A few days ago, I mentioned that Charles-Henry and I were transferred to another service at the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) in Washington DC when the powers that were decided to transfer the publication of the French-language edition of the magazine to its Paris office. Why did that happen? It was because the French-language edition kept falling farther and farther behind schedule compared to the English-language edition.
The initial idea was that the French edition would follow by one month the publication of the English edition. The first measure that management took was to hire me and the other assistant editor to help C-H after his original assistant editor resigned. If I ever met her, I don't remember it. I'm sure I never had a talk with her about how she worked with C-H and about why, from her view, the French edition had fallen as much as two or even three months behind.
The second measure that management took was to combine two different issues of the English edition into one, dropping about half the articles that had appeared in those two issues. I was called in to tell the chief of the editorial staff if that was a possibility. I said it sounded like a good idea to me. As I mentioned before, we published both policy articles and what I called "Americana" articles in the magazine, both in French and in English. I'm not sure the manager, a foreign service officer on a temporary domestic assignment, really had a good understanding of what it took to translate the articles into French and then edit the translations to correct misunderstandings on part of the translators and to fit the French text into the same layout as the English-language edition.
One of the reasons Charles-Henry hired me, he said at the time, was partly that I could help him prioritize the cuts that would need to be made in the articles during the editing process. I said I could do that, and that if I had any doubts about what was essential and what was not essential to understanding the text translated into French and remaining faithful to the English text, I would consult with the editors of the English-language edition and ask them if they agreed with my cuts. That worked to a certain extent. Translation is not a word-for-word exercise, as you probably know.
Some of the English-language editors asked me if the editor of the French edition needed more and better dictionaries? No, that was not the problem. It was a streak of perfectionism in Charles-Henry's personality. He really didn't care, I remember thinking, if his work was late, just that it was perfect in his eyes. One day, the publications manager called Charles-Henry in and asked him to explain why the French-language edition was not catching up despite the changes he had put in place. I think Charles-Henry's response was that it was very difficult to find competent translators in Washington DC.
The fact is that the translators were mostly moon-lighting or free-lancing and were paid by the word for their work. They worked fast — quick and dirty, you might say — and didn't feel they had a vested interest in doing otherwise. It was up to Charles-Henry and his two assistant editors to clean up and modify the translations to make them fit the magazine layout and the USIA style guide. An article that ran for three pages in English needed to run the same number of pages in French. It's a rule of thumb that the translation process results in longer texts than the original texts they are based on. Some things need more explanation for a different audience.
What finally happened? The publications manager decided that if it was too hard to find good French translators in Washington, the best solution was to transfer the job of producing the French edition of the magazine to Paris. He negotiated with his superiors in Washington and his colleagues in Paris to do just that. That took the problem off his plate and put it on somebody else's.
The initial idea was that the French edition would follow by one month the publication of the English edition. The first measure that management took was to hire me and the other assistant editor to help C-H after his original assistant editor resigned. If I ever met her, I don't remember it. I'm sure I never had a talk with her about how she worked with C-H and about why, from her view, the French edition had fallen as much as two or even three months behind.
The second measure that management took was to combine two different issues of the English edition into one, dropping about half the articles that had appeared in those two issues. I was called in to tell the chief of the editorial staff if that was a possibility. I said it sounded like a good idea to me. As I mentioned before, we published both policy articles and what I called "Americana" articles in the magazine, both in French and in English. I'm not sure the manager, a foreign service officer on a temporary domestic assignment, really had a good understanding of what it took to translate the articles into French and then edit the translations to correct misunderstandings on part of the translators and to fit the French text into the same layout as the English-language edition.
One of the reasons Charles-Henry hired me, he said at the time, was partly that I could help him prioritize the cuts that would need to be made in the articles during the editing process. I said I could do that, and that if I had any doubts about what was essential and what was not essential to understanding the text translated into French and remaining faithful to the English text, I would consult with the editors of the English-language edition and ask them if they agreed with my cuts. That worked to a certain extent. Translation is not a word-for-word exercise, as you probably know.
Some of the English-language editors asked me if the editor of the French edition needed more and better dictionaries? No, that was not the problem. It was a streak of perfectionism in Charles-Henry's personality. He really didn't care, I remember thinking, if his work was late, just that it was perfect in his eyes. One day, the publications manager called Charles-Henry in and asked him to explain why the French-language edition was not catching up despite the changes he had put in place. I think Charles-Henry's response was that it was very difficult to find competent translators in Washington DC.
The fact is that the translators were mostly moon-lighting or free-lancing and were paid by the word for their work. They worked fast — quick and dirty, you might say — and didn't feel they had a vested interest in doing otherwise. It was up to Charles-Henry and his two assistant editors to clean up and modify the translations to make them fit the magazine layout and the USIA style guide. An article that ran for three pages in English needed to run the same number of pages in French. It's a rule of thumb that the translation process results in longer texts than the original texts they are based on. Some things need more explanation for a different audience.
What finally happened? The publications manager decided that if it was too hard to find good French translators in Washington, the best solution was to transfer the job of producing the French edition of the magazine to Paris. He negotiated with his superiors in Washington and his colleagues in Paris to do just that. That took the problem off his plate and put it on somebody else's.
"Translation is not a word-for-word exercise, as you probably know.".... please get on the 'phone to Google and FaceAche and tell them that!
ReplyDeleteActually, don't, I've just realised all my morning laughs would vanish.... making the day much duller!
And it happens where machines have worked their wonders... in St Maure de Touraine the church has a "magnificent limp"!! as opposed to a magnificent belltower......
All of this sounds like a terrible job, but you did get the skills needed to set up a very nice blog for us to enjoy every day. I wonder if those magazines are still published for Africa.
ReplyDeleteAhhh, this is all very interesting!
ReplyDeleteFrance-Amérique magazine has the same situation with articles published in english with a french translation (or vice versa?). In the beginning when I would be comparing the language it was difficult because the translations are interpretations and I was trying to compare verbs and nouns! Now I appreciate the translator's articles rather than becoming frustrated. I can only imagine your frustrations in trying to work with a perfectionist.
ReplyDeleteKen had it exactly right in his description of Charles-Henry's work habits. Before each of us went to work at different government agencies, we both worked at a small, private translation outfit where deadlines were always "yesterday" and the pressure could be intense to get the work of the contractors in good shape. Charles-Henry had the reputation of being "fussy" and requested dates for him were more like "suggestions" than actual deadlines. No one could surpass, him, however, in his knowledge of French grammar and his ability to hold out for "le mot juste," although the management often found his search for perfection more than a bit frustrating! Just listening to him speak French made me love the language even more than I already did!
ReplyDelete