Lisa and the Hamster: Some Thoughts on Non-Literary Texts and Style

Over at the Intralingo blog, Lisa Carter is very diplomatically sparring with one reader who relentlessly insists that he cranks out 10,000 publication-ready words a day on a regular basis. (“I’ve often translated well in excess of 10,000 words a day, and working overtime (sic) I’ve translated up to 18,000 words (sic!) over a 15 hour period (sick, yo!), and I would rate my quality as high, if not higher, than my contemporaries (contemporaries?).”) Lisa is very tactfully brandishing argument after argument that this is not possible, but our man, undeterred, blithely charges back after every rebuff. Bless her heart, she is soooooo polite. I, on the other hand, (for good or ill) was not bequeathed the gift of suffering fools lightly. Ms. Carter is wasting her time, though. Let’s face it, there simply isn’t a polite way to, you know, tell someone to his face that he is a hack.

Appreciation for language is hard to teach if your student simply doesn’t have it. It is a sense. Just like you cannot explain to a blind person what makes one of Monet’s water lilies special, Lisa cannot raise her voice sufficiently and explain to our 18,000-word-per-day Wunderkind that his output is most assuredly a stomach-churning bucket of bat guano. Even tone-deaf people who talk about translation but have never translated a single word in their lives are smart enough to sidestep the “literary” argument quickly. So they just, Sheldon-Cooper-like, bracket literature in a special mental category (“stuff that other people care a lot about—for some unfathomable reason—but I don’t”) and blissfully go about their business because literature isn’t applicable to commercial translation. “Ah, but that is literature,” the McLocalization theorist ruminates with a knowing smile, “I have heard of it, hmmm, yes… Wikipedia tells me it is something from back in the Age of the Codex. But I am here to discuss repetitive technical texts…”

The literary/non-literary dichotomy is not that ancient. As is the case of a lot of stupid stuff (nationalism, Mesmerism, Gothic novels), it only dates back to the Romantics. It is slowly being placed into question by the genre-disrupting culture of the present. Think about Ali G and reality TV, and then try to retain the old comforting distinctions of fact and fiction snugly in your head. The idea that we bring a set of conventions (the phrase “suspension of disbelief” was coined by Wordsworth) to one set of texts and another—completely different—set of decoding tools to non-fiction simply does not resist serious critical scrutiny. Does that mean that Ben Bernanke’s press conferences should be rendered by the financial translator with the same appreciation for the mot juste that Lisa Carter lavishes on her novels? Well, yes and no. “Yes” in the sense that you should weigh every word carefully (because every central banker does and their words can cause a lot of devastation) and “no” in the sense that you shouldn’t waste too much time waiting for the right adverb to strike you like the Pacific struck Keats’s “stout Cortez.” Because, aside from being slightly foolish, it will get you fired in the end.

Of course, the idea that a “translator is a writer” sounds hyper-pretentious if you think capital “W” Writer: a Luther-throwing-the-inkpot-at-the-Devil Writer, or a Flaubert-spending-eighteen-years-working-on-Madame-Bovary Writer. But small caps “w” writer in the sense that you write. And you should try to do it as well as you can in the service of the original author, who may or may not be a capital “W” Writer, but nonetheless deserves a hearing (or at least is paying for it).

I was reminded of that recently while reading Bruce Catton’s trilogy on the Army of the Potomac ( translators should be keen readers). While Catton’s books are not really works of academic history, they do provide a lot of technical details on military affairs, from the movement of armies during campaigns to minutiae such as the types of weapons used and just what the heck hardtack actually was. But his works are also quite opaque as texts. The influence of William Faulkner is felt on every page, even though it is a very Northern book—an attempt to write Yankee history. The jumps forward and backward in time are also unimaginable without the precedent of literary Modernism. One small example. When Catton is describing the sequence of the Second Battle of Manassas/Bull Run, the 12^th Massachusetts regiment is left facing a colossal flanking movement from the Confederates. The author abruptly breaks off for one entire page, in the middle of the battle, to tell the story of the regiment. Its members were responsible for writing the marching song John Brown’s Body, dedicated to the abolitionist guerrilla whose raid on Harper’s Ferry partly triggered the Civil War ( “John Brown’s body lies a-moldering in the grave/ And we go matching on!”). This song was the source for Julia Ward Howe’s Battle Hymn of the Republic, which is still a staple of American military marching bands (and tactfully suppresses references to rotting corpses). That takes Catton a page and a half. After such as lengthy digression, Catton equally abruptly returns to the two tiny brigades facing a Rebel onslaught:

