakami for the first time (Wind-up Bird Chronicles), I was faced with the decision whether to pick up the German or the English version, both of which were easily available to me. Since I'd heard that Murakami had been collaborating with his English translator, I've automatically picked up the English version. I simply trusted it more.

But I'm curious. So I picked up the (a, as I later found out) German translation. To my amazement, it was called Mr. Aufziehvogel. Mr.? An English mode of address, in a German version of a Japanese text? What? I began to read... The book had been translated into German from the English translation. It took me a while before I'd recovered enough to remember to put the book back onto the shlef. I walked away in a daze. How could anyone even think of publishing a translation of a translation?

So, yes, if I hear that an author has collaborated with the translator that's a selling point for me. I'm less wary of the translation. (I'd still prefer to read the original, but there aren't many languages in which I could this.)

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 12:10 PM
You sound like the kind of translator everyone would love to have :0) ( in the instance of Loups-Garous? It happened - I won't say which translation. Suffice to say I had send an e-mail to the publisher ( as I always do) saying that I was there and available should thetranslator have any questions, no worries, just ask. And also leaving some very small notes forclarification. Needless to say I wasn't contacted.) In the case of the French translation I was contacted :0D And we're thinking of going with a Russian or Polish word (definitely a non-French word) but we're going to play with it when the time comes to see what flows best.

Do you think - once the translator has had some small communication with the author about which bits are important and which not - that a mix of both the approaches you outline might work? Especially for work like Sebastian Barry, or Cormac McCarthy? Both of who play with words and structure so much?

edited to say: for example, I use small animal references in descriptions some times, as a foreshadowing, I explained to my German translator my reasons and then left it up to herself ( in case it didn't work in German)

aruna
03-06-2010, 12:58 PM
Who has the time, and why would a writer worry about it? When a book of yours is translated into twenty or thirty langauges, it would take years just to work with each translator.


I don't worry about it, but it's always nice if you acn give sime input, and possibly even meet the translator; it also helps if the translator likes or loves the book.
I was able to meet my German translator. I was also sent the German proof by my publisher and was allowed to make corrections; there were quite a few.
One of my other translators, the Danish one, wrote me a letter asking for clarification on one point. I was really pleased about that.
I don't worry if I can't read the language myself, but little things in the German translation really bothered me; for instance translating "he chuckled" as "er kicherte", which means, he giggled.


I can understand when someone from another country has a book translated into English, but when it's the other way around, there's just no point in worrying about.
Why? What's the difference?

Dawnstorm
03-06-2010, 01:01 PM
Do you think - once the translator has had some small communication with the author about which bits are important and which not - that a mix of both the approaches you outline might work? Especially for work like Sebastian Barry, or Cormac McCarthy? Both of who play with words and structure so much?

I actually think that all real translation is a hybrid between these approaches; that's because you can't be 100 % faithful in another language, and you'll always stick to the book (or it wouldn't be a translation). I don't set out translating with a conscious desire to be faithful to the original at the expense of smooth readability. It's really just an extension of my general personality (e.g. I try to be as verbatim as possible when quoting others, and I fret about misrepresenting them even so, by selective quoting...).

It's when discussing translation problems that you realise which position you tend towards:

For example, in a poetry translation workshop (English --> German), the word "bingo" came up in a british poem. I translated the game as "Bingo", only changing capitalisation (in accordance with German capitalisation). Other people used different words, I forget which, but I think "Tombola" was one of them.

Now, there are basic questions you could ask:

- Does a native speaker of German understand a reference to "Bingo"? (I do think so; a couple of years later national television started a Bingo Show on TV, so now there's really no question of "Bingo" going mainstream.)

- Does the context make clear that we're talking about a game, or do you have to know what "Bingo" is, to get the game reference?

- Is the exact manner of the game important to the poem? Are slight substitutions acceptable?

etc.

Whatever you do, you're taking risks. Use "Bingo" and you're risking to kick people out of the poem. Use "Tombola" and you risk "false" associations (not to mention that - at least in Austria, where I live - there is an ambiguity in usage, where Tombola could reference the Italian game, or simply a charitable lottery with donated prizes...).

You don't always pick the "faithful" version, and you don't always pick the "smooth" version, as risks vary in likelihood and severity of catastrophe. (For example, likelihood of people not understanding "bingo" has decreased with a national telivision game show airing, but the misunderstanding, should it occur, would still be as severe as ever.) Finally, if the text contains other culture-specific words, some of which are more familiar than others, you run into the problem of consistency. If, say, the word "bingo" would occur in a very specific cultural context, it's harder to justify substitutions, than when it occurs in a metaphoric subtext.

You really shouldn't use your translation philosophy as a prison. But when you're looking at what you think is a "bad" translation, it helps to realise that other people have other values. And values change with time.

Take, for example, what German television did to Cheers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rziprdaE_SI). (Click on more infos, and read.) They gave the cast Germanised names; e.g. Norm = Helmut.

This was controversial back then (especially since they made changes to the characters, too!), but it's unthinkable in present day Germany. The re-runs of Cheers do not use these old dubs, either. They couldn't. A modern audience would be baffled. This reflects a change in priorities, which in turn reflects higher global mobility (of both people and information).

What the distinction means, in the end, is that: if you want a cultural conversion (for whatever reason - e.g., there are dialectal versions of the Australian movie Babe [the talking piglet], in both Austrian and Swiss dialects), I'm probably not the translator you want. I could probably do it to some extent, but someone else would deliver better quality at a higher speed. It doesn't mean that I pick my philosophy and stick with it come what may.

And again, this is all theoretical, since I'm no professional translator (even though my only publications to date are two translated poems, one of which must have been decent as it has been re-printed).