But the dandy 12^th was a long way from the ladies of Boston now, and Colonel Webster was killed, and the 12^th was finally forced back, along with the rest of Ricketts’s men and the Germans. (p.40)

You see what the author did there? Try rewriting that sentence according to the rules of “proper” grammar (leaving aside the fact that he started a paragraph with a negative conjunction, a huge no-no according to the provincial school marms who teach “proper” English):

However, the dandy 12^th was a long way from the ladies of Boston. Colonel Webster was (had been?) killed. The regiment (Note: the reiteration of the name probably wouldn't pass muster with most proofreaders) was finally forced back, along with the rest of Ricketts’s men and the Germans.

Blink and you miss it. Try to translate this sentence without trying to recreate the confusion and terror of the Massachusetts soldiers and you might as well translate 18,000 words a day.

But perhaps that is a rare case of non-fiction that is suffused with literary technique. After all, the Civil War as a historical subject has always been more the preserve of belles lettres because of Whitman, Sandburg and Faulkner. The lyrical undertone to a lot of writing on the conflict stretches all the way to the present, as anyone who has seen Ken Burns’s documentaries on the conflict will easily perceive.

So how about a less high-falutin’ example? This is an example of something I come across very often (the highlight is mine):

After Papandreou's election win, Mršnik wrote, in a confidential letter to Standard & Poor's customers, that in light of the repeated budgetary lapses of the various Greek governments, it remained to be seen whether the new administration had the will to implement a credible budget strategy. This sounded diplomatic, but it was pure sarcasm. Investors got the message, namely that the decline of Greek bonds from secure investments to casino chips was accelerating.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,790333-2,00.html

In a lot of financial research, what you put down on paper is purposefully bland, because some day you may have to answer to a wider audience (or an angry politician or, gulp, a judge) for anything that is more controversial than a spiceless platitude. That is why you have to be attuned to the sarcasm. Once again, blink and you miss it. Mršnik was trading a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” moment with his readers. His real opinion was reserved for the very privileged clients who get him on the telephone or the board room, as any good analyst’s opinion should be. That is why inexperienced translators often chuckle and say: “Wait, is he serious?” Duh! Of course not! The unspoken byword here is “ldl,” which is what investment bankers write for “let’s discuss live” (i.e., where no written or taped evidence is left).

Every single sentence contains dozens of tiny little decisions. If you translate 18,000 words a day, that means you make over 100,000 tiny decisions in a single day. But that is no problem because you are working on a non-literary, repetitive text, right? We can just hope that none of your tiny decisions is dangerous. Or the subject of future litigation.

Miguel Llorens is a freelance financial translator based in Madrid who works from Spanish into English. He is specialized in equity research, economics, accounting, and investment strategy. He has worked as a translator for Goldman Sachs, the US Government's Open Source Center, several small-and-medium-sized brokerages, asset management institutions based in Spain, and H.B.O. International. To contact him, visit his website and write to the address listed there. You can also join his LinkedIn network or follow him on Twitter.

Quality: Useless Luxury or Strategy for Success?

Sí, soy un romántico del fútbol tal y como lo es Cruyff. Nos gusta 

este fútbol de ataque, atractivo y bonito.

Xavi Hernández

Barcelona plays Manchester United for the Champion’s League Cup on Saturday at London's Wembley Stadium. The question on everyone’s mind is whether ManU manager Sir Alex Ferguson, a living legend, will go out and try to defeat the Catalans aggressively or, alternatively, defend conservatively against the tactically superior opponent and try to grind out a one-goal victory through a lightning counterattack.