Dawnstorm
03-06-2010, 01:37 PM
I don't worry if I can't read the language myself, but little things in the German translation really bothered me; for instance translating "he chuckled" as "er kicherte", which means, he giggled.

See, that's where translation is fiendishly difficult.

"Kichern" covers all (most?) of "to giggle", but "to giggle" doesn't exhaust "kichern".

There is no single word that covers all instances of "to chuckle". Sometimes you may even have to paraphrase, because there is no good word at all.

"To chuckle" is one of these words that you cannot translate reliably, and I wouldn't rule out that "kichern" could work, too, depending on context. Now I trust your reaction (you've lived in Germany, if I'm not mistaken?), but it's not as simple as "kichern" means "to giggle". There is a reason why "to chuckle" often gets translated as "kichern". Sometimes it fits, often it's awkward, sometimes it's plain out of place. But the borders are blurring. This is exactly why your input would be so very valuable.

The problem is difficult. First, different languages describe laughing in different ways. Then, languages are correlated to the cultures they're used in. And these cultures also influence the very way that people are laughing. That is: before lauging-language differs, laughing culture differs. And putting your laughing language over another laughing culture is bound to cause problems. There may be things you "get", but can't articulate. Translators run up against this all the time. It's not rare.

aruna
03-06-2010, 02:29 PM
There is no single word that covers all instances of "to chuckle". Sometimes you may even have to paraphrase, because there is no good word at all.

"To chuckle" is one of these words that you cannot translate reliably, and I wouldn't rule out that "kichern" could work, too, depending on context. Now I trust your reaction (you've lived in Germany, if I'm not mistaken?), but it's not as simple as "kichern" means "to giggle". There is a reason why "to chuckle" often gets translated as "kichern". Sometimes it fits, often it's awkward, sometimes it's plain out of place. But the borders are blurring. This is exactly why your input would be so very valuable.



Thanks for the explanation! However, I have a good example of just plain unnecessarilty awkward translation, and right in the first paragraph of the book! The last sentence, and the viewpoint character and voice is a small child, is: he went outside to have a pee.
This was transleted into a German expression so antiquated, so formal, so euphemistic, I had never heard it myself. I've forgotten the exact wording; "um seine .... zu verrichten" or something like that (can't remember the word. This was in the hardcover edition. I objetcted so strongly that they changed it in the paperback to "um Wasser zu lassen".
Still not the same as pee, but much better.

Dawnstorm
03-06-2010, 03:08 PM
The last sentence, and the viewpoint character and voice is a small child, is: he went outside to have a pee.
This was transleted into a German expression so antiquated, so formal, so euphemistic, I had never heard it myself. I've forgotten the exact wording; "um seine .... zu verrichten" or something like that (can't remember the word. This was in the hardcover edition. I objetcted so strongly that they changed it in the paperback to "um Wasser zu lassen".
Still not the same as pee, but much better.

See, that's exactly what I've talked about above. As I said above, my translation strategy is faithfulness first, so I would have just said "um zu pinkeln," which is a word-for-word translation [ETA: No, it's not! See last paragraph], and easily understandable.

I suspect the phrase was "um seine Notdurft zu verrichten". It's not antiquated; I hear it now and then. But it is very formal and certainly euphemistic. I can kind of see, though, how the translators arrived at that. In German, tense-choice alone topicalises formality:

The default past of literary narrative is the preterite (what is the simple past in English), while the default past of speech is the perfect. So, you'd say, "Er hat viel gelacht!" ("He laughed a lot!", literally, "He has laughed a lot"), but to "translate this into narrative German" you'd say "Er lachte viel!" ("He laughed a lot!") [It's more complicated than that, but this is not the place to go into detail.] This creats a rift between every-day narration and literary narration that doesn't exist in English. So translators will often have a more formal mindset when rendering this into German, than they have when reading it in English.

While I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with "er pinkelte", I can see how some German readers might feel in an incongruence of language style and word-choice. There's a relaxed relationship between everyday language use and literary language in English (where one can slip into the other) that just doesn't exist in German. The difference is almost always accentuated, even if you have a conversational narrator: Some do actually use the perfect aspect as the default in German narration, but that's a very deliberate, folksy style.

Btw, I'm using "literary" here as a very broad category: narration in official publishing channels (this includes journalism, biography, fiction... all sorts of written narration really). It's not quite the same as "written German", because you'd probably not use the preterite in written personal letters or emails.

Finally, I notice an added complication that you're saying "went outside to have a pee", rather than "went outside to pee". The difference, in style, between these two variants is something I don't catch at all with "um zu pinkeln". To my (non-native speaker) ears, "to have a pee" does sound a more polite than simple, straightforward "to pee", but it's a nuance that German just can't capture. The thing is: I've just now realised that I'm not "being faithful" either. Closer, I think, but that's actually debatable.

Hm...

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 03:52 PM
For example, in a poetry translation workshop (English --> German), the word "bingo" came up in a british poem. I translated the game as "Bingo", only changing capitalisation (in accordance with German capitalisation). Other people used different words, I forget which, but I think "Tombola" was one of them.

I think Patricia Wood came across a similar problem when discussing 'Lottery' with her Japanese translator ( I could be wrong) Something to do with the word 'ticket'? Gah, wish I could remember.

A Tombola here (Ireland) refers specifically to the drawing of winning tickets from a tumbling drum. I can see the parallels to Bingo ( they use a tombola in bingo) but if we were translating back from German into 'Irish' English ( as in your German version of the Murikami book) there'd be some confusion :0D

One of the moments I loved in the German translation of Poison Throne was when Astrid asked me what kind of carpentry did Lorcan primarily do, as there were different words for the different disciplines of carpenter. Lovely moment.

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 03:58 PM
Chuckle and giggle have such different conotations, don't they? a complete change of tone and character. Dawnstorm's explanation of that is so interesting - again one of those moments in which the work benefited from contact between translator and author.

I wonder if this communication is standard in German publishing? It's just interesting that we both got to speak to our German translators.

aruna
03-06-2010, 05:00 PM
I suspect the phrase was "um seine Notdurft zu verrichten". It's not antiquated; I hear it now and then. But it is very formal and certainly euphemistic. I can kind of see, though, how the translators arrived at that. In German, tense-choice alone topicalises formality:

.

No, it wasn't, because I would know that expression. It's something I never heard before or after, and many Germans told me it was completely dated. I'm thinking now it might have been something similar to "sein Wasser herauszudruecken" but even more euphemistic. Soemthing old ladies might say! It's driving me crazy, not being able to remember and I don't have a copy of the book -- I even called a friend in Germany but she only has the English...

I've only really heard "kichern" in resect of schoolgirls etc giggling, so to my ears it sounded ridiculous. But if Germans understand it then it's OK.

aruna
03-06-2010, 05:02 PM
I wonder if this communication is standard in German publishing? It's just interesting that we both got to speak to our German translators.


I don't think it's standard at all -- I just happened to know the language and lived inGermany at the time, so I suppose they were happy to bring us together. Which German publisher do you have?

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 05:11 PM
Heyne and Bertlesman. You?

aruna
03-06-2010, 05:15 PM
I
But I'm curious. So I picked up the (a, as I later found out) German translation. To my amazement, it was called Mr. Aufziehvogel. Mr.? An English mode of address, in a German version of a Japanese text? What? I began to read... The book had been translated into German from the English translation. It took me a while before I'd recovered enough to remember to put the book back onto the shlef. I walked away in a daze. How could anyone even think of publishing a

That's anothet interesting point. There's far more translation from English into other languages, than vice versa, or other languages into yet other languages.. I can imagine that this can lead into very foreign territory as far as faithfulness is concerned. The trouble is that English is a global language so most non-English editors are probably able to read a novel in English and ocmmission it, whereas the reverse is not true. I suspect that few English editors can read original German or Urdu or Japanese novels!
I have a friend who is German and translates Danish books into German. She says that in many cases the would-be translator has to discover books on her own and actually propose them to editors who do not speak the original language.

aruna
03-06-2010, 05:16 PM
Heyne and Bertlesman. You?

Bertelsman -- imprint Blanvalet

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 05:20 PM
Maybe it's an in house thing then :0)

Jamesaritchie
03-06-2010, 10:02 PM
In my experience it takes hardly any time at all. A couple of hours per translation at the maximum. I most definitely have that time, I most definitely think it's important ( as did the majority of the translators at the conference referred to in the article) and I don't see what the difference is which language is being translated into which - why on earth would it be more important in an English translation work as compared to another language? If it's solely because of the number of potential sales that's a pretty poor reason from someone who regularly bemoans the poor attention paid to quality in writing.

If it only takes a couple of hours, you sure are doing the entire book. From my experience, it isn't just an odd phrase here of there that's problematic, but darned near every sentence in a book.

English is the big language, and where the vast majority of sales take place. So in English, you'd better get it right.

I might worry about geting in completely right in another language, as well, if it were only one or two. But thinking you're getting everything right by spending a couple of hours on a book just makes no sense.

Sometimes you just have to trust people to do their job. Mine is writing books. The publishers handle translations. That's their job, and they won't to do it right because it costs them money when they get it wrong.

I've also found that any good translator is usually better off without my "help."

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 10:20 PM
If it only takes a couple of hours, you sure are doing the entire book.

Pardon? I don't understand this.


From my experience, it isn't just an odd phrase here of there that's problematic, but darned near every sentence in a book.

How do you know this if you haven't talked with your translators? I certainly haven't had this problem, yet, and if I did find the translator was getting bogged down in irrelevant details ( unlikely considering the speed they have to get the work out) I'd let them know and they'd probably relax and go ahead with their job. It's called being professional.


English is the big language, and where the vast majority of sales take place. So in English, you'd better get it right.

So you are just talking sales. Up to you. I'm talk quality - something most translators I spoke to were also very interested in.


I might worry about geting in completely right in another language, as well, if it were only one or two. But thinking you're getting everything right by spending a couple of hours on a book just makes no sense.

The translators aren't asking you to do their job for them, they perfectly capable of 'getting everything right' - they only ask that we be available to answer a few questions. You have an inflated idea of how much they might need you, I think. In my experience the translator needs clarification on very few and very specific things - and those very few things make their work easier and the end result better.


Sometimes you just have to trust people to do their job.

In the course of doing their job, it seems that most translators would like to ask us a few questions. That's part of doing their job well.


Mine is writing books. The publishers handle translations. That's their job, and they won't to do it right because it costs them money when they get it wrong.

It costs the translator their reputation when it goes wrong - why would you not want to help them out by answering some relevant questions?


I've also found that any good translator is usually better off without my "help."

You seem to have talked to quite a few of your translators for someone who isn't interested in talking to your translators. The ones I've talked to would prefer more communication with their authors - fact.

Jamesaritchie
03-06-2010, 10:38 PM
I don't worry about it, but it's always nice if you acn give sime input, and possibly even meet the translator; it also helps if the translator likes or loves the book.
I was able to meet my German translator. I was also sent the German proof by my publisher and was allowed to make corrections; there were quite a few.
One of my other translators, the Danish one, wrote me a letter asking for clarification on one point. I was really pleased about that.
I don't worry if I can't read the language myself, but little things in the German translation really bothered me; for instance translating "he chuckled" as "er kicherte", which means, he giggled.