If he decides on the latter option —and some great managers with players just as fantastic as his Rooneys and Chicharitos have done so, to my utter amazement (Gus Hiddink with Chelsea a couple of years ago, Arsenal’s Arsène Wenger a couple of months ago)— Ferguson will be taking a leaf out of the playbook of Barcelona’s arch-enemy, “Mouriarty.” I am referring to the dark lord of modern defensive football-soccer, Portuguese grand master Jose Mourinho, currently coaching Real Madrid. For people who don’t watch the sport, Mr. Mourinho has become one of the world’s most successful managers by creating a very conservative and defensive style of play reminiscent of old-style Italian catenaccio.

The reason children play football is because they see videos of Pelé, Maradona and Zidane doing amazing pirouettes with the ball on the field. The Mourinho philosophy consists in taking that sport, ripping out everything that those children love about it and throwing the bloody carcass out on the pitch.

He stands in contrast to everything that is represented by his Real Madrid’s arch-rivals: Barcelona. Whereas Mourinho prefers to build a defensive Maginot Line and strike on the counterattack when the opponent is disorganized, the culés practice a style based on possession through superior skill and unbelievably complex passing schemes to try to get as many goals as possible. Mr. Mourinho, in contrast, doesn’t play for a heap of goals. One-nil is good enough, thank you very much. Style and panache are all very fine and well, but it is worth nothing if in the end you don’t bring home the bacon. Argentines describe stylish football as possessed of fantasía, and that is exactly what the Mourinhos of the world believe: style is fantasy, a pure fancy. It doesn't exist.

The debate between adepts of the Mourinho philosophy and Barcelona’s style has many facets, but it boils down to an essential clash of world views: what is more important, winning or winning beautifully? Style or just showing up? Quality or pragmatism?

I believe it is a false dichotomy. Beauty for beauty’s sake is sterile. Barcelona’s “receive, pass, offer” is not the revival of the Baroque in football. Quality is a strategy for success. Don’t defend by dropping back and placing ten men behind the midfield line. Defend by possession. Retain the ball. Wear your opponents down by denying them possession. Make them run. Make them dizzy with your passes. Force the opponents to foul you. Defend by attacking. And then attack, pass, dribble, pass again and try to drive the ball into the net before they know what hit them.

Is stylishness a sure fire road to success? Yes and no. Barcelona’s record of titles over the past few years is impressive, but the defeats are just as stunning.

Negativism, cynicism, gradgrindism, all of these are also roads to achieving results. If you don’t believe your players are as good as Barcelona, you tell your defensive midfield men to come in strong and intimidate the diminutive Messis and Xavis. You don’t let your multi-million-dollar strikers roam freely but rather you have them man-mark the wingbacks.

In a word, you abandon style (whose very existence you doubt) and fall back on mind-numbing tactics, like the long ball to the opposite goal. The defining moment of this year’s Real Madrid-Barcelona matchups is Madrid’s Cristiano Ronaldo, one of the best strikers of all time, throwing his hands up in despair and urging his reluctant teammates to attack along with him. As he stated to the press later, the coach had told them to hang back, defend and only attack in the last fifteen minutes to snatch a 1-0 win.

So a superior style is no guarantee of success. It has only allowed Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola to have the slenderest of razor-thin edges in his one-on-one record against Mourinho.

F.C. Barcelona can certainly lose on Saturday. That would be disappointing on many levels.

But I can guarantee that it is far more entertaining to watch the blaugrana lose than to watch Mourinhismo get the upper hand any old day.

And if Barcelona wins with style, the victory is so much sweeter.


Miguel Llorens is a freelance financial translator based in Madrid who works from Spanish into English. He is specialized in equity research, economics, accounting, and investment strategy. He has worked as a translator for Goldman Sachs, the US Government's Open Source Center and H.B.O. International, as well as many small-and-medium-sized brokerages and asset management companies operating in Spain. To contact him, visit his website and write to the address listed there. Feel free to join his LinkedIn network or to follow him on Twitter.