Why? What's the difference?

The problem I have with helping translators is that the questions they have are seldom where teh errors happen. When a translator isn't certain, they ask someone who knows. Maybe the writer, maybe someone else.

I've found that almost all major errors happen when the translator is absolutely certain they do know something, so they don't ask anyone, and they're then wrong.

As for English, it's far and away the biggest market in the world. It dwarfs the others. You'd better get the English translation right. But I don't see a lot of translation errors in English, and I know several of the best translations I've read were cases where the writer did not help.

Along these lines, is many of the very best translations I've read have been done after the writer died. Often long after. This tells me teh writer isn't as important in the process as we like to think.

But I simply don't see enouigh problems to make me worry about it. Good translators tend to get everything right, and often, in fact, make improvements. Bad translators screw things up, no matter how much help they get.

And here's something else I've learned. If you don't speak or read a langauge, you don't know whether they got it right or not, and poor translators often get something wrong, even after you give them a lengthy explanation. Just because they get it in English does not mean they get it down on the page right. Good translators know more than enough people to ask, if they have to ask at all, and they seldom do, even without asking me.

If a translator calls me with a question, I'm more than happy to answer it, but I find most translators do impeccable jobs, and are better off without my interference. I do my job, they do theirs, and I think it works better this way.

I do have a question about Germany, though. Does Germany aquire rights to an inordinate number of English books, or do they just like traditional westerns? Even my very first novel, a traditional western from a mid-sized publisher, a novel that did not sell very well here, was translated into German. It really surprised me.

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 10:44 PM
.

I do have a question about Germany, though. Does Germany aquire rights to an inordinate number of English books, or do they just like traditional westerns? Even my very first novel, a traditional western from a mid-sized publisher, a novel that did not sell very well here, was translated into German. It really surprised me.

Yes, the German reading public is huge - the publishers buy in a lot of foreign language material for translation.

Ken
03-06-2010, 11:03 PM
... some novels are more difficult to translate than others, I'm guessing, and probably would benefit from an author and translator collaboration. Otherwise, a lot of subtle nuances are sure to be lost, which add up during the course of a 300+er.

But at the same time, I really wouldn't want authors whose work I like to be bogged down with such labors which could be better spent writing new novels. If readers really want to get a full appreciation of a work written in another language they should learn that language, themselves, and read the work in the original.

If one really loves literature, it's rather indispensable to do such. I would, myself, if I had the capacity.

Terie
03-06-2010, 11:16 PM
I try not to think about translation anymore, ever since a French friend who's read both the English and French versions of my books told me the French is a poor translation. Ouch. :cry:

Funny enough, I work closely with the translators for my day job as a tech writer, and I'm intensely interested in anything to do with translation. I'd really hoped to establish a relationship -- just for the fun of it, if nothing else -- with my translator, but they never contacted me once.

Bottom line is this: it doesn't really matter how interested or not the author is in being involved in the translation process; that's driven by the translator, who can choose whether to bring the author in.

Dawnstorm
03-06-2010, 11:18 PM
A Tombola here (Ireland) refers specifically to the drawing of winning tickets from a tumbling drum. I can see the parallels to Bingo ( they use a tombola in bingo) but if we were translating back from German into 'Irish' English ( as in your German version of the Murikami book) there'd be some confusion :0D

Well, I'm Austrian, and Italy is a neighbouring country, so we would be referring to the family game (http://www.kidseurope.com/Tombola.htm). I had one as a child (in the 70ies), but it was a Yugoslavian product (remember Yugoslavia?). Instead of a tumbling drum it included bags to draw from.

A variety of other meanings is also present, including the Irish one. Some of them might, today, be more popular than the original game. I think if you'd ask an Austrian today what "Tombola" means, they'd say something like: You buy a ticket and get a gift, but you don't know what it is. But I don't really know.


One of the moments I loved in the German translation of Poison Throne was when Astrid asked me what kind of carpentry did Lorcan primarily do, as there were different words for the different disciplines of carpenter. Lovely moment.


No, it wasn't, because I would know that expression. It's something I never heard before or after, and many Germans told me it was completely dated.

Ah, that makes sense.

I'm afraid, I can't think of anything now. If it's completely dated, it's possible I've never even heard it before.


I've only really heard "kichern" in resect of schoolgirls etc giggling, so to my ears it sounded ridiculous. But if Germans understand it then it's OK.

Interesting link (http://www.ureader.de/msg/14202641.aspx) for those who read German. As a native speaker, I don't necessarily think of schoolgirls, though I'd certainly call that "kichern", too. It's never clear how representative your own perception of a word is, though; two native speakers don't necessarily share the same semantic extension of a word.


That's anothet interesting point. There's far more translation from English into other languages, than vice versa, or other languages into yet other languages.. I can imagine that this can lead into very foreign territory as far as faithfulness is concerned. The trouble is that English is a global language so most non-English editors are probably able to read a novel in English and ocmmission it, whereas the reverse is not true. I suspect that few English editors can read original German or Urdu or Japanese novels!

Well, the acquisition editor might well read English, but then, shouldn't they still commission a translation from the original language? (I later learned that Murakami had been translated from the Japanese before. Maybe it was a schedule thing, and no Japanese translator was available at short notice? I'd need to research that further.)

What I mean by that is: Yes, an English version increases the visibility of a book. But you do know the original language of the book, so that's really no excuse to translate from the English derivative product. It's downright odd, to me.

Interestingly, according to the German Wikipedia page, Murakami himself doesn't seem to mind.

Gary Clarke
03-06-2010, 11:23 PM
I try not to think about translation anymore, ever since a French friend who's read both the English and French versions of my books told me the French is a poor translation. Ouch. :cry:

Groan. I commiserate.


Funny enough, I work closely with the translators for my day job as a tech writer, and I'm intensely interested in anything to do with translation. I'd really hoped to establish a relationship -- just for the fun of it, if nothing else -- with my translator, but they never contacted me once.

It's so strange, it's as if most folks want to communicate. But nobody has. I can't fathom it.


Bottom line is this: it doesn't really matter how interested or not the author is in being involved in the translation process; that's driven by the translator, who can choose whether to bring the author in.

Most of the translators at the conference referenced in the article seemed to long for communication with the authors - but had felt there was no opportunity for it, or that the author might not be interested! I suspect that it's one of those cases where folks have quietly wanted change, but assumed they were alone in this desire and so made no moves to try and establish a system of author/translator communication.

aruna
03-07-2010, 11:55 AM
]


If it only takes a couple of hours, you sure are doing the entire book. From my experience, it isn't just an odd phrase here of there that's problematic, but darned near every sentence in a book.


But that's not how it happens. For a start, I can obviously only read those translations into languages in which I am fluent enough to enjoy a book on its own merit. So even though I do know a bit of French and Spanish, I did not read those translations of my books.
I read the German translations because 1) my German publisher asked me to and 2) because I was curious. So I read the books not with an eagle eye going through every sentence of the book; I read them as I would any book, and I only resgistered when something or the other jumped out at me.
I did this not because I wanted to check on the translator's work, but simply because I can. And why not?



The problem I have with helping translators is that the questions they have are seldom where teh errors happen. When a translator isn't certain, they ask someone who knows. Maybe the writer, maybe someone else.

I've found that almost all major errors happen when the translator is absolutely certain they do know something, so they don't ask anyone, and they're then wrong.

How do you know this? Have you read all of your foreign translations, or did someone tell you?


As for English, it's far and away the biggest market in the world. It dwarfs the others. You'd better get the English translation right. But I don't see a lot of translation errors in English, and I know several of the best translations I've read were cases where the writer did not help.
The thing is, unless you have read the original language version, you don't know if there are errors or not.
As for me, I'm with Gary: I would wish that EVERY reader, no matter what language they are reading in, gets the very best possible translation. Obviously I cannot check on this so I just trust the translators. No problem!




And here's something else I've learned. If you don't speak or read a langauge, you don't know whether they got it right or not, and poor translators often get something wrong, even after you give them a lengthy explanation. Just because they get it in English does not mean they get it down on the page right. Good translators know more than enough people to ask, if they have to ask at all, and they seldom do, even without asking me.

Exactly.


I do have a question about Germany, though. Does Germany aquire rights to an inordinate number of English books, or do they just like traditional westerns? Even my very first novel, a traditional western from a mid-sized publisher, a novel that did not sell very well here, was translated into German. It really surprised me.

I think you have to thank Karl May (http://www.karl-may-stiftung.de/museum/engl/may.html) for that!


For generations Karl May (1842-1912) has ranked high as one of the best loved and most widely read German writers. His tales of adventures set in the American West and in the Orient have sold close to 100 million copies in German and dozens of more millions in translations (33 languages). Based on valuable manuscripts and personal possessions, the exhibitions provides a fascinating insight into the life, the works and the influence of this famous Saxonian author who soared to fame as the creator of immortal fictional characters: Winnetou, Old Shatterhand, Kara Ben Nemsi, Hadschi Halef Omar.


The books are all very long and very detailed, and I am told very exciting! My son read every one of them when he was about 10. In earlier days just about every German boy grew up on Karl May:


Karl May had a substantial influence on a number of well-known German-speaking people - and on the German population itself.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#cite_note-ECO-1) The popularity of his writing, and indeed, his (practically always German) protagonists, are considered by some as having filled a lack in the German psyche which had few popular heroes until the 19th Century.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#cite_note-NYTT-0) His readers longed to escape from an industrialised, capitalist society, an escape which May offered them.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#cite_note-2)He was noted as having "helped shape the collective German dream of feats far beyond middle-class bounds" – and criticised as having offered those dreams for later exploitation by the Nazis.[/URL]
Amongst his fans were counted physicist and Nobel-prize-winner [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"]Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#cite_note-NYTT-0), who noted that he had spent his entire adolescence under May’s spell, and writer Hermann Hesse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Hesse), who considered his work "fiction as wish-fulfilment" while being a life-long fan.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#cite_note-ECO-1) Albert Schweitzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer) said that "much in his work was imperishable".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#cite_note-NYTT-0)


The funny thing is that May himeself never set foot in the USA or indeed left Germany! It's all based on research.
Anyway, I suspect that Karl May placed a love in Westerns into the German psyche, and that remains.

maxmordon
03-07-2010, 11:59 AM
I wish I had my aunt at the moment! She's a translator of both English and Italian to Spanish and I bet she would give a great insight about this topic.

Gary Clarke
03-07-2010, 12:16 PM
]
I think you have to thank Karl May (http://www.karl-may-stiftung.de/museum/engl/may.html) for that!

I love learning this kind of stuff! Thank you so much for that!

aruna
03-07-2010, 12:21 PM
James:
Karl May has been translated into English, and are still in print. Here's his page on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_8?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=karl+may&sprefix=karl+may
But maybe you know all this already.

Jamesaritchie
03-08-2010, 05:49 AM
]
The problem I have with helping translators is that the questions they have are seldom where teh errors happen. When a translator isn't certain, they ask someone who knows. Maybe the writer, maybe someone else.

I've found that almost all major errors happen when the translator is absolutely certain they do know something, so they don't ask anyone, and they're then wrong.


How do you know this? Have you read all of your foreign translations, or did someone tell you?

.

This is a rule of life. As Will Rogers said, "It isn't what we don't know that gets us in trouble, it's what we know that isn't so."

I first learned this in langauge and writing classes in college, but a sociology professor pointed out that it holds true in every walk of life. He was right.

Even when writing in our own langauge, most of the errors we make are because we think we know something that isn't true. Writers use the wrong word not because they don't know what the word means, but because they're sure they do know what it means.

A translator just takes sentences from one language, and then writes them in another. If he doesn't know what a word of phrase means, he looks it up, or he asks someone who knows. But why would he ask about or look up a word or phrase he's sure he does know? No one asks about or looks up something if they're positive they know what it means.

I'm all for the best possible translation, and I'm perfetcly willing to answer any questions a translator might have, but my experience tells me the best way to get a good translation is to have a good translator, and not get in his way. If he's really any good at his job, he not only knows his langauge one heck of a lot better than you do, there's a good chance he even knows your langauge better than you do.

Gary Clarke
03-08-2010, 11:46 AM
A translator just takes sentences from one language, and then writes them in another.

That's woefully simplistic, James. Again I point you to the cases of Sebastian Barry (who also addressed the conference) and his use of dreamily symbolic language, or Cormac McCarthy and his quirky mangling of punctuation etc. Or me, and my sometimes odd twists of speech (not comparing myself to either of those authors by the way both of whom I admire.)


If he doesn't know what a word of phrase means, he looks it up, or he asks someone who knows. But why would he ask about or look up a word or phrase he's sure he does know? No one asks about or looks up something if they're positive they know what it means.

Good point. But we're talking about the questions the translators would like to ask, but which they feel they can't. We're talking about a communication between author and translator that the translators felt was lacking and would have liked established.




I'm all for the best possible translation, and I'm perfetcly willing to answer any questions a translator might have, but my experience tells me the best way to get a good translation is to have a good translator, and not get in his way.

You're not getting in his way by answering questions he wants to ask you! And by implying that only a 'bad' translator would want to ask questions you are being insulting.


If he's really any good at his job, he not only knows his langauge one heck of a lot better than you do, there's a good chance he even knows your langauge better than you do.

But he may need to come to you and say 'you know this bit where you used the word 'running' in relation to the couple's relationship. In my language that won't work - do you think we could use 'fast paced'. Author may answer 'Yes' or they may say, 'no, thanks for asking, but that doesn't convey what I meant - I meant as in they can never settle into it because life keeps moving them around. Cut to short discussion as translator and author settle on best metaphor for the translation involved.

Jamesaritchie
03-08-2010, 11:31 PM
That's woefully simplistic, James. Again I point you to the cases of Sebastian Barry (who also addressed the conference) and his use of dreamily symbolic language, or Cormac McCarthy and his quirky mangling of punctuation etc. Or me, and my sometimes odd twists of speech (not comparing myself to either of those authors by the way both of whom I admire.)



Good point. But we're talking about the questions the translators would like to ask, but which they feel they can't. We're talking about a communication between author and translator that the translators felt was lacking and would have liked established.




You're not getting in his way by answering questions he wants to ask you! And by implying that only a 'bad' translator would want to ask questions you are being insulting.



But he may need to come to you and say 'you know this bit where you used the word 'running' in relation to the couple's relationship. In my language that won't work - do you think we could use 'fast paced'. Author may answer 'Yes' or they may say, 'no, thanks for asking, but that doesn't convey what I meant - I meant as in they can never settle into it because life keeps moving them around. Cut to short discussion as translator and author settle on best metaphor for the translation involved.

I believe it's woefully naive to believe for second that anything you can do as a writer is going to help a translator get Cormac McCarthy like langauge and syntax into another langauge. Even quirky punctuation may work in English, and look truly silly in any other langauge, no matter how teh translator handles it.

Only a translator who understands English extremely well, and who is, in his own right, an exceptionally good writer, can do this properly.

This, I think, is the point many miss. A translator who can only change words from one language into another is going to produce a bad translation, no matter how much help he gets from the writer. A good translator is always a very writer in his own right.

There's really nothing the writer can do to make that foriegn language convey the way he writers, unless the write is fluent in that langauge. You can answer questions, yes, and as I've said, I have no problems at all with answering any questions a translator has, but I know this never, ever means he's going to get the translation right.

What sounds good in one language simply does not always sound good in another. There's seldom such a thing as a literal translation, and even when there is one, it may be beautiful in English, and read like it was written by an idiot to readers who read the literal translation in their own langauge. Even when a translator translates something back to you, you still don't know that it reads well in his native language.

It's like the translator asking if "running" and "fast paced" have the same connotation. I don't know, and neither do you, unless you're fluent in his langauge, because he isn't going to use either. I can say they may be interchangable in English, but I can't beging to say if they're interchangable in French. The translator must be the one who knows this, and must have the actual writing skill to write a beautiful sentence, in French, to convey it.

And I honestly wouldn't want a translator who had to ask such a question.
Nor would I want to spend teh inordinate amount of time it would take to answer such questions, because any book would have several such questions per page, and I'd have to do it for every translator in every langauge. Then, after I did, I still souldn't have a clue whether he got it right or wrong, or whether he has either the talent or the skill to write teh sentence well in whatever langauge it might be.

But, really, I'm not sure why any translator would feel he can't ask a question? Publishers don't hide contact information, and neitehr do writers.

As I said, thoug, I have no problem with answering questions. I just don't believe it's something to worry about.

Gary Clarke
03-08-2010, 11:43 PM
James I think maybe you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

Gary Clarke
03-09-2010, 12:48 AM
I don't worry if I can't read the language myself, but little things in the German translation really bothered me; for instance translating "he chuckled" as "er kicherte", which means, he giggled.


Hey, Aruna. This interested me greatly, so I asked one of my translators what they would do when confronted with the word 'chuckling' and here is the reply! Thought you might be interested?

Ahhh the chuckling. I usually choose, depending on the character and the situation, between „kichern“ and „glucksen“. „kichern“. Also, there is the possibility of using „in sich hinein kichern“ (chuckle to oneself) or „vor sich hin kichern“ resp. „vor sich hin glucksen“. Of course there might be situations when none of these words fit the context, then I just have to find another, unique alternative.

In fact, I do think that „kichern“ has a giggle-quality to it, that is exactly why I would rarely use it for male characters, for instance. But on the other hand, it is not (always) giggling, so there are contexts, in which
“kichern“ is a good translation of chuckle, in my opinion. It really does depend very much on the context.

There are different words for „laugh“ in German, too, and Germans do chuckle (and giggle and burst with laughter, in much the same way as English/Irish people do, as far as I see it) ( I had asked had the Germans a 'different laugh language' then we - in so far as, did they not chuckle in 'real life) although I find that many of them – of the words, of course - might have a regional limitation to them. You have probably heard about the different dialects in German, it does sometimes make a very great difference whether you come from the North or the South, etc. So many words you can simply not use in the translation of a book, because you have to try to be neutral in that respect.

Of course, if you want to be strict, there is not one single English word with a single German translation for it, there always is only the best word in a special context.

I expect, there will be many different opinions on that subject. It’s always interesting to hear them, and much depends on personal taste, too, in the end – as it does with writing in general, doesn’t it? It really must be strange as an author to trust your work to some stranger to translate it to some language … hmmm


There you go! Hope that helps clear stuff up?

Dawnstorm
03-09-2010, 12:00 PM
Heh, language is interesting. I suppose if I read a German sentence with "glucksen" in it, I'd understand the meaning, but in my active vocabulary it describes the content sound babies make.

***

Returning to the topic at hand: I still don't think author input is necessary for translation. If that were so, we'd be out of luck with, say, dead authors or recluses. But having someone to answer your questions, or simply to talk to about the story and get a better "feel" for it would definitely help.

But there's something I'd like to address, beyond utility. After the author, the translator is probably the person who spends the most time thinking about the book. I do think a good translator beats a good editor in that respect. So in some way author and translator are story-neighbours. If nothing, there's the social aspect. A story that occupies so much of your time becomes personal to an extent. And it's something two people systematically share. In a way, it's meeting people who you know have something of interest to say to you. [Unless either party is just in it for the money; then the contact could easily become... awkward.]


But, really, I'm not sure why any translator would feel he can't ask a question? Publishers don't hide contact information, and neitehr do writers.

I quite agree with the gist of that. As things are now, I'd expect translators to make the first move, mostly because they immediately know who the author is (which is one obstacle less). It's just that a combination of personality and professionalism might interfere. Translators may feel that translation is their job, and that asking writers questions is putting off their responsibility. Also, a translator has to spend lots of time alone at a keyboard, so the job favours introverts; an introvert might fear that contacting the writer is an imposition. None of this need be conscious. But I do think more translators would contact writers if they knew the contact was welcome, not just tolerated.

It's interesting, though:

You can't imagine not communicating with your editor, but "no contact" is still a frequent expectation for translators. Is it because the writer often can't judge the translator's work as well as s/he can the editor's? You certainly need to trust your translator more than your editor. Is that an... uncomfortable situation for a writer?

I wonder...

***

Oh, and just because I remembered it right now, a little quote form the Acknowledgements of A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book:


My friend and translator Melanie Walz, who lives in Munich, showed me the city and took me to the puppet museum - and to everywhere else - and shared her wide knowledge of German and Bavarian art and life, over many years. The book could not have been written without her.

Author-translator relationships can have interesting side-effects, no?

***

Thanks for this thread. :)

aruna
03-09-2010, 01:12 PM
What sounds good in one language simply does not always sound good in another. There's seldom such a thing as a literal translation, and even when there is one, it may be beautiful in English, and read like it was written by an idiot to readers who read the literal translation in their own langauge. Even when a translator translates something back to you, you still don't know that it reads well in his native language.

.

And that is why, rather than a word for word checking of a translated novel, I would really love to know if my translators actually liked, preferably loved, the book. That for me is a prerequisite of a really good translation -- that the translator can actually feel what the author felt while writing in the original language, and knows the story as well as the author. That's why I was so happy both with my German and my Danish translator - because they told me this. In genereal you just have to take this on trust, and I do!

As for the "beauty of language" -- this is so true. My French editor agonised for ages over the title of my second book, Peacocks Dancing in English. He asi that the French word for Peacock, Paon, was just so ugly and he wanted to avoid it at all cost. He wanted a "beautiful" alternative. he didn't find one, though. In the end they translated the title literally: La Danse des Paons.


Gary,
Thanks for getting this opinion from your German translator - indeed, very intersting!

Gary Clarke
03-17-2010, 12:08 PM
Just to update this a little bit.

I thought you might like to read some of the things my Polish translator recently told me, about the challenges faced when translating English to Polish. Interestingly enough, it was only after reading the article that she felt comfortable contacting me - before that she would not have tried to get in touch. I don't know why! It seems to be a 'thing' between us writers and translators :0) She had some very specific project-related questions, but I thought these general comments on the English/Polish divide might interest you guys.

Translator:Polish has an entirely different structure, the sentences, even the very words,
tend to run longer, so don't be alarmed when you receive final Polish version which is 20% longer than the original. I imagine it's similar with the German version.

Me: Sounds like such a challenge for you! Books must be very very heavy in Poland and Russia ( and I assume Greece!note to AWers: at the translator's conference, the Greek translator admitted to me that they sometimes cut 'unimportant' sections due to this problem!)

Translator: Only the ones translated from analytical languages, languages with fixed word order, like English. Translators have to switch to a different way of thinking, literally, and that usually means slight verbosity to make sure every nuance was taken care of. But Polish can be very concise too. For example we can convey subtle layers of meaning just by shifting words in a sentence...

Me:in reply to a question re Moorehawke I explained that 'Kingsson' is an assumed name which has become a proper last name over time.

Translator: We don't really have last names built around that pattern, ending with -son (syn in Polish) to denote one's parentage, but on the other hand Kingsson seems pretty self-explanatory, even for readers with poor grasp of English. The thing is, if I translated one name - to, for example, Królewiec or Królewski - I would be setting a precedent, and someone might ask me why not translate Moorehawke or Heron, or Wynter for that matter. And nowadays it's not really done in translation, you tend to leave the names in their original form, because changing such things changes the tenor and feel of the whole book. So, if you don't mind, I would stick to Kingsson.

-0-

There were a few more - but they were all very specific to the project and so not interesting to you guys. But I thought you might like to share this knowledge.

aruna
04-25-2010, 12:33 PM
Thought I'd bump this thread with an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/25/book-translators-deserve-credit) by Tim Pears, on the art of translation.

Who wrote the Milan Kundera you love? Answer: Michael Henry Heim. And what about the Orhan Pamuk you think is so smart? Maureen Freely. Or the imaginatively erudite Roberto Calasso? Well, that was me.

The translator should do his job and then disappear. The great, charismatic, creative writer wants to be all over the globe. And the last thing he wants to accept is that the majority of his readers are not really reading him.

His readers feel the same. They want intimate contact with true greatness. They don't want to know that this prose was written on survival wages in a maisonette in Bremen, or a high-rise flat in the suburbs of Osaka. Which kid wants to hear that her JK Rowling is actually a chain-smoking pensioner? When I meet readers of my own novels, they are disappointed I translate as well, as if this were demeaning to an author they hoped was "important".

There is complicity between globalisation and individualism; we can all watch any film, read any book, wherever made or written, and have the same experience. What a turn-off to be reminded that in fact we need an expert to mediate; what the Chinese get is a mediated version of me; what I'm reading is a mediated Dostoevsky.

It's interesting to note that in Germany, translators get full credit; the book is said to be written by soandso and soandso. They are both listed as authors in amazon. By coincidence, Tim Pears and I have the same translator, Gloria Ernst; and she gets a page of her own (http://www.amazon.de/s?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=books-de&field-author=Gloria%20Ernst) with all her books, just like a "real" author.


Oh, and by the way, dawnstorm: the phrase I was trying to remember is this:
"...um sein Wasser abzuschlagen".

Terie
04-25-2010, 12:49 PM
It's interesting to note that in Germany, translators get full credit; the book is said to be written by soandso and soandso. They are both listed as authors in amazon.

I don't think that's universally true. The German edition of the book I co-ghostwrote doesn't have the translator's name on the cover or spine. Her name appears only on the title page. This could be a publisher-by-publisher kind of thing.

(What's passingly strange is that I just came in from hanging out my sheets where I was thinking about this very thread, only to find this new post in it! How weird is that?!)

aruna
04-25-2010, 01:02 PM
I don't think that's universally true. The German edition of the book I co-ghostwrote doesn't have the translator's name on the cover or spine. Her name appears only on the title page. This could be a publisher-by-publisher kind of thing.

Oh, Ok. I hadn't noticed that.

(What's passingly strange is that I just came in from hanging out my sheets where I was thinking about this very thread, only to find this new post in it! How weird is that?!)
I heard your thoughts! :)

Dawnstorm
04-25-2010, 01:29 PM
Oh, and by the way, dawnstorm: the phrase I was trying to remember is this:
"...um sein Wasser abzuschlagen".

Yikes! I feel for you. (I've never heard that phrase before, or maybe I just don't remember it. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.)

As for translators and German books, I can always find out who translated a book from the book itself, but I can't think of many where the translator is mentioned on the cover. The exception is if the translator is a famous author himself; then they may use that name on the cover, too.

aruna
04-25-2010, 01:39 PM
Oh, the name isn't on the cover, but it's prominently listed on amazon, next to the author's name, as if it were a joint effort.

Re: sein Wasser abzuschlagen: it sounds as if he kind of yanks his penis around to get the "water" out of it!

Dawnstorm
04-26-2010, 08:38 AM
Re: sein Wasser abzuschlagen: it sounds as if he kind of yanks his penis around to get the "water" out of it!

To me, this suggests an image suggests a more "choppy" movement, which - considering the body part in question - makes me wince. Once I'm over that, I come up with your interpretation, too. I do wonder whether that's a regional/temporal difference.

Gary Clarke
04-28-2010, 01:57 PM
To me, this suggests an image suggests a more "choppy" movement, which - considering the body part in question - makes me wince. Once I'm over that, I come up with your interpretation, too. I do wonder whether that's a regional/temporal difference.

I'm wincing at that too! But the phrase (well, I don't speak German - but yours and Aruna's descriptions of it) made me think of the Irish (?) slang phrase 'to take a slash' ( a lad doing a piss) is it something similar?

aruna
04-28-2010, 03:50 PM
Literally, it means "to beat out water"!

Gary Clarke
04-28-2010, 04:01 PM
OUCH!

Zanralotta
04-29-2010, 12:19 AM
Funny coincidence.
Just yesterday, I found this article by Umberto Eco discussing translations:

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_guardian94.html

Gary Clarke
04-29-2010, 01:10 AM
Oh my God, Zanralotta, thank you so much for that link. It was a great read